The more things change, the more they stay the same...

The following is the original and the rewrite can be found by clicking here.

I suspect with some certainty any Marketing Manager reading this will not think much of what I am about to say... with great certainty I know their inherent creativity will make for some wonderful refutation*. 

With that said, I was reminded the other day of something I experienced twenty years ago that reinforced the old adage:

"The more things change, the more they stay the same" 

And for that matter, this one as well,

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

And ultimately I was reminded of the diet soda TaB. 

Let me take you back a couple of decades in an attempt to weave this all together:

I found myself at the head office for a series of meetings that must have had something to do with marketing because that is what I was doing at the time. Although I can't tell you anything about those meetings, a meeting I was casually invited to as an after thought, is crystal clear.

I had been invited to a kick-off product development meeting that brought about ten people together (not including "onlookers between meetings") whose mandate was to develop products for a new market segment the company wanted to enter. The team lead had just finished introductions and strategic objectives when someone raised their hand and proposed the team should have a name. 

As if a flashpoint, I watched the room explode into debate, ideas regarding the name, and what the name should represent... most of the debate invoved how the name needed to represent the mandate of the team; the poor team lead struggled to control the room a couple of times as debate and opinion became intense. Forty-five minutes later, with the excuse of my next meeting, I bolted for the door. As the door shut behind me, the discussions raged with no team name in the foreseeable future.

I recall explaining my experience to a colleague and remember saying, "Who cares what the team name is... call it BOB for all it matters; just get on with things!" After that, we went into our own meeting ... I couldn't tell you if it was productive or not.

Fast forward, twenty years... 

I recently found myself talking to someone who was starting a new service company in a niche segment of an established market. The conversation quickly turned to naming the new company and the desire to have the company name "speak to what the company does".  All the obvious names or domain names had been taken, so an odd mashable exercise started to take hold as the "founder" was trying to put words together that were unique and represented what the company does (as well as make it sound viable) - The discussion went on, and on, and on.

                                 "The more things change, the more they stay the same" 

Ultimately I was asked what I thought and this is how I answered... 

  • I didn't think it was that important to have a company name that reflected what the company did. It is much more important to have a company name that is easy to say and easy to remember.
  • I mentioned not to overthink the name but overthink how you are going to make the name mean something.
  • I went on to suggest the work spent on developing the company's unique value proposition and communication to the market was really important... this would give meaning to the company name and what it did. 

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

Ultimately I offered up the example of TaB**... probably the most "un-diet soda" name ever. Coca Cola took this simple, easy to say name and developed it to mean a "refreshing diet soda" to such a degree that TaB is still selling 50 years after it was first launched. 

In the end, the founder chose a three-word name for the company, registered it and is happy... not any closer to getting the name to mean anything but happy none the less. I don't even want to get into the discussion we had regarding the logo... let me just say we took the position "to agreed to disagree".

Let the refutations begin.

iamgpe

* Refutation is a new word for me so I just had to use it. It is defined as the action of proving a statement or theory to be wrong or false. 

** TaB's name it turns out was in part developed, by the IBM 1401 computer and  stylized from the "winning" name Taab. 

Vujá dé (voozha-day)... the beginning of a "wee bit of an obsession".

I was informed of the term Vujá dé the other day and in short order it has gained momentum to be "a wee bit of an obsession".

Derived from Déjà vu, the phenomenon where an event happens and you feel that it has happened before, Vujá dé is the direct opposite... it's when something (or somewhere) that should be familiar, is suddenly very different.

or

A propensity for discovering something new in something you've already seen a million times before.

or

Noticing something for the first time that has been there all along; the realization that you've been unaware of something you should have noticed a long time ago.

Why the obsession? Being able to see things differently, particularly in something that is familiar, leads to new ideas, uncovers opportunities and leads to better ways of doing things. Accomplishment is found in something new and different.

So with this obsession taking hold, there is a couple of things I will need to do right away:

  1. Research and understand Vujá dé* further. This will include reading the book Weird Ideas that Work by Bob Sutton (who was one of the first people to write on the subject).
  2. Develop the discipline, perspectives and tools to notice something that hasn't been noticed before.

I will let you know how it goes.

iamgpe

* It seems that George Carlin, the master of seeing things that others have not, was the first one to introduce the concept of Vujá dé.


 

Ever hear of Leadership Leprosy? I hadn't...

The following is the original and the rewrite can be found by clicking here.

I was told a story the other day that introduced me to the concept of "Leadership Leprosy"... it went something like this.

A friend of mine was recently at a networking event and happened to meet someone who brought up the concept of "Leadership Leprosy", went on to explain he had forwarded the concept onto his boss in an email (as part of a managing-up exercise I suppose), and was fired for it.

To this I asked, "What's Leadership Leprosy?" He went on to tell me and I then did some more research which I will say did not include reading the book entitled Leadership Pain: The Classroom for Growth by Samuel R. Chand who introduced the term.

The book (I didn't read) also introduces this premise: 

Growth = Change

Change = Loss

 Loss = Pain

Thus, Growth = Pain 

From there it was pointed out "Leadership that doesn’t produce pain" is either in a short season of unusual blessing or it isn’t really making a difference. 

The author also introduced his experience with lepers in India and how the disease impacts a person's ability to feel pain which severely damages parts of their body (noses, ears, fingers, and toes) because those inflicted don’t sense the warning signs of pain to stay away from dangers - It is with this, the author connects "Leadership and Leprosy"... so now you have it.

Leadership Leprosy is a term applied to a leader who avoids (or can't appreciate) "pain", reflecting their lack of ability to drive growth, change and make a difference. - At least this is how I interpret it. 

Is there a point to all of this other than information transfer? Not really; I just want to pass on a story and something new I've learned.

iamgpe

Wait... I guess I do have something more to say, again with the caveat that I haven't read the book so maybe what I am about to say is covered off... I do agree that Change = Loss but Change can also = Gain, and although Gain doesn't generally = Pain, getting to the Gain most likely does. So in the end, I have a new leadership concept for my "tool bag" and as off putting as the term is, I suspect it does have utility.

And one more thing, if I take the story at face value and the person was fired for forwarding the concept of "Leadership Leprosy" onto his boss, he should either be glad that he is no longer part of that organization or he should be a little more reflective as to why he was really fired. 

Just saying.

OK, now iamgpe

PS: I've just added Leadership Pain: The Classroom for growth to my reading list.