One of my favorite classes at Kellogg was an entrepreneurship elective entitled "Introduction of New Products and Services." The course was concerned with the process of developing new ideas into marketable offerings. "New Products" was taught by Kellogg's resident innovation expert, Andrew Razeghi, whom I found to be an engaging speaker and a great provoker of thought.
I enrolled in the course because I thought it might provide a platform to merge my creativity with a practical for generating economic gain. Ideas are great, but doing something productive with them is even better... I am an MBA, after all. After ten weeks in the course, I became aware that ideas, seemingly derived from a mystical source of inspiration, can really be manufactured from a structured process. Razeghi had exposed me to something I had prayed for when producing "Play the Game" (soon available via Netflix, by the way), a set of tools to rationalize what is usually accepted as creative, and thus inherently irrational. I left the course excited to know more, but not entirely comfortable that I grasped all the components. This was my fault. I was more focused on the final project than the underlying process. Live and learn.
In the final weeks of Razeghi's class, he offered us copies of his recently published book, "The Riddle: Where Ideas Come From and How To Have Better Ones." Two years after receiving the text, I've finally had the time to read it. I only wish I'd had it before the class. The book is a quick read - just over 200 pages - and is flush with great insights and interesting anecdotes. Razeghi's problem-focused methods (distinct from being solution-focused) have my head buzzing with ideas about how to attack "bugs" that matter to me. I won't spend time detailing the tools because I want people to read the book; suffice it to say, they are instantly applicable.
If you're interested in expanding your problem-solving skills, and especially if you don't think you're creative, read this book.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
The Best Get Better... With Red Bull?!?!
One of the best things to come from my two years with All-American Heavyweights is my relationship with Dr. Michael Gervais. Like me, he is fascinated by human potential and helping people achieve peak performance in all phases of life. Gervais' work is in helping already amazing athletes and professionals push the boundaries of what's possible in their lives through the application of performance psychology. He recently shared the following video, which documents a high performance camp for some of the best surfers in the world. Recently staged in Australia, the camp was organized and sponsored by Red Bull, the surfers' corporate patron. It allowed the athletes, already the most physically gifted in their sport, to reach new levels of performance through enhanced psychological training.
The concept is compelling for a couple of reasons. First, and continuing one of the themes raised in my "Wishing for More Athletes at Work" post, this is a collection of people who normally compete against one another, and yet they work together to achieve greatness. It's interesting that these greats realize they can become ever better if they work right next to those they'll later battle. It's often said that to be the best, you have to beat the best... well, why not compete with them everyday, not just on game day?
Second, this is one of the most talented collections of surfers ever assembled outside of competition. They're already the best at what they do, and yet they are willing to subject themselves to unorthodox and certainly uncomfortable situations in order to be even better. When we watch athletes compete, the physical skill (and the physical training and practice that go into earning that skill) is apparent. What's not always apparent is the cognitive advantage on competitor has over another. These surfers understand that the performance puzzle is not complete until they have mastered both the body AND mind. It's cool to see the best trying to be even better.
If you're interested in reading more about what Mike Gervais has to say, subscribe to his blog at The Huffington Post. Watch the video!
The concept is compelling for a couple of reasons. First, and continuing one of the themes raised in my "Wishing for More Athletes at Work" post, this is a collection of people who normally compete against one another, and yet they work together to achieve greatness. It's interesting that these greats realize they can become ever better if they work right next to those they'll later battle. It's often said that to be the best, you have to beat the best... well, why not compete with them everyday, not just on game day?
Second, this is one of the most talented collections of surfers ever assembled outside of competition. They're already the best at what they do, and yet they are willing to subject themselves to unorthodox and certainly uncomfortable situations in order to be even better. When we watch athletes compete, the physical skill (and the physical training and practice that go into earning that skill) is apparent. What's not always apparent is the cognitive advantage on competitor has over another. These surfers understand that the performance puzzle is not complete until they have mastered both the body AND mind. It's cool to see the best trying to be even better.
If you're interested in reading more about what Mike Gervais has to say, subscribe to his blog at The Huffington Post. Watch the video!
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Wishing for More Athletes at Work
The year after I graduated from Northwestern, a handful of teammates organized trips to follow our beloved Cats to away games. The trips had two apparent purposes. First, to allow us to support the current Cats, many of whom we had recruited, helped to develop and played with. Second, these trips to Iowa City, Madison and Lansing allowed us to experience more of cities than we did as players. When you are the visitor for a Big Ten football game, you don't see much more than the airport, a bus, your hotel and the stadium itself.
A third purpose behind the trips didn't occur to me until I shared a beer with Mike McGrew one night in Iowa City. It was late at night, and I was marveling at the Hawkeye bacchanalia underway in the wake of our Wildcat's loss to Iowa earlier that day. Needless to say, we didn't have bars like this or celebrations with this abandon back in Evanston. "Grew" seemed to be depressed about something, and I assumed he was watching the ragging Hawkeyes and seeing what could have been if he'd chosen to play college ball at one of the other Big Ten schools that had recruited him. I shouldn't have been surprised me when Grew, a team captain and one of the few consummate leaders I've known, turned to me and said, "I wish I could find a job where I had the same kind of people around me that we had on our team. The people I work with don't get it. I wonder if we'll ever find that again?" That moment revealed the third purpose of the trips: to revisit, if only for a few fleeting hours over the weekend, the greatness that we had achieved together as teammates a few years prior. The trips were to remind us of the trust and faith we had in each other, which allowed us to defy expectations again and again.
That question, "I wonder if we'll ever find that again?" has been a general theme in my professional life too. One interesting read, and two recent documentaries reminded me of that question. In the context of that brief chat with Grew, it would seem we were only speaking about the right collection of people. It's true; the esprit de corps we experienced was in large part due to who was in that locker room. However, our unexpected success - well, we expected it... but that's for another blog entry - was a function of multiple variables: first, the right people, second, an understanding of and willingness to play a prescribed role and third, a competitive threat against which to measure ourselves. Our success wasn't just about having the right people, but also the right purpose with which to apply our talents.
I recently finished "The Tao of Wu", by RZA, the founder and producer of the famed hip-hop group The Wu-Tang Clan. As it's Amazon.com description suggests, the book is a "hodgepodge of memoir, spiritual advice and poetry, a sincere attempt to impart his accumulated life wisdom through the lens of hip-hop and idiosyncratic personal religion." Between discussions of Islam, Kung Fu and Mathematics the story of The Wu-Tang Clan's rise to fame unravels. It might as well have been written by Pat Riley or Mike Krzyzewski. Eight guys from the same neighborhood with one unified purpose... despite long odds and too many "haters" to count, they persevered, bending the world to suit their collective vision. It's a great reminder that when talented and motivated people organize to attack a common goal, there are few things that can resist their will.
"More Than A Game" is a great documentary about LeBron James' high school basketball team winning the national championship in 2003. The real story starts years earlier, when a few dads from the same Akron neighborhood organize a collection of kids into an AAU team. At a young age 5 kids embark on a quest to be the best team in the country. Sure, it helps that one of them may one day be named the greatest basketball player of all time. The interesting part of the story is how each member of the team learns his role, how the team thrives through various bouts of adversity, and who on the team provides heroics on road to the championship game.
"Magic and Bird: A Courtship of Rivals" is an HBO Sports documentary about the historic rivalry between Magic Johnson and Larry Bird. There are lot of sub-plots about racial tensions and Magic's HIV announcement, but the really interesting stuff is about how the two define the importance of the other. Both competitors had different ways to relate to their competition; Magic was open to camaraderie and Bird was not. However, the two shared one opinion: the presence of the other is what made them both achieve greater performances. The prospect of losing to a great rival compelled them both to push for greater results.
This recent book and two movies remind me of what I once had as an athlete, and what I seek to find in my career. There have been two instances when I've been able to create a culture like what we had at Northwestern, and it's no coincidence that they provided some of the fondest memories I have of "work." I think in the future, I'll use these and a few other great flicks to help illustrate what I expect of my colleagues, and what they can expect from me.
I recently finished "The Tao of Wu", by RZA, the founder and producer of the famed hip-hop group The Wu-Tang Clan. As it's Amazon.com description suggests, the book is a "hodgepodge of memoir, spiritual advice and poetry, a sincere attempt to impart his accumulated life wisdom through the lens of hip-hop and idiosyncratic personal religion." Between discussions of Islam, Kung Fu and Mathematics the story of The Wu-Tang Clan's rise to fame unravels. It might as well have been written by Pat Riley or Mike Krzyzewski. Eight guys from the same neighborhood with one unified purpose... despite long odds and too many "haters" to count, they persevered, bending the world to suit their collective vision. It's a great reminder that when talented and motivated people organize to attack a common goal, there are few things that can resist their will.
"More Than A Game" is a great documentary about LeBron James' high school basketball team winning the national championship in 2003. The real story starts years earlier, when a few dads from the same Akron neighborhood organize a collection of kids into an AAU team. At a young age 5 kids embark on a quest to be the best team in the country. Sure, it helps that one of them may one day be named the greatest basketball player of all time. The interesting part of the story is how each member of the team learns his role, how the team thrives through various bouts of adversity, and who on the team provides heroics on road to the championship game.
"Magic and Bird: A Courtship of Rivals" is an HBO Sports documentary about the historic rivalry between Magic Johnson and Larry Bird. There are lot of sub-plots about racial tensions and Magic's HIV announcement, but the really interesting stuff is about how the two define the importance of the other. Both competitors had different ways to relate to their competition; Magic was open to camaraderie and Bird was not. However, the two shared one opinion: the presence of the other is what made them both achieve greater performances. The prospect of losing to a great rival compelled them both to push for greater results.
This recent book and two movies remind me of what I once had as an athlete, and what I seek to find in my career. There have been two instances when I've been able to create a culture like what we had at Northwestern, and it's no coincidence that they provided some of the fondest memories I have of "work." I think in the future, I'll use these and a few other great flicks to help illustrate what I expect of my colleagues, and what they can expect from me.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Where Do Entrepreneurs Come From - Leadership Lessons from The Dancing Guy
I've been reading a lot lately about where entrepreneurs come from. It seems to be a popular subject among venture capitalists and entrepreneurship professors these days. Are they made, or are they born? My interest in the topic was inspired by a blog posting by Fred Wilson, a principal of Union Square Ventures, entitled, "Nature vs. Nurture and Entrepreneurship." Wilson, like many other VC's I've read, falls on the side of genetic predisposition. To his credit, he does site contrasting opinion from Wharton Professor Raffi Amit, who contends, "there are no unique and defining characteristics of entrepreneurs." Amit further believes "that you can, in fact, teach people to be entrepreneurs."
As in many other contexts, this nature versus nurture argument over entrepreneurship seems like an amazing over simplification of the subject. Wilson and other VCs like to define entrepreneurs only as those tech visionaries who started selling lemonade at the end of their driveway and eventually blossomed to launch one product or service after another to legions of adoring disciples (I mean customers). Professor Amit's position is an interesting one, but also seems too pedagogical a stance. After all, if he didn't believe one could learn entrepreneurship, what's the point of being a tenured professor of the subject?
The reality of entrepreneurship is in the grey area between the two. People become entrepreneurs when the serendipitous spark of an idea meets with the opportunity to capitalize on that idea. Yes, many of them are MBAs who have been taught how to assess and build upon the spark, and many of them have been working for themselves ever since their neighborhood paper route. I would wager, however, that most simply saw an opportunity to make some profit and went for it, learning what to do, and what not to do, by making mistakes along the way. I speak from personal experience, that ticking all the boxes on the entrepreneurs personality tests, and having an MBA with emphasis on entrepreneurship will not guarantee the world will understand your vision, nor that you will avoid stepping on a few land-mines along the way.
The video presentation by Derek Shivers, "Leadership Lessons from Dancing Guy" raised a new angle to the debate. (It's pretty funny, and only takes 90 seconds to watch). Does it even matter who the "entrepreneur" is? Is the important position the one occupied by the person trying to start, or by the first person to jump on board afterward, making it safe to join the charge? Who was more important, Larry Page, Sergey Brin or one of the handful of innovative thinkers who joined them at the beginning? Read "Googled," by Ken Auletta, and see what you think. It certainly demystified the roll of the founder for me. Maybe the VCs and Entrepreneurship Professors should spend some less time arguing about who gets credit for the start, and more time thinking about who builds the movement that turns into the business.
As in many other contexts, this nature versus nurture argument over entrepreneurship seems like an amazing over simplification of the subject. Wilson and other VCs like to define entrepreneurs only as those tech visionaries who started selling lemonade at the end of their driveway and eventually blossomed to launch one product or service after another to legions of adoring disciples (I mean customers). Professor Amit's position is an interesting one, but also seems too pedagogical a stance. After all, if he didn't believe one could learn entrepreneurship, what's the point of being a tenured professor of the subject?
The reality of entrepreneurship is in the grey area between the two. People become entrepreneurs when the serendipitous spark of an idea meets with the opportunity to capitalize on that idea. Yes, many of them are MBAs who have been taught how to assess and build upon the spark, and many of them have been working for themselves ever since their neighborhood paper route. I would wager, however, that most simply saw an opportunity to make some profit and went for it, learning what to do, and what not to do, by making mistakes along the way. I speak from personal experience, that ticking all the boxes on the entrepreneurs personality tests, and having an MBA with emphasis on entrepreneurship will not guarantee the world will understand your vision, nor that you will avoid stepping on a few land-mines along the way.
The video presentation by Derek Shivers, "Leadership Lessons from Dancing Guy" raised a new angle to the debate. (It's pretty funny, and only takes 90 seconds to watch). Does it even matter who the "entrepreneur" is? Is the important position the one occupied by the person trying to start, or by the first person to jump on board afterward, making it safe to join the charge? Who was more important, Larry Page, Sergey Brin or one of the handful of innovative thinkers who joined them at the beginning? Read "Googled," by Ken Auletta, and see what you think. It certainly demystified the roll of the founder for me. Maybe the VCs and Entrepreneurship Professors should spend some less time arguing about who gets credit for the start, and more time thinking about who builds the movement that turns into the business.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Marine Layer - My New Favorite T-Shirts!
www.marinelayer.com
Start-up men's shirt company based in San Francisco. Love their stuff for a couple reasons:
- Great product. The most comfortable t-shirt I've found in a long time. Felt like I'd had it for 10 years right out of the box.
- Safe purchasing process. Free shipping, free returns. They have great customer service.
- Innovative sizing. The site features interim sizes like "smedium, mlarge and larger" in addition to the standard S, M, L and XL typicall offered. There's even a sizing tool to help you chose which size is best for you.
- Made in the US by sustainable methods. Even part of the cotton blend is made from recycled wood.
Two points of advice:
- If want to test drive the fabric, click on the "Cop a Feel" link. They'll send you a free sunglass lense cloth made out of the same material as the shirts.
- If you are on the muscular side, you might want to round down on the advice of the "Fit Finder." It assigns sizes based on weight, so if you're heavier because of muscle, you might be a bit smaller than the "Fit Finder" expects.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Want the Job? Act Like You're Already on the Payroll | Personal Success | BNET
Want the Job? Act Like You're Already on the Payroll | Personal Success | BNET
This thought-provoking piece by Mark Jaffe on BNet.com raises some interesting points for those considering a professional move.
This thought-provoking piece by Mark Jaffe on BNet.com raises some interesting points for those considering a professional move.
Mark Jaffe's point about approaching an interview situation as though you've already been paid a sizable, non-refundable consulting retainer echoes a strategy that I've long espoused. In job hunts, as in life among the carnivores of the Serengeti, the hungry never get fed. If you seem desperate, or show weakness, you’ll find yourself alone and starving... or eaten.
My personal approach – perhaps to the detriment of friends and classmates - did not extend much beyond this. “Enter that room knowing you’re the right person for the job. If they don’t recognize that, it’s their mistake!” My motivation for this approach was much less nuanced than Jaffe’s. I was hoping to create an aura of confidence, and to potentially shift some of the power in the situation back into the hands of the seemingly powerless candidate.
Jaffe’s approach is a much better one, and entirely more useful for professionals interested in making strategic career decisions. For example, in winning my last position, I impressed the CEO, he impressed me and we appeared to be a match made in Heaven. However, I made the mistake of assuming certain conditions and strategies were given. By virtue of this error, I spent a good part of the next two years fighting, unsuccessfully, to create those conditions and implement those strategies. In retrospect, I could have better spent that time building a different business.
Jaffe’s piece allowed me to isolate the folly in my approach to the position. I failed to ask the really hard questions. Presumably, companies seek to hire people because there is a problem that must be solved, or some need that isn’t being met. Accordingly, what is the harm in fully understanding the true scope of the void you are expected to fill? To the employer, there is at least the benefit of a thought-provoking discussion about the future of the business, if not an introduction to an insightful and aware employee. For the candidate, there is better understanding of the role, the expectations on whoever fills it, and how this position may or may not fit within a greater career strategy… not to mention the impression of confidence, fearlessness and insight.
I concede that not all interviewers will appreciate this questioning; however, if an interviewer should take umbrage to direct questions about the company, this is an invaluable signal to a candidate. While you might not land the position, one would have to question the desire to work for an organization that doesn’t welcome thorough investigation.
The final point raised by Jaffe’s piece is one of necessity versus strategy. One’s ability to execute any of this is contingent on one having the power to follow one’s conclusions. I would love to say that hard questioning would have led me to conclude that my previous spot was wrong for me. However, at the time I had just graduated from business school, and didn’t have any other compelling offers to consider. While I can’t say with 100% certainty that I wouldn’t have accepted the position, at least I would have better known what I was getting into, and perhaps how better to navigate the situation once there. Jaffe’s strategy seems perfect for those who have the power to wait, but it still holds some benefits even to those who really need to land something immediately.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Fractions of a Second: An Olympic Musical - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com
My old high school football coach, Don Verduin, used to say, "You make your own luck by blocking and tackling!" And Thomas Edison once said, "Success is 10% inspiration, and 90% perspiration." Imagine the margin of your success or failure - after a lifetime of training and preparation - is only 1/100th of one second.
I found this piece at NYTimes.com, an audio representation of the margins of victory in the Alpine Skiing, Sliding (Skeleton, Bobsled and Luge) and Speedskating events in Vancouver, fascinating. Television broadcasts desensitized me to the infinitesimally slight differences in finishing times between competitors.
The cadence of the beeps had me thinking that luck and fate must play a large part in defining who stands atop the podium to received the gold and all associated rewards. Then again, as Coach Verduin and Edison might remind me, isn't it funny how often "luck" and "fate" seem to bestow triumph on those who invest the most perspiration into insuring that they finish all the blocks and make all the tackles when it matters most.
Genetic predisposition can allow certain levels of success in life and sport, but at the Olympics, everyone is at tail of the talent distribution. I love to watch athletes who remind us that even at the most vaunted levels of competition, inspiration, effort and execution will make the difference between winning and losing, especially when that difference is impossibly small.
I hope you enjoy the piece as much as I did.
I found this piece at NYTimes.com, an audio representation of the margins of victory in the Alpine Skiing, Sliding (Skeleton, Bobsled and Luge) and Speedskating events in Vancouver, fascinating. Television broadcasts desensitized me to the infinitesimally slight differences in finishing times between competitors.
The cadence of the beeps had me thinking that luck and fate must play a large part in defining who stands atop the podium to received the gold and all associated rewards. Then again, as Coach Verduin and Edison might remind me, isn't it funny how often "luck" and "fate" seem to bestow triumph on those who invest the most perspiration into insuring that they finish all the blocks and make all the tackles when it matters most.
Genetic predisposition can allow certain levels of success in life and sport, but at the Olympics, everyone is at tail of the talent distribution. I love to watch athletes who remind us that even at the most vaunted levels of competition, inspiration, effort and execution will make the difference between winning and losing, especially when that difference is impossibly small.
I hope you enjoy the piece as much as I did.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)