No. 11 November 2007

I’d like to share a favorite story with you called Quantum Leap. It has some great lessons about the value of working harder versus working smarter and “outside the box.”

The author, Bhagwati Prasad, says that working harder only delivers incremental gains, not quantum leaps. But when you do something a totally different way, you have the opportunity to make a “quantum leap” and create entirely new possibilities. Here is Bhagwati Prasad’s story:

“I’m sitting in a quiet room at the Millcroft Inn, a peaceful little place hidden back among the pine trees about an hour out of Toronto. It’s just past noon, late July, and I’m listening to the desperate sounds of a life or death struggle going on a few feet away.

There’s a small fly burning out the last of its short life’s energies in a futile attempt to fly through the glass of the windowpane. The whining wings tell the poignant story of the fly’s strategy – try harder.

But it’s not working.

The frenzied effort offers no hope for survival. Ironically, the struggle is part of the trap. It is impossible for the fly to try hard enough to succeed at breaking through the glass. Nevertheless, this little insect has staked its life on reaching its goal through raw effort and determination.

This fly is doomed. It will die there on the windowsill. Across the room ten steps away, the door is open. Ten seconds of flying time and this small creature could reach the outside world it seeks. With only a fraction of the effort now being wasted, it could be free of this self-imposed trap. The breakthrough possibility is there. It would be so easy.

Why doesn’t this fly try another approach, something dramatically different? How did it get so locked in on the idea that this particular route and a determined effort offer the most promise for success? What logic is there in continuing, until death, to see a breakthrough with ‘more of the same?’

No doubt this approach makes sense to the fly. Regrettably it’s an idea that will kill.

‘Trying harder’ isn’t necessarily the solution to achieving more. It may not offer any real promise for getting what you want out of life. Sometimes, in fact, it’s a big part of the problem.

Self-discipline and persistence are true virtues. Over a lifetime they can make a powerful contribution to success and achievement. They are fundamental to the development of your talents. It’s extremely important to apply yourself diligently, and sometimes, staying power is what delivers a big win.

But ordinarily, you will find that trying harder produces only incremental gains, not quantum leaps. Also, keep in mind that sometimes trying harder (even a lot harder) offers little more than a straight path to burnout. Attempting to succeed through ‘more of the same,’ being resolute and relying on committed effort, can blind you to better pathways.

If you want to make a quantum leap, quit thinking about trying harder. More effort isn’t the answer. Get ruthless about trying something different. Abandon the status quo. Change your behavior. Look for a paradoxical move. If you’re trying to climb over the wall, open a door and walk through. If your pushing against the river, try going with the flow. Use finesse instead of effort. The tendency when you stall out or begin to level off in your performance is to go back to the basics and ‘do what you do best.’ But doing what you do best could be the worst thing you could do.

Quantum leaps come when you seek the elegant solution. So look for an approach characterized by simplicity, precision, and efficiency. Call for a fresh perspective, a deft move, and a path of less resistance.”

No. 10 October 2007

Here’s a great story I read on the Cernak Report Blog about a canoe race between two companies. It’s called A Modern Parable. At the end of the story, you will smile and shake your head knowingly as you realize there may be more truth to this story than not.

“A Japanese company (Toyota) and an American company (General Motors) decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River. Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race. On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile.

“The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the rea­son for the crushing defeat. A management team composed of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action. Their conclusion: The Japanese had eight people rowing and one person steering, while the American team had eight people steering and one person rowing.

“Feeling a deeper study was in order, American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion. They advised, of course, that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough peo­ple were rowing.

“Not sure of how to utilize that informa­tion, but wanting to prevent another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team’s manage­ment structure was totally reorganized to four steering supervisors, three area steering superintendents and one assistant superin­tendent steering manager.

“They also implemented a new perfor­mance system that would give the one person rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the ‘Rowing Team Quality First Program,’ with meetings, din­ners and free pens for the rower. The new change initiative also included plans for get­ting new paddles, canoes and other equipment, plus extra vacation days for practices and bonuses.

“The next year, the Japanese won by two miles.

“Humiliated, the American management laid off the rower for poor performance, halted development of a new canoe, sold the paddles, and canceled all capital invest­ments for new equipment. The money saved was distributed to the senior execu­tives as bonuses, and the next year’s racing team was outsourced to India.

“Sadly, The End.”

When it comes to business strategies, I’m a big believer in the power of doorway con­versations and the value of holding meetings off-site.

When business team members and their offices are isolated from each other and far apart, you lose the immediateness and spon­taneity of face-to-face conversations. Sharing ideas and finding solutions to business issues often occurs more effectively in an office doorway or group huddle in a hallway.

On the other hand, in formal meetings, many people will not open up and share their ideas and true feelings. But past experi­ence proves that moving a meeting to a location outside of your business environ­ment will help remove obstacles to being fully open and honest with each other. It’s amazing how much more effective the meeting will be.

In an article in the June 11 issue of Newsweek magazine, Stephen Levy wrote about the power of conversation: “In e-mail, people talk at you; in conversation, I can talk with subjects, and a casual remark can lead to a level of discussion that neither party anticipated from the beginning. I am more likely to learn from someone in a conversa­tion than in an e-mail exchange, which simply does not allow for serendipity, inten­sity, verbal clues, and give and take of real-time interaction.” Now that makes a lot of sense.

In my company, we continually warn our business team members not to rely on e-mails for carrying on a formal business conversation — internally or externally — because it is so easy to misinterpret the tone and intent of written words. Use e-mails to exchange facts; otherwise, get up from your desk, walk down the hall or across the build­ing, or call that person on the phone.You will find your conversations are shorter, more effective, and to the point. And you’ll reduce any possible misunderstanding about the points you’re trying to make.

Use the “Rule of Three.” After the third e-mail about the same subject with the same person, it’s time to pick up the phone and finish your conversation. In fact, why didn’t you just call that person to begin with?

Now re-read Stephen Levy’s com­ments in the first paragraph of this final brief and think about the power of face­to-face conversations.