Work on climate problems is actually about efficiency.
It’s easier and cheaper to avoid sloppiness and side effects than it is to clean the mess up later. And energy sources that don’t burn become cheaper over time. The investment in getting started pays off in cost, health and organizational efficiency.
Organizing for empathy can be about market share and effectiveness.
When we acknowledge that the people we’re teaching, leading or selling to see the world differently than we do, we can improve the user experience and deliver better results. Successful leaders serve the people they lead.
Finding resilience and diversity can be about productivity.
There are no all-tuba orchestras, because the mixture of skills and tones in an orchestra is what creates the music. Instead of wasting talent and resources, we can engage with communities and viewpoints ready to produce value. Fairness and opportunity reduce friction, build trust and enhance innovation.
It’s tempting to focus on how much we need to improve, but it’s helpful to show others how the improvements will help them.
Better is possible, and it helps to agree about what better looks like.
[Two pictures, one from NASA 60 years ago, and one from Google Earth just now… names help us see, and seeing helps us create.]
When there’s an overwhelming amount of incoming, it’s possible to bear down and simply get through it.
200 emails because of a product launch.
A project goes viral and there are a lot of fires to put out.
A deadline is imminent and it’s going to be a long night…
But when the incoming becomes chronic, it’s simply not possible. The problem isn’t a lack of effort. The problem is the system.
Forty years ago, anyone working in an office had to work their way through the pink while-you-were-out slips and the inbox. That’s it.
Now, there’s exponentially more, particularly if you are engaging with anyone outside of your organization.
The only solution is to change the system.
Simply shut down some channels of communication. Hand off entire swaths of engagement to someone else. Not next week, but now. Not for awhile, but forever.
Attention doesn’t scale, no matter how hard we try.
On the other hand, eating half a pear is much better than not having one. You might get 85% of the value from only part of the pear.
Some projects only benefit us when they’re finished all the way. Knowing this in advance is a useful strategy. For example, an ad campaign with a budget half of what it should have been, or an almost complete social media promotion does nothing much at all except help the media companies.
It’s possible to be productive and create value with halfway projects. The trap is treating an all-the-way project (like a canoe) as if halfway is enough.
Every system, every bureaucracy and every organization creates boundaries.
Sooner or later, we say, “I’d love to fix this, but I’m not in charge of that.”
Perhaps, though, we’ve been conditioned to say this even when it’s not true. Because being in charge means being responsible, and we may have learned that being on the hook is uncomfortable.
And so, sooner or later, no one is in charge.
ADP does payroll for millions of people. Pretty much all they do is create forms and have people fill them out. The forms they use are from 1991. They’re digitally unfriendly and poorly designed. Someone, somewhere at ADP is probably in charge of this. But they’re still the way they are. Because it’s challenging to call enough meetings and take enough apparent risk to actually fix them.
My bank uses a lot of security theatre in the way they engage with people online. Needless hoops, or obvious holes in their systems. Again, my guess is that someone is probably in charge here, but they’re not acting as if they are.
But it’s not just giant organizations. It’s the little pocket park down the street from you that no one takes the time to clean, or the missing stop sign that no one agitated to have replaced…
The good news is that we have the option to be responsible for far more than we imagine.
Complaining is a cultural phenomenon, but it’s particularly prevalent in societies with a consumer culture (the customer is always right) and those where comfort is coming to be expected.
Given all the complaining we do (about the weather, leadership, products, service and various ailments), it’s worth taking a moment to think about why we complain.
The obvious one might not be the main one.
The obvious reason to complain is to make a change happen.
If that’s the goal, though, we ought to focus those complaints where they’ll do the most good, and be prepared to do the work to have an impact. Organize the others, take consistent and persistent action, and market the complaint in a format and with a focus that will lead to action.
Most of the time, though, I’m not sure that’s what we’re really after.
Here are some others:
to let off steam
to signal group affiliation
to create hope that things might get better
to increase one’s status by selfishly demanding more
to gain affiliation by complaining on behalf of someone else
to gain status by demanding more for others who can’t speak up
to validate our feelings by seeking acknowledgment from others that their grievance is legitimate
to preemptively lower expectations or manage blame
to conceal our fear or embarrassment
to avoid responsibility by pointing to someone else
to establish dominance or control in a situation
to bond with others through shared experiences of dissatisfaction
Not on the list, because it belies almost all of these: “Whining in the face of imperfection often ruins what you’ve already got.”
Whining is the evil cousin of complaining. Whining purports to exist to make things better, but it never does.
James Murphy of LCD Soundsystem said, “The best way to complain is to make things.”
And perhaps we can extend that to: “The best way to complain is to make things better.”
Peter Drucker didn’t say “culture eats strategy for breakfast,” but reality rarely gets in the way of a good quote.
But what does it mean?
I think what ‘not Drucker’ meant was that MBA tactics will always be subverted by the power of systems, and that systems disguise themselves as culture (“what are things like around here.”)
So a more accurate restatement of the fictional quote would be, “Systems eat tactics for breakfast.”
Maybe that would have been a better subtitle for my book.
PS I was on Tim Ferriss’ podcast this week. You can see 500 of my video and podcast appearances here.
In the words of Harry Truman, “42% of all the quotes on the internet are misattributed.”
There are many ways to prioritize our time and focus, but the easiest and most vivid way is to do the urgent things first.
If we wait until a house plant is sick before we take care of it, though, it’s too late.
Deadlines, loud requests and last-minute interventions are crude forcing functions. They’re inefficient and common.
It’s far more effective to organize for important instead.
We thrive when we do things when we have the most leverage, not when everyone else does. Waiting for trouble means that you’re going to spend your days dealing with trouble.
Consulting firms rank brands on value. Marketers promise to increase it.
But brand value has little to do with whether a company is famous or even profitable.
The accurate measure of brand value is the premium that consumers will spend over the generic.
What time, money or risk will they take for a valuable brand compared to the very same offering from an unknown?
Luxury goods, by necessity, have high brand value, because the generic knock-offs sell for a tiny fraction of the price. (Heinz ketchup commands a much smaller price premium. You may have heard of them, but you don’t care that much.) Familiarity is not always a proxy for high value.
New products launched by high-value brands get off to a faster start because consumers who trust them feel like they’re taking a smaller risk.
Valuable brands often get applications from potential employees and partners of higher quality than an upstart might.
And yet…
ChatGPT, Perplexity and Claude all gained enormous traction at the expense of some of the most highly ranked brands in the world.
Systems change, and user experience and the network effect often defeat brands. Plan accordingly.
January 27, 2025
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here:
Cookie Policy
