What's Best Next

  • Newsletter
  • Our Mission
  • Contact
  • Resources
    • Productivity
    • Leadership
    • Management
    • Web Strategy
    • Book Extras
  • Consulting & Training
  • Store
    • Online Store
    • Cart
    • My Account
  • About
    • Our Mission
    • Our Core Values
    • Our Approach to Productivity
    • Our Team
    • Contact
You are here: Home / 2010 / Archives for January 2010

Archives for January 2010

I'm Putting This in My Tickler File

January 25, 2010 by Matt Perman

Tom Peters, in Re-Imagine!: Business Excellence in a Disruptive Age:

To my 30-year-old readers: I hereby wager that when you’re my age, Wal-mart and Dell will be either dead or irrelevant.

I’m not positive on that — I think they can last. But that doesn’t mean they will. Will be interesting to see.

(Tom Peters, by the way, was I think around 60 when he wrote this. So I’m putting this in my tickler file for about 2036.)

Filed Under: Business Philosophy

Why People Work

January 25, 2010 by Matt Perman

From Studs Terkel’s 1972 book Working:

Work is about daily meaning as well as daily bread. For recognition as well as cash; for astonishment rather than torpor; in short, for a sort of life rather than a Monday through Friday sort of dying. We have a right to ask of work that it include meaning, recognition, astonishment, and life.

That last line is worth repeating:

We have a right to ask of work that it include meaning, recognition, astonishment, and life.

Filed Under: Work

Phrases to Beware Of

January 25, 2010 by Matt Perman

From The Milkshake Moment: Overcoming Stupid Systems, Pointless Policies and Muddled Management to Realize Real Growth:

  • “Our consultant told us it was the next big thing.”
  • “Our accountant made us do it to save money.”
  • “Our lawyers said we had to or else we could get sued.”
  • “We don’t need to reinvent the wheel on this one.”
  • “IT says it would be a big mistake to do it that way.”
  • “We tried that once; it doesn’t work in this kind of organization.”

It’s not that there can never be anything relevant in these statements. But very often they are used as substitutes for hard thinking — to justify taking the easy way out, and thus prematurely killing many paths of high potential.

Filed Under: 4 - Management

What the Vikings-Saints Game Shows Us About Systems and Mindsets

January 25, 2010 by Matt Perman

You can learn a lot from football. Here are two examples from the recently finished Vikings-Saints game of things that appeared random (and cost the game), but were not. One of these things teaches us about systems, and the other teaches us about mindsets.

Systems

The Vikings fumbled something like 5 times in this game. It’s easy to look at fumbles as mishaps — something that the team does to itself. And this is sometimes the case. But often fumbles are caused. That was the case with many of the Vikings fumbles tonight. They weren’t accidents, but were the result of the Saints knocking the ball loose.

The Saints weren’t doing this because it happened to occur to them now and then. It was an intentional strategy on their part. They intentionally, consistently, and aggressively went after the football to try to cause fumbles and take it away. Which points to a system–an intentional and ongoing set of behaviors designed to accomplish a goal.

Every team tries to create take-aways. But the Saints were especially good at it tonight. Consequently, it was interesting to hear the announcers mention before the game that the Saints’ defensive coordinator has a very specific guiding philosophy: turn the game into a street fight.

He doesn’t mean that in a bad sense, in the sense of engaging in unfair play. Rather, the meaning is to be aggressive and play a very physical game. Part of this seems to be placing high emphasis in creating turnovers.

From what I can gather from a distance, then, it appears to me that we have evidence here of a really good system. First, the defensive coordinator has a guiding philosophy–which is always an advantage because it gives focus and clarity to direct action toward what is most important. Second, he fleshes this philosophy out in specific behaviors (such as: continually try to knock the ball out). Third, it seems likely that he continually emphasizes and reinforces his philosophy to the defense–for, if he didn’t, it’s likely that it would not be on their radar to that extent.

Here’s the upshot: things that appeared random and spontaneous (in this case, fumbles) were actually the result of a well-conceived, well-implemented system. The specific fumbles that occurred were not (and could not have been) planned; but the fact that they happened was rather the outcome of a well executed strategy (and some failure on the Vikings to anticipate the Saints’ level of focus on creating fumbles), without which they likely wouldn’t have happened at all.

Mindsets

When Favre threw the interception on the Vikings’ final drive, the interception was not a random throw. It was not a bolt out of the blue. Certainly Favre didn’t intend to throw an interception, but the two actions that he took which led to the interception came right out of his standard pattern of play–his mindsets.

First, before throwing it came about that there was about 10 yards of open field in front of him. He could have kept running and got that ten yards, and seemed to contemplate doing so (which would have set the Vikings up well for the field goal). But instead, he threw the ball. Why?

I would argue that it was because of an ingrained mindset. He didn’t make a 50-50 decision in the moment, evaluating the options completely afresh. He passed because he appears to have a mindset which strongly inclines him to passing in those situations over running.

I’m inferring this because that’s the pattern he’s exhibited all year. One time he was even 4 yards past the line of scrimmage when he passed the ball, which doesn’t make sense without a strongly ingrained tendency to pass even when there is clear room to pick up decent yards by running.

There is nothing wrong with this preference. He probably developed it because he is so good at passing. It makes sense, and part of what makes someone an expert is precisely that they have developed patterns such as this.

So Favre’s choice to pass rather than just keep running with the ball was not random, and not something that came out of the blue in the moment, with no background.

Second, this particular pass was thrown across the field. As the announcers said afterward, this breaks the cardinal rule of passing. You never throw the ball across the field. However, I’ve seen Favre do this before. It looks like he doesn’t necessarily accept that rule fully. He probably agrees with it and typically acts in accord with it, but in certain situations has a tendency to throw across the field anyway. So this throw across the field was not random, either.

Both of the choices Favre made, consequently, appear to have had their roots in mindsets that were developed over an entire career of almost 20 years. This means that the outcome of the game (to the extent that these decisions affected it — and they weren’t the only thing that could have gone better) was not simply decided in the moment. It was the outcome a pre-existing framework of thought — some of which was probably developed intentionally, and some of which probably developed naturally through experience.

The point is this: Things that appear to have been decided spontaneously are often actually stemming from pre-existing systems and mindsets that have been a long time in the making. This, of course, is why teams practice.

What it shows us is that, in our lives and organizations, we should be intentional to put in place systems and mindsets that will make it easier and more likely for people to make the most effective choices.

Favre did a fantastic job all season and in this game. His final pass was not a failure; it simply shows that none of us are perfect. No systems or mindsets that we create or encourage ever will be. But we should be cognizant to the role that systems and mindsets play, and seek to make sure they are working for the organization as much as we possibly can.

Filed Under: d Alignment

What is Budgeting For?

January 22, 2010 by Matt Perman

From Good to Great:

Most answer that budgeting exists to decide how much to apportion to each activity, or to manage costs, or both. From a good to great perspective, both of these answers are wrong. In a good-to-great transformation, budgeting is a discipline to decide which arenas should be fully funded and which should not be funded at all.

In other words, the budget process is not about figuring out how much each activity gets, but about determining which activities best support the hedgehog concept and should be fully strengthened and which should be eliminated entirely.

Filed Under: Finance

What Do You Think of This?

January 22, 2010 by Matt Perman

What do you think of this statement — do you agree or disagree?

“One should always set the objective twice as high as one hopes to accomplish because one will always fall 50 percent short.”

Filed Under: Goals

What Exactly is Thinking Outside the Box?

January 22, 2010 by Matt Perman

From FedEx Delivers: How the World’s Leading Shipping Company Keeps Innovating and Outperforming the Competition:

When looking for these creative ideas and innovative solutions, it is often said that one should “think outside the box.” But what exactly is this proverbial “box”?

You can think of it as the space in the brain that contains all those bits of information and connections made so far. A dot is a bit of information in the knowledge base. And after solving a problem, repeatedly the same way, the connections become automatic. So, when a person is faced with the same problem, the mind, without any conscious effort presents the old, known solution.

In many ways, the mind operates like a computer. It scans the knowledge base of the memory (mind) to come up with creative solutions. If the knowledge base is old, the ideas generated may be obsolete. If the knowledge base is limited to a very small part of the total business process or operation, then the solution will only take that area into account.

Solutions that are derived from the same thought processes that the mind has used for years are unlikely to be innovative. The requirement for outside-the-box thinking is the ability to make new connections. New connections can be made in one of two ways: (1) having more dots to connect (a new or updated knowledge base) or (2) connecting the old dots in new imaginative ways.

Because creativity is the ability to connect seemingly unrelated variables (the dots we store in our minds) in imaginative ways, employees must continually update their knowledge bases…

Filed Under: Innovation

Be Constructive

January 22, 2010 by Matt Perman

When we notice things that could be better, it’s easy to respond negatively. This easily leads to (or is) complaining.

Complaining, in addition to just being wrong, tends to create an overall attitude of negativity that is not helpful. This not only sucks the joy from your life and those around you, but also makes it less likely that people will actually want to do something to fix the problem. Playing the victim doesn’t inspire people.

Seth Godin posted the other day on how to point out problems without falling into the trap of complaining. It’s a short, good post that is worth reading.

The gist is this: Instead of saying “my job has this problem and that problem, and it’s really starting to get to me,” you say: “In this economy, I’m lucky to have this job, and it’s almost perfect. It would be even better if…”

Or, instead of saying “they spent $10 million developing this device, and it can’t even do this or that,” you say: “I love owning this device, it lets me manage my life and contacts, and the one thing that would make it even better is…”

The latter approach is the way proactive people talk. It puts the focus on the positive first, where it belongs. Then everything after that is about how to improve things.

The former approach, on the other hand, just leaves you focusing on the bad. And it would seem likely that if you generally think that way, pretty soon the bad is all that you will see everywhere — which would not only be wrong, but would also be a pretty depressing existence.

Filed Under: Emotional Intelligence

Nonprofits Are Worthy of Funding

January 21, 2010 by Matt Perman

Well said by Drucker in Managing the Nonprofit Organization:

Fund raising is going around with a begging blow and asking for money because the need is so great. Fund development is creating a constituency which supports the organization because it deserves it. It means developing a membership that participates through giving.

Nonprofits are not doing optional work. They deserve to be funded (excepting those that lack integrity and effectiveness).

When you give, don’t see yourself as spending discretionary money that you are using to do a favor for the organization. You are giving because the organization and cause are worthy of funding.

Filed Under: Non-Profit Management

Creating Autonomy in Routine Jobs

January 21, 2010 by Matt Perman

One of my core management philosophies is that managers should define the ultimate outcomes with their people, but not the specific steps to reach those outcomes. Each employee ought to have the freedom to figure out their own path to the goal.

This solves the “manager’s dilemma” of how to serve the organization while also providing autonomy to the employee’s. The organization is served because employee efforts are directed toward the performance of the organization; at the same time, employees have autonomy because they are able to determine the best way to accomplish those results, based on their own individual preferences, judgment, and talents.

It also serves employees to know the outcomes because it is motivating to know what is expected of you and how it serves the larger picture.

One question I often get about this is: How does this work for jobs that are largely routine? For example, how would this work for a factory worker?

There’s a lot that can be said here, but Tom Morris does a good job of articulating a core part of the answer in If Aristotle Ran General Motors:

A concern for truth should continually play an important role in how we think about our jobs and in the many ways we interact with others in our work. But a concern for beauty should guide us too.

How, you might wonder, can a factory worker be an artist and experience this form of active beauty if he has to perform the same routine motions over and over, all day long? This is part of the reason Jack Stack decided to teach everyone at the Springfield Remanufacturing Company what he began to call “The Great Game of Business.”

Even the factory-floor worker engaged in repetitive acts of assembly can play the game of business, using his mind to devise more efficient processes and motions, connecting his specific job with the big picture of what’s going on in the overall company life.

He may be able to see things no one else can see and make suggestions for beautiful improvements no one else could make. He alone may be in a position to create an elegant solution to a problem that no one else can solve, or even notice.

We need to encourage the people who work around us to think of their jobs in this way, no matter what their jobs might be. Everyone can be a performance artist and an important player in the great game of business.

Filed Under: Job Design

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • …
  • 7
  • Next Page »

About

What’s Best Next exists to help you achieve greater impact with your time and energy — and in a gospel-centered way.

We help you do work that changes the world. We believe this is possible when you reflect the gospel in your work. So here you’ll find resources and training to help you lead, create, and get things done. To do work that matters, and do it better — for the glory of God and flourishing of society.

We call it gospel-driven productivity, and it’s the path to finding the deepest possible meaning in your work and the path to greatest effectiveness.

Learn More

About Matt Perman

Matt Perman started What’s Best Next in 2008 as a blog on God-centered productivity. It has now become an organization dedicated to helping you do work that matters.

Matt is the author of What’s Best Next: How the Gospel Transforms the Way You Get Things Done and a frequent speaker on leadership and productivity from a gospel-driven perspective. He has led the website teams at Desiring God and Made to Flourish, and is now director of career development at The King’s College NYC. He lives in Manhattan.

Learn more about Matt

Newsletter

Subscribe for exclusive updates, productivity tips, and free resources right in your inbox.

The Book


Get What’s Best Next
Browse the Free Toolkit
See the Reviews and Interviews

The Video Study and Online Course


Get the video study as a DVD from Amazon or take the online course through Zondervan.

The Study Guide


Get the Study Guide.

Other Books

Webinars

Follow

Follow What's Best next on Twitter or Facebook
Follow Matt on Twitter or Facebook

Foundational Posts

3 Questions on Productivity
How to Get Your Email Inbox to Zero Every Day
Productivity is Really About Good Works
Management in Light of the Supremacy of God
The Resolutions of Jonathan Edwards in Categories
Business: A Sequel to the Parable of the Good Samaritan
How Do You Love Your Neighbor at Work?

Recent Posts

  • How to Learn Anything…Fast
  • Job Searching During the Coronavirus Economy
  • Ministry Roundtable Discussion on the Pandemic with Challies, Heerema, Cosper, Thacker, and Schumacher
  • Is Calling Some Jobs Essential a Helpful Way of Speaking?
  • An Interview on Coronavirus and Productivity

Sponsors

Useful Group

Posts by Date

Posts by Topic

Search Whatsbestnext.com

Copyright © 2025 - What's Best Next. All Rights Reserved. Contact Us.