Many things surprised me. But one really stood out.
Crazy parents? Poor refs? You can win so much by playing so wrong?
Those were surprising, but something even surpassed those.
I think it needs to be fixed to improve the quality of soccer in the U.S. all around and the top.
Okay…maybe I’m laying the BS on a little thick. But, I do think it would help.
I was surprised by how much gets in the way of kids improving.
I was even more surprised by how kids are their own worst enemies. Stupid me, I thought kids would want to get better. Nah.They want to be good already.
Kids avoid direct comparisons and overestimate their ability. “Yeh, Johnny can score goals, but I can take the ball from anyone!” They hear “good pass” as “you’re the best player on the team!” Egos are powerful and misleading.
That’s why crystal clear feedback should be the goal.
Our soccer system mucks up the feedback, too.
In this post I wrote about how pickup culture provides better feedback than organized teams, and strong soccer countries have a tightly interwoven pickup culture.
Here I wrote about how the sports clubs in strong soccer countries provide good feedback to kids in ways that our clubs do not.
Crystal clear feedback doesn’t mean telling kids they are terrible. It means giving kids a glimpse of where they should head, letting them know how far along they are and how they can move further. The posts above describes how pickup and clubs in other countries do just that.
Come to think of it, it bugged me as a coach how uncommon it was for the kids to praise or correct each other. They didn’t learn to do it in pickup and on a team, they figured that was the coach’s job. Yet, another area where they didn’t get the feedback they need.
If I were hiring a business manager, I would ask candidates to explain whether they view their role more as a gatekeeper for the organization or an enabler of competition?
Gatekeepers decide what the organization does and doesn’t do. They view themselves as the judge of the competition and their ideas usually win, at least in terms of what the organization does, not necessarily in the marketplace.
Competition enablers are open to let good ideas come from anywhere. They create systems that try more ideas and let the best ideas earn their way in our out.
They understand that customers are the best judge of thiscompetition.
Leaders of highly innovative companies like Google, Amazon and even McDonald’s have tended to be competition enablers.
Mature businesses that struggle to stay relevant, tend to have gatekeepers in charge.
Think of Blockbuster as Netflix offered to partner with them. Blockbuster leaders could have easily said, you know this doesn’t seem like something customers would want, but let’s try itand see, because we could be wrong.
Instead, they acted as gatekeeper and said no, customers don’t want to wait for their movie to arrive in the mail.They want to be able to come in on Friday night and pick one out.
By the time they realized they were wrong enough, it was too late.
A common comeback to that is, but that Netflix deal was probably one of dozens of decisions Blockbuster faced and the rest didn’t work out. How would they be able to predict that this one would?
That’s the beauty of being a competition enabler. You don’t have to say no and worry about picking right or wrong.
You just have to ask, how can we try this so we can find out? Can we do it in a small test?
It’s a lot like picking stocks. You can do a lot of analysis and invest all your money in 2-3 stocks and hope for the best. But most folks learn that strategy banks more on luck than skill, because no amount of analysis can turn up information that simply isn’t known, yet.
A better strategy is to spread the bets out more, knowing you can always be wrong.
And, for every example that you can give of someone who did well picking 2-3 stocks, I can give you 10 more who did not.
I’ve worked for several mature businesses that struggle to stay relevant. The Board never realizes the root cause is that they keep hiring gatekeepers instead of competition enablers.
On Naked & Afraid, participants who take a lot of pride in their experience at fishing or hunting think they can beat the 1-in-10 odds of getting food. They might believe their experience and know-how improves their odds to the 1-in-3, for example.
In the business world, managers think they can similarly improve their chances of succeeding with their smarts and/or experience.
Neither are good at assessing odds.
Both are correct that their know-how does increase their odds, but it improves it to 1-in-10.
Someone without the same know-how might have even lower odds of succeeding, maybe 1-in-20 or worse.
In this post, I explained why I prefer business managers with a ‘1-in-10 innovation mindset’ over those with a linear innovation mindset.
Having the right innovation mindset is just the first step. Managers must also have strategies that translate that mindset into actions that result in growth. Asking about such strategies is fair game in an interview.
Another concept Adams introduces in his book, How To Fail at Everything and Still Win Big, is to favor systems over goals for everything in life like diet, exercise, investing and innovation.
For example, a good retirement investing system is to automatically invest 15% of your income. That beats a goal of, “I want to save $1 million for retirement.”
That can be applied to everything. Feel like you are stuck in a rut with the restaurants that you frequent? Make a system where you try one new restaurant per month. In a few short months, you are likely to discover new places to add to your rotation.
Ironically, the title of that article brings to mind the linear innovation mindset, as managers with that mindset tend to think of themselves as Clark Griswold plotting his family’s route to Wally World, in the movie Vacation.
But, the content implies a 1-in-10 mindset. In the following chart, from the article, it shows the percentage of experienced and new innovators that use various forms of innovation, with the experienced innovators having superior growth.
It’s clear that experienced innovators use more avenues to innovation and are much more active in incubators, ecosystem partnerships, grassroots innovation, venture capital, joint venture and accelerators than new innovators.
When interviewing business managers, I’d be looking for them to demonstrate their 1-in-10 mindset and that means building systems that increase their trial base of innovation and rely less on them for their ‘strategic visions’.
One way is to have multiple avenues for innovation, like the companies in Bain & Co’s article.
But, there are many more.
A long time ago, 3M famously gave their employees the freedom to pursue side projects and their hunches on company time, that resulted in successful products like Post-It notes. That’s grassroots and that’s a system.
Harvesting natural experiments is another way. I’m struck by how many people don’t notice the giant laboratory of variation that are naturally built into their businesses. Too often, they try to stamp out that variation, even when it doesn’t make sense, just because.
Often hidden in this variation are silver mines on ways to improve the business. They may not be gold mines that produce exponential growth for the firm, but can be filled with actions that make steady improvemenst that evolve the company in relevant directions.
I worked in HQ of one national chain where I rolled out a few of these ‘silver mines’. I mined them from the variation in field. When I visited the field, I often heard I was different than others from HQ. “They come out and tell us what to do. You ask questions.’
Others from HQ mistakenly believed that HQ’s plans were right (even the unproven sound-good edicts from executives) and felt the need to drive those plans into the field operations for consistency.
I often visited areas that were particularly good or bad at something. I visited to see if I could discover why and I often did. That system gave me a steady stream of ideas for tweaks I could make to systems and training within my control and even some things outside of my control. A couple resulted in successful national marketing programs, for example, even though I wasn’t a marketing person.
It also made me a valuable resource to folks in the field as they discovered that when they called me to solve a problem, I often had good ideas that I had harvested from others and had put under the microscope to see if there was something to them.
It worked. And, it was pretty simple. The biggest barrier to this approach are the many mindsets that work against it.
As I found over the years, people can reject productive ideas for a number of reasons. I’ll explore those in a future post.
To recap, if I were to hire business managers, I prefer folks with a 1-in-10 innovation mindset and those with good thoughts on how to build systems to find successful actions given those long odds.
On his recent Periscope, Scott Adams offers basic strategies for success in life:
Get a useful education
Stay out of trouble
Stay away from drugs
Don’t become a parent too soon
Build your talent stack
Be useful to others
Favor systems over goals
Understand basic risk management
He hypothesized if we could categorize the population by people who follow these strategies and those who do not, and ignore the standard demographic categories like race and gender, that we’d likely see the difference.
In his book, Black Redneck White Liberals, Thomas Sowell (among other places) makes the same claim. I wrote about that back in 2013. I highly recommend the book. It changed the way I see the world.
I’ve worked with a few companies that have the same problem that constrains growth: management overestimates the odds of innovations succeeding.
They tend to see innovation as a linear, strategically planned process that relies heavily on their, or a small group’s, expertise and keen eye for innovating the ‘right stuff.’
This vision constrains the efforts of their organization to about a tenth what it needs for sustainable growth, because innovation has a 1-in-10 of succeeding, no matter how smart or keen the innovators are.
1-in-10 is not exact. It might be 1-in-50 or 1-in-5, but the idea is understanding the order of magnitude of the odds you’re dealing with.
Some with the linear innovation mindset pay lip service to the 1-in-10 chances, but think they can improve on those odds. They might think good innovation is as simple as following the data or they simply forget their failures well and overestimate their chances.
In this post, I likened the 1-in-10 innovation mindset with the chances of obtaining food during the TV show Naked & Afraid’s primitivesurvival challenge.
Participants who understand their chances of getting food is 1-in-10 appear to do better than those who fall into the same traps as managers with the linear innovation mindset when it comes to getting food.
They might think their fishing skills, for example, will help them beat the odds. “I know the right places to fish.”
While they cast one hook at a time in the ‘right spot,’ the 1-in-10’ers set 10 hooks and check them each day.
Others lend support to this idea.
In the article, Navigating the Route to Innovation, Bain & Co says companies with a variety of innovation approaches grow more than companies that rely on fewer approaches.
In other words, the more ways a company opens itself to innovating, the better the chance of finding their 1-in-10’s.
Scott Adams, the Dilbert Guy, wrote in his book, How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big, that we live in a reality where the odds of something new succeeding are 1-in-10. He uses his life as an example, writing about the many failures and a few successes that made his career.
I found it interesting that Scott’s “1-in-10” term is the same used by used by the successful Naked & Afraid participants about getting food, “I have to keep trying to get my 1-in-10!”
If I’m hiring a business manager, I’d look for someone with the 1-in-10 mindset.
In the next post I’ll use another one of Scott’s concepts, Systems vs. Goals, to illustrate how someone with the 1-in-10 innovation mindset can achieve sustainable growth.
New one: F*ck Off/F*ck You Fallacy — Telling someone to do this does not change the validity of their point.
My rough guess, is that well over 70% of the discourse I see on social media are these.
The media uses these fallacies, too, but they are more clever about it. Often, instead of creating the fallacies themselves, they let others do the dirty work of creating the fallacies they would like propogate and then they just cherry pick their quotes.
Arnold Kling observes in his book, The Three Languages of Politics, that liberals see things in terms of oppressors and the oppressed, conservatives see things in terms of civilization versus barbarism and libertarians see things in terms of freedom versus coercion.
He says this is why people from these three camps usually talk past each other because they think on these different value axes.
But, I’ve often wondered why?
I think it may be how much folks believe they are responsible for their outcomes.
If you believe outside forces determine outcomes, you see the oppressed and oppressors and political power is the check on the oppressors.
You might think successful folks are lucky or or a product of a rigged system, while those who have not have succeeded are held back by the system and oppressors.
If you believe you are the major factor in your outcome, as in the choices you make, then you tend to see political power as a tool to provide a free and civilized world where you can make choices that make the most sense to you, as long as those choices don’t infringe on others, and realize the outcomes of your decisions, good or bad.
So, maybe one way for folks from Kling’s three different political languages to engage more productively is to discuss the extent to which they believe in self-determinism.
I can imagine those discussions will be heated. But, if that’s the heart of the disagreement, that might be where it needs to start.