The real beauty is you live the example. You’ve progressed from Jannie the musician and funster to Jannie the self-preneur and paved a path for others.

@ Michael

Beautiful addition and I really like the “inutlogic.”

> Strong internal and external connections improves the alignment of the different common sense frames
That’s a nice encapsulation of a key concept. Crossed-expectations are a top dissatisfier in life.

@ Harald

Thank you. That’s a perfect quote and I like how you connect it to making meaning.

Outstanding article – thanks for creating the value

After giving it a second thought I decided to deliver an add on to Gay Kawasaki,
that may turn out to be worth considering in these modern and innovative times :
– A ‘Pixar’ Of Consulting: A Vision Model:
1. Initiate conversations by focusing on experiences and framing the experiences from a positive rather than negative perspective. This legitimizes the past experiences that have shaped people’s common sense while at the same time not allowing the conversation to deteriorate into who or what is to blame or a negative “if only we had [. . .]” experience. An effective tool for initiating conversations is Appreciative Inquiry. It builds on the foundation of dialogue. Dialogue is “a form of conversation whose purpose is to promote understanding and learning” (Gerard and Ellinor, 2001, p. This approach to conversation fosters seeing the whole and the connections within it and the holistic approach fosters collaboration and shared meanings. Cooperrider et al. (2008) state that “appreciative inquiry is the cooperative co-evolutionary search for the best in people, their organizations, and the world around them [. . .] it is an approach to organizational analysis and learning [that] is intended for discovering, understanding, and fostering innovations in social organizational arrangement and processes” (p. 3). The discovery phase of Appreciative Inquiry is relevant for identifying salient factors. This phase focuses on learning about and valuing the best of “what is” in terms of practices and causes of success. This is different from asking “what is the need?” In this phase, people explore backward questions by recalling high-point experiences, inward questions by discussing the meaning from those experiences, and forward questions by asking what would the future look like.
2. Create an environment of asking questions and identifying purpose. Asking questions helps to uncover good judgment and the complexity behind each person’s perception of the situation. Asking why a person believes in what they do is an important part of using common sense to uncover assumptions and potentially relevant factors. It is not, however, sufficient to determine what is salient. Engaging the decision makers in identifying not just a single purpose but multiple linked purposes – a hierarchy of purposes – facilitates thinking about the different levels of a situation such as who is involved at each level of the hierarchy and the knowledge different players bring to better understand the outcomes at each level of the hierarchy. Nadler and Chandon (2004) write that questioning how an issue is initially framed is critical to uncovering the purpose, and developing a ladder of purpose hierarchy moves the decision makers beyond the initial framing of the issue to enlarge the scope of thinking. Thinking in terms of purpose rather than problem lessens the likelihood that biases from common sense knowledge will dominate the discussion. Moving to a ladder of purpose allows common sense knowledge to kick off the decision making process rather than to end it.
3. Develop external as well as internal interpersonal dynamics. Complex decision making involves a team of people focused on resolving the issue. To increase the ability to develop a solution, teams develop strong norms, internal processes, and the ability to work well together. This is common sense developed from past experiences of working with others on project teams or on committees. What is needed to identify salient factors is to engage in external activities to gather information, develop allies, and coordinate across different functional areas (Ancona and Bresman, 2007). Common sense knowledge is socially constructed and fostering external connections builds on the social learning skills already acquired while fostering new common sense learning. Strong internal and external connections improves the alignment of the different common sense frames and lessens communication errors.
4. Provide opportunities to blend intuition and logical thinking. Albrecht (2007) refers to this as “intulogical thinking” (p. 70) which integrates both logical and intuitive patterns of ideation into a synergistic combination. Intulogical thinking draws on the internalized intuitive thinking that stems from commonsense yet requires linking intuition with logical processing. This decreases the likelihood that either-or thinking will develop and integrating intuition and logic will create new frames. The new frames are supported by using strategies to analyze assumptions and benchmarks, to identify constraints, to stay focused on the objectives, and to create joint frames based on the combined views of others (Schoemaker and Russo, 2001). This lessens common sense knowledge biases associated with overconfidence and self-correction.
5. Create sensitivity to optimistic amplification. Common sense creates confidence and optimistic feelings about what is known. Optimism is supportive of problem recognition (Scheier et al., 1986) because it increases the likelihood that people with favorable expectations experience less stress when they have to process threatening information because they are less concerned about being vulnerable (Papenhausen, 2006). On the negative side, common sense creates a naive optimism that is anchored in the knowing derived from past experience. This creates a tendency to “misperceive the causes of certain events. . .and to emphasize the positive and downplay the negative” (Lovallo and Kahneman, 2003, p. 59). Recognizing and utilizing only optimistic opinions about issues lessens the ability to think critically as one attempts to identify potentially relevant factors. As part of creating sensitivity, it is important to create a climate that does not confuse the situation by engaging in unfettered brainstorming intended to generate a list of relevant factors. Coyne et al. (2007) recommend providing a structure that bounds the range of exploration, tailors the questions, and ensures that everyone is fully engaged.

And I’m all about number 7, as is Tess.

I agree with Patricia too, these lessons can be applied to anything in our lives.

And yes, it’s always a perfectly beautiful time to be an Entrepreneur, especially when we are selling our own wonderful unique selves.

Ahhh, totally refreshing, thanks.

I too am a fan of creating your own luck and making things happen. While I like to *wish* for things, I’ve found actually taking action and learning from people with results is more effective. The harder I work, the luckier I get

No.1 quote is so true it’s scary because what if I don’t have good luck? Well that’s when I crate my own luck!

No. 5 is so true and no. 10 is funny and true.

Again thanks for the education!

Good stuff.

Let me share what I’ve seen, if it helps.

There’s a pendulum where on one end, people perfect their ideas or products before ever sharing them. The problem is, they aren’t actually perfect. Once they test them against reality, they get the real feedback, they learn what actually gets used, and they get surprised by scenarios they didn’t expect. On the other end of the spectrum, people put out stuff that was never a good idea or is half-baked to begin with.

There’s a healthy balance in the middle. The problem is, we’ve been in a “built to last” world and as we shift to a “built to change” world, with real time information markets and increasingly competitive niches, and amazing disrupters, we have to shift from less theory to more real-world results. so he may say, don’t worry, be crappy and ship then test, but what he’s really saying is, step out of the ivory tower and bounce your ideas against reality, but only your “gold” ideas … and invest to improve version to version (but don’t give people crap out of the gate (make it complete, make it gold, and know it’s the sapling that will become the tree.)

On the Bozo’s part, I see too many people listen to the wrong people for advice and they get knocked down. Their dreams shatter. Especially when it’s one of their heroes that tell them they aren’t good enough or they idea isn’t smart enough. I think the key take away from Guy here is, listen to your critics, but separate the wheat from the chaffe.

I get your point on luck. I find that many things are less luck, and a lot more about anticipation skills, systems analysis, and knowing the key leverage points and key indicators. The more I learn about how things work, the more *luck* is on my side

@ Cath

I’m finding myself using ” Who gives a shiitake?” now

I agree, in fact if there’s one take away for people, I think it’s that — know your mantra.

I really like his point on making meaning too. I see people and companies lose the game because they play for money instread of significance.

@ Patricia

Great to hear and good luck!

@ Melissa

Thank you. I tried to compress a bunch of knowledge that was spread over time and space. While it might take more time to unpack and absorb it, it saves a ton of time over trying to round up all the relevant insights into a meaningful collection.

Tomorrow I will edit and then mail off…tomorrow is the due date…hopefully just for the post mark.

Many thanks…Your comments assisted my precision and concise application of words.