Escaping vicious cycles

When we're deploying an effective strategy, we get energized by how well the strategy is working. We're appreciating the timing, the approach and the outcomes. We're seeing others benefit from how effective our strategy has become. All this gets us thinking how we might take this game up a level or fine tune the strategy. We're continuing to rely on our strategic thinking and explore more possibilities.

When we're deploying an ineffective strategy, none of this occurs. We go into a vicious cycle instead. There seems to be no escape from the nightmare scenario spawned by the ineffective strategy. The vicious cycle convinces us to:

1. rely exclusively on our tactical thinking
2. worry constantly about what can go wrong next
3. mistrust higher ups and other outsiders who we blame for the strategy mistakes
4. stop trying to improve, change or revise what's not working
5. assume that any creative possibility is too weird, inapplicable or costly to help out
6. lose all sense of purpose and self motivation 
7. become entirely dependent on extrinsic rewards
8. feed the array of problems with neglect, over-reacting and half-efforts
9. struggle with apathy, depression, paranoia and sleeplessness
10. put on show of complacency to hide all this inner turmoil

As you can see from this list, when we're caught up in deploying an ineffective strategy, we're in no shape to shape up. It's as if we're stuck in a hole where our only options are to dig deeper or to do nothing. The way out begins with letting go of trying to get out of the vicious cycle. It helps to not-know what to see, think and do. Progress occurs by seeing the repeating patterns with detachment, where they can be critiqued, challenged and dismissed. The exit is found when we switch to our strategic thinking.

Formerly effective strategies

When we're formulating new strategies, our minds are full of questions. We're exploring different possibilities and experimenting to uncover an approach that works. We're comparing different strategies to discern which is more effective at realizing desired outcomes at the least cost. We're trusting a process that leads to an unknown outcome, rather than following a recipe to replicate results. We're taking the time to get it right, rather than jumping to premature conclusions.

This pursuit of effective strategies occurs with the most mundane and the most global issues. We can be puzzling how best to prevent a drain from clogging at home or pondering how to reduce atmospheric carbon levels around the globe. Bigger scales may take more time, expertise and exploration than smaller, but the state of mind is the same.

Once we hit upon an effective strategy, our minds typically think "enough of that!". Our minds are eager to switch back to tactical thinking. It seems like it's time to stop asking so many questions, exploring so many possibilities and conducting so many experiments. We want to simply know what to do and get it done without hesitation.

At this point, our effective strategy is about to become institutionalized. It may become a simple habit or routine. It may get formalized in policy manuals or procedural requirements. It will likely become reinforced by evaluation and reward schema which incentivize sticking with the strategy. It may even become immortalized in a cultural narrative or taboo which enforces conformity with social pressures. From now on, we can only do what's been done in the past, whether or not it remains effective. It's been "set in stone" and not easily chiseled away.

There's no way out of this pitfall with recognizing what kind of thinking is missing. Without knowing the difference between strategic and tactical thinking, there's no way to formulate a new effective strategy. There's only too much talking about explicit change, possibilities and improvements, while the formerly effective strategy persists ad infinitum.

Explicit and implicit strategies

When we're acting as if something is true, we're enacting our implicit strategy. We're walking the talk of the real deal. When we're saying something is true, we're enacting our explicit strategy. We're talking the talk of some deal we want others to think is true. If these two kinds of strategy get disconnected, we don't know our own implicit strategy. We believe our explicit strategy and get haunted by our contradictory implicit strategy. We say one thing and do another like any garden-variety hypocrite. We cannot get it together because we cannot admit to ourselves how our actions say something different from our pronouncements. We cannot change our strategy while working at cross purposes like this.

Here are some examples of contrasting explicit and implicit strategies:

1. When we're pushing the same product onto everyone, we're saying that we're meeting needs and providing value. We're acting as if there is no need to listen to customers, to cultivate relationships or to discover what beauty is in the "eyes of the beholder".
2. When we're studying hard and getting good grades, we're saying that we're learning a lot and getting a quality education. We're acting as if there is no need to follow our intrinsic motivation, to tie in new information to our personal experiences or to learn something only when the time is right for us.
3. When we're spending big bucks on prosecuting and punishing deviants, we're saying that we're protecting ordinary citizens and improving public safety. We're acting as if there is no point in rehabilitation or remediation for those who are caught up in cycles of abuse. 
4. When we're trying to control what others do, we're saying that we're in charge and exercising our authority in the situation. We're acting as if we've got nothing to lose and we have no influence to change others' conduct indirectly.
5. When we win at others' expense and succeed at "winner takes all" games, we're saying we're victorious, superior and newsworthy. We're acting as if there's no long term cost to winning this way and no context getting trashed by our one-sided conquests. 
6. When we're fixing what's broken and alleviating symptoms, we're saying that we're solving problems and getting our job done. We're acting as if there's no way that we're feeding the problems, we're failing to prevent them or we're misdiagnosing the deeper dynamics in play. 
7. When we're acquiring more possession, we're saying we're feeling abundant, looking prosperous and improving our quality of living. We're acting as if there's no way we're implicitly unsustainable and overly-materialistic.

Our rivals can trump these explicit strategies by taking up the challenges posed by our implicit strategies. While we act as if we cannot go there, they can act as if they can. As we deny the possibility, they explore and exploit it. While we assume it doesn't work that way, they will get it working in their favor. Failing to integrate implicit strategies with explicit strategies gives away leverage to rivals.

Psyching out rivals' thinking

It's far easier to psych out rivals' thinking when they are limiting themselves by tactical thinking. When rivals are deploying strategic thinking, our perceiving their implicit strategies becomes far more subtle and complex. It's only possible to psych out rivals' thinking accurately when we know our own minds comprehensively. When we don't know our own minds, we will only see what we want to see and filter out what's really occurring. An accurate reading of others' strategies requires a highly evolved state of mind. Here are two challenges along the way of realizing what rivals are really thinking.

Embracing our inner enemies
We all get pressured to fit in, act "normal" and meet others' expectations of us. We develop a pretentious mask to avoid their censure, rejection and constant hassles. This mask hides what others' find objectionable within our inner panorama of contrary passions, urges, fascinations and longings. We make enemies of all our inner treasures that cause problems when they show up in our intolerant social context. Those components of our total psyche become adversarial, dark and devious. They seek to sabotage our pretentious mask which frames our inner treasures as enemies. The mask handles this "house divided" dynamic by projecting its inner enemies onto outside rivals. The mask shoots messengers and point fingers at anyone who resembles its inner enemies. It cannot see others for what they really are while embroiled in this chronic war with oneself. Embracing our inner enemies requires going within, listening to the inner enemies, realizing how they've been wronged by the mask, discovering what treasures they can become when framed as valuable and cultivating their enlivening contributions to our self motivation, self confidence and creative self expression.

Seeing the familiar as unfamiliar
Our minds are creatures of habit. They conserve energy (glucose) by making as much as possible seem familiar. Complex situations get categorized, labeled and stereotyped. This creates a comfort zone which can easily become a fortress against imposed changes, unexpected occurrences and incomprenehsible evidence. Our minds become biased, bigoted and belligerent when its reliable opinions get challenged. We are operating with "no further questions your Honor". Our minds our made up against asking better questions, restoring our childlike curiosity or enjoying life as a mystery. When we change our minds to see the familiar as unfamiliar, we have stopped conserving energy. We're taking the time and mental horsepower to ponder alternatives and pose new possibilities. We're valuing our questions more than our answers. We take off the blinders and open our eyes to what we're being shown that contradicts our preconceptions. We take evidence and opinions about what is apparent as highly questionable. We look deeper and more panoramically at the small thing that captures our attention. We see things through many lenses and from a variety of different perspectives.

When we've transformed our minds in these ways, our rivals are not our enemies which necessitated defending ourselves against them. They are our teachers and challengers who bring out our best. They show us what we've not been seeing, considering, questioning or utilizing. They give us wake up calls, fresh perspectives and challenges to our preconceptions. They invite us to become more creative, resourceful and passionate. They define a game worth playing where the outcome will transform the initial rivalry into viable solutions for everyone involved.

Cruising for a bruising

Strategic thinking trumps tactical thinking whenever there is a conflict. Strategic thinking can recognize when the other side is relying on tactical thinking. The patterns are obvious to strategic thinking while tactical thinking is totally unaware of how it's thinking. Tactical thinking only know what's it's thinking, not which kind of thinking or what's missing in its thinking.

Here's some of what's obvious to strategic thinking about the patterns of tactical thinking which can be exploited easily:

1. Tactical thinking can only try harder, not try smarter. It will pursue the conflict with dogged determination at all cost.
2. Tactical thinking can only function like a shark, not a dolphin. It pursues direct approaches and frontal attacks with the subtlety of a bulldozer.
3. Tactical thinking must handle danger categorically, not complexly. Danger can only mean one thing as if it's a either/or, black & white issue.
4. Tactical thinking clings to losing battles, not giving in or giving up. It cannot let go when it's the wisest choice.
5. Tactical thinking is limited to fight, flight or freeze when confronted by a threat. It cannot become clever enough to mess with others' minds, perceptions and intentions.
6. Tactical thinking gets locked in a loop, not finding a way out. It experiences problems as chronic, relentless and infuriating. 
7. Tactical thinking can only pursue more tactical thinking, not switch to strategic thinking. It must react to others' reactions which pours more gasoline on the fire.

From these patterns, you may be able to perceive how easy it is to set up others' tactical thinking to be their own worst enemy. Anyone deploying tactical thinking in a conflict is cruising for a bruising. Tactical thinkers can be baited to deplete all their resources by pursuing an endless conflict. They can be convinced to never back down or appear weak in spite of the enormous strategic advantages offered by less rivalry.  Tactical thinking takes pride in determination in spite of sabotaging it's own surviving and thriving in the future. Fortunately, we can cultivate our strategic thinking to avoid these traps.

Getting things done

Our tactical thinking is good for getting things done. Right now, you're probably using your tactical thinking to get this read from start to finish. I used my tactical thinking to get this typed and published. Our tactical thinking enables us to be productive and become more proficient. It's good for completing tasks, applying methods and complying with requirements. If we didn't have tactical thinking, we could not use tools or stay focused long enough to get anything accomplished.

Our tactical thinking is easily provoked by others to argue, fight, oppose or retaliate without question. We react as if we already know what we're dealing with and what to do about it. We dismiss questions of strategy for fear it will weaken our resolve, distract our focus or delay our reaction. Our tactical thinking assumes our strategic thinking makes us look weak, vulnerable or uncommitted. We'd rather do too much and come on too strong than to find the right balance or use the right touch.

We can recognize that we're using our tactical thinking whenever we're getting something done without question. We already know what to do and are doing it by giving it our attention and determination.  We're dismissing questions like:

1. how to do it differently? 
2. how long to do it? 
3. how often to do it? 
4. how much of it to do?
5. when to do it? 
6. how to measure how well it got done?
7. how to learn from what did not happen yet?
8. how to do better next time?

When we're consider those questions, we've switched to strategic thinking. We've improved our odds of being effective. We've changed our thinking from dogged determination to pensive considerations. We've become more complex and responsive to variations in the situation we're facing.

Strategic and tactical thinking

What are you thinking? More importantly, how are you thinking? There's a big difference between strategic and tactical thinking that I'll explore in this next series of blog posts. I find that difference to give us a great explanation for why so much teaching, preaching, telling and selling usually backfires. When we use our tactical thinking, there's a slim chance our efforts will prove to be effective. When we deploy our strategic thinking, we've greatly improved our chances for a success.

At a first glance, strategy is concerned with strengths and weaknesses applied to opportunities and threats. When we ponder those with our tactical thinking, we assume:

• strengths are obvious and best used to intimidate others
• weaknesses are unfortunate and best kept hidden
• opportunities are advantageous and best exploited
• threats are provocative and best confronted

When we consider strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats with our strategic thinking, we can see how tactical thinking is predictable and flawed. We can rely on others' tactical thinking to take things extremely literally: "a strength is a strength without question". We can see how tactical thinking provides captivating self-imposed limitations which rule out superior possibilities. We can suspect the practitioners of tactical thinking are being pretentious, hypocritical and vulnerable to our own strategic maneuvers.

Through a strategic lens:

• a show of strength may be a sign of hidden weakness or underlying insecurities
• a show of weakness may be an indication of hidden strength or quiet confidence
• an obvious opportunity may be a baited trapped or offer that's too good to be true
• a provocative threat may be a potential ally or a cry for help 

Our strategic thinking can take something literally or imaginatively. It can react to face value evidence or read between the lines. It can polarize a distinction and see how the either/or can become a  both/and combination. This flexibility makes for enhanced effectiveness when we're teaching, preaching, telling or selling.

Leveraging the myriad of conversations

For those of us who present in classrooms, training sessions, workshops and conference sessions, times have changed dramatically. Gone are the days of passive consumers of printed content in need a little jump start by an orator with visual aids. Gone is the audience that was equally isolated and offline as books in print or closed door sessions. Welcome to the myriad of continual conversations that regard informative presentations as interruptions to their lively interchanges.

Engagement in this myriad of continual conversations makes any participant seem distracted, low on attention span and incapable of paying attention. Yet they are far more attentive to those conversations which they find absorbing, challenging and rewarding. Rather than getting mere information, they are getting alternative perspectives, valued commitments, useful feedback and thoughtful responses to their queries. 

On the surface there appears no way to compete with this myriad of continual conversations. Most presenters believe they cannot join in those conversations without abandoning what content they've prepared to deliver. They insist that their audiences pay attention up front. They face a threat to their enterprise from this distraction rather than seeing an opportunity for giving, caring, listening, or relating.  They imagine they will lose everything if they give into the backchannel, twitter stream or other running commentary on their presentation.

Thinking this way invites a snark (SNide remARK) attack. The presenter will come under siege from the transformed audience who experiences relentless content delivery as blatant:

• disregard of their myriad of continual conversations
• disrespect for their insightful play-by-play commentary getting shared online with followers
• devotion to a flawed strategy of domination and abuse of power
• designs to manipulate, deceive and run a scam on the audience

This problem for presenters is similar to lots of other problems that call for a change in strategy:

1. sellers wanting to upgrade their features and benefits to charge premium prices while buyers are looking for cheaper bargains
2. manufacturers who want customers to choose from what's on the shelf while the customers want customizing options
3. broadcasters who want audiences to watch their shows with commercials as scheduled while viewers want to download the content, time shift their viewing and skip over the commercial spots
4. journalists who want readers of news to get their coverage from vetted sources while seekers of news reports trust citizens who happen to be close to the incidents to tell it as they see it

One way to leverage these strategic opportunities is to give the customers what they want. In negotiating terms, this is adopting a lose/win strategy which makes unilateral concessions to the opposing side. It falls short from a win/win strategy because it takes the customers demands literally. It attempts to resolve positional conflicts at the level where differences are irreconcilable. 

A more effective approach shows an interest in the others' interests. The innovative strategy responds to their underlying need for regard, respect, power sharing and transparency. They want to feel understood more than put in charge of everything. They are creating an opportunity to work with them, not for them or against them. A effective presentation strategy speaks of their interests, contexts, and myriad of conversations as if it's essential to the value proposition. The content gets transformed into a portrait of how the audience is perceived, related to and understood as respectable. Those who appeared "otherwise engaged" then  happily share that respectful message with their followers and continue that conversation long after the presentation. 

Designing a disruption

Most new strategies are really the same old deal. Most innovations merely sustain the incumbent enterprises. Most new products and services are only incremental improvements. It takes a mind shift to come up with a breakout hit that actually moves the goal posts. We need to step back from the mindset that gets tasks completed and then plans how what to do next. We need to deploy a different kind of thinking.

Here's seven ways to change our minds to come up with breakout strategies:

1. Thinking like a caregiver: When we're thinking like an inventor, we're too close to what we're inventing. There's nobody we're considering  how they differ with our own outlook, assumptions and preferences. When we think like a caregiver, it's no longer about us or our invention. We become attentive to those we're caring for, caring about and caring enough to make a difference. The value of our efforts is in the eyes of the beholder, not how we see our conduct. We're attuned to those whom we want to value our efforts.
2. Thinking about resolving issues: When we're thinking about making improvements, we stick with what's already working. We adapt, add on to or fix the thing that already exists. When we think about resolving issues, the existing thing may be part of the problem, making things worse or ignoring an issue. Resolving issues can have a bigger impact than incremental improvements. It can generate more buzz, buy-in and uses than added features or changes in specs.
3. Thinking about functionality: When we're thinking about artifacts, we pay attention to superficial appearances. We improve the look, package and "design" that gets added on. When we're thinking about functionality, we can come up with "101 uses for a dead cat". We see how to "kill two birds with one stone" and to create tools which serve several purposes. We questioning what a design is good for, how it works and how it gets into trouble.
4. Thinking through the processes: When we're thinking of things, we're dealing with what's static, stable or even stagnant. We assume it will be the same tomorrow and design accordingly. When we think through processes, we're in tune with what's changing, evolving and transitioning. We're aware of phases the processes go through and the ways they're affected by contexts. We align our design with those processes and break into bigger impacts.
5. Thinking of cycles: When we adopt straightforward explanations, we believe we're making things happen by cause and effect. We misdiagnose any non-linear situation that may come back to haunt us, get fed by our attention or spawn chronic problems. When we're thinking of cycles, we watch for how to benefit from initiatives coming full circle. We notice all the vicious and virtuous cycles in play. We see how to get self-reinforcing dynamics working in our favor.
6. Thinking about flowing: When we believe life is a struggle, we take pride in our striving. We're attracted to uphill battles and show off how difficult it was to achieve our results. When we think about flowing, we see how the results we want can fall into place. We set-up others' successes without knowing how we will benefit from them. We live in a state of wonder where right conduct, timing and proportion comes to mind as needed.
7. Thinking with paradoxes: When we're thinking with categories, something is one thing or the other, but not both. We rule out the winning combination, pass up exploring the intersection and miss out on the best of both coming together. We we think with paradoxes, it's two sides of one coin, parts of the whole and essential to a total solution. We include what others exclude and break out of the paradigm of partial solutions. 

One way to follow this advice and change our thinking is to make it easy on ourselves. First we write down, mind map or dictate what we're already thinking. Then we recognize which kinds of thinking we're doing. If any of the thinking plays into sustaining and incremental changes, think again. Write down another column on the same page, expand the mind map or record a second viewpoint. I find this is much easier that getting it right the first time. We allow for the process of changing our mind in stages.

Moving the goal posts

When we enter a space with the goal posts already in place, the incumbent enterprises appear to be winning big time. There's no obvious way to beat them at their game. They not only play by the rules, but define the game to be played. They seem to have all the advantages while us new entrants are undeniably shortchanged, inferior and late to the party. They work their deal for a staggering number of customers who appear to be smitten with the way business gets done. The goal posts are set in cement and all the movement in the space goes for that goal.

Upon closer examination, these incumbents and their hordes of followers are in some kind of trouble. Their game cannot go on like this. It's coming time for a reversal where it's exposed how the incumbents are shortchanging their followers, inferior to some of the new entrants and missing out on the next party. The trouble they gotten themselves into may show up as:

1. passing on soaring costs while delivering less value for the money spent (think higher ed tuition & fees, cable TV rates)
2. shooting their own messengers who bring news of customers' rampant dissatisfaction and unmet needs (think Wall Street financiers, losing politicians)
3. forcing customers to buy into feature creep and excessive sophistication (think software developers, conventional auto model years)
4. making customers jump through more hoops and endure increasing inconvenience (think cell phone contracts, health insurance paperwork)
5. punishing the customers as if they are the real enemies (think credit card penalties, medical testing requirements)
6. misrepresenting their offer and exaggerating their value (think for-profit colleges, loan sharks)
7. exploiting a captive market and price-gouging their customers (think college textbooks, academic journal subscriptions)

When we recognize any of these kinds of trouble, it's time to celebrate their goal posts being set in cement. There will be no end to incumbents playing their game to the bitter end. Meanwhile, new goal posts can be located where it makes no sense to them and poses no threat to them. They won't get it until it's too late. The trouble they're in will keep them distracted and devoted to trying to overcome their setbacks.

As new entrants, we're free to move the goal posts. We can out-maneuver the incumbents' persistence, like dolphins encircling a shark. Their troubles become our opportunities to do a better job of providing value at a fair price with added convenience, more responsiveness and greater understanding of customers' concerns. The opportunities appear so obvious to us, we wonder why the incumbents don't get it. However, if they got it, they would not have those troubles in the first place and their game could go on indefinitely. They're the ones bringing an end to their control of the space. Their troubled incumbency invites new players to change the game and throw the next party.

CC Photo by lopolis

Being really different

Any effective, competitive strategy aims to be exceptional. If it comes across as similar to rivals, it fails to stand out from the crowd of copy cat imitators. Yet, we're deeply afraid of being really different amidst pressures to conform, fit in and toe the line. We instinctively crave acceptance by our herd, solidarity with our tribe and immunity to  their rejection. We often assume that we'll get ignored, shunned or dismissed if were too different. We hurt our own chances of acceptance if we're so weird that our "customers" don't get what we're trying to say, deliver and get to happen.

When what we're offering appears too similar to our rivals' value propositions, we've set up population ecology dynamics. We will experience "survival of the fittest" while customers, journalists, suppliers and the labor market all function as our predators.  We'll be faced with over-populated spaces where we get lost in the crowd and vulnerable to local extinction.

When we're really different, we create protected niches for our kind of deal. We do our deal in ways that helps others do their deal too. What we offer lets our recipients offer it to others. We set up the equivalent of replicator genes in our product/service mix. We give the gift that keeps on giving. We become a breeding ground for a new species that thrive while rivals barely survive.

Umair Haque suggests we become really different by following "Strategy's Golden Rule": "What your fiercest rival does badly, do incredibly well." That will be really different from our rivals. In Competing for the Future, Hamel and Prahalad encouraged us to be really different by:

1. getting to the future first while rivals wait for the future to arrive to make a safer change
2. learning faster from our strategic alliances and collaborations while rivals conduct "business as usual"
3. cultivating core competencies while rivals cultivate efficiencies and leaner operations
4. leveraging apparent disadvantages while rivals play to their own strengths

These are all ways to do exceptionally well whatever rivals do badly. The approaches recognize opportunities to try smarter while most are simply trying harder to complete, play by the rules and chase after incremental improvements. Each require that we have a vision for the future to co-create with those we serve and find will reward us for our efforts. We'll gain lots of fans while getting shunned by envious rivals. These fans will replicate our value in their own contexts and communities. They will appear valuable thanks to us.

Getting others to join

When we've got a cause, project, group or community, we will want others to join our deal. A few will already be waiting for an invitation and leap at the chance to become a participant. Some of the others are hesitating until there is enough social proof to jump on the bandwagon. These two camps can be enrolled by simply making a good offer, putting out an enticing invitation or delivering a valuable experience. The word will spread and joining our deal will catch on like wildfire.

This is a long-shot strategy because it expects people to share common interests which will remain stable for an extended period of time. This strategy relies on creating superior features and benefits that appeal to large numbers of like-minded individuals. It fails to appeal to people who are disinterested, already invested elsewhere, turned off by previous experiences or looking for variations on the commonly accepted deal. It misses any moving target that requires keeping sights on where unfolding changes are headed. As I explored previously, this strategy can also kill the viral launch.


An enrollment strategy becomes more effective by going after more diverse, special interests presumed to be in flux. It enacts a paradox of broadening the offer's appeal by going after more incompatible and evolving interests. It outgrows merely formulating an effective strategy to give strategies to others, get strategies from others and co-create strategies with others. Here are three of the opportunities to give others a viable strategy.

1. Those who are heavily invested in other commitments may need an exit strategy. They need to feel like they are right to be where they're at, while experiencing the tension of missing out on something valuable. They need a path to move forward without "throwing the baby out with the bath water" or "killing the goose that lays the golden eggs". Abandoning ship won't work for them any better than remaining stuck onboard a sinking ship. Offering a middle way will look to them like an effective exit strategy.
2. Those who been outcast, excluded or disregarded will need a migration strategy. They will likely be stuck in misery, feeling sorry for themselves and seeking commiseration. Nothing will look appealing, inviting or useful to them. They need to feel understood, respected and validated. Once they get back the feeling of standing on their own two feet, they can take a stand in favor of joining. They will see a way to migrate from misery to satisfaction. 
3. Those who have been burnt by previous commitments will need a turnaround strategy. They will be facing their past, predicting more of the same old story, and blind to the changing opportunities ahead of them. They need to start where they're at, regain a sense of direction and restore their desire to make progress. An encounter with someone who's not "booking their next guilt trip" can get them off their own case of self contempt, regrets and worries. They will then make the switch from "no" to "yes" and from "backwards" to "forwards" movement. 

When we give others an strategy like these, we give more than that. We send a message that we see them much like they see themselves. We get the experience they are creating. We relate to them in a way that suggests how joining us will serve their interests. They become enrolled in ways that set them up to enroll others. We plant a seed that grows beyond what we can do personally.

Evolving into P2P strategies

Over the weekend, I finished reading a wonderful new book: What's Mine is Yours - The Rise of Collaborative Consumption. Rachel Botsman and Roo Rogers show us how we're actively migrating away from our excessively ownership-oriented economy. Michel Bauwens and Massimo Menichinelli raised my curiosity about this book which is deeply aligned with the P2P Foundation's trajectory. This morning I've been visualizing how P2P strategies emerge from the widespread, personal realizations of surpluses which can be shared, swapped, rented or redistributed. As I see it, realized surpluses is a highly evolved condition which results from previous phases of economic development.



Exploitative strategy: When something new becomes available for consumption, there are shortages due to many factors. Production and distribution capacity may initially be small. Access to constituent elements may be limited. Talent or expertise for creating it may be in short supply. Any of these factors create the possibility of exploiting the demand for the offer with higher prices, restricted access, or imposing terms.

Extortive strategy: As more supply gets generated, privatized interests in profiteering seek to create an illusion of ongoing or new scarcities. They may create a window of opportunity to be closed after a short time period. They may create planned obsolescence or undermine backwards compatibility with previous versions. This forces the buyers to ante up for the latest or vanishing offer.

Competitive strategy: As an abundance of supply gets produced, there are rival offers to outwit. There are many ways to be superior or different which necessitates the consumers shopping wisely. This induces a consumer culture where massive amounts of time get spent learning what's available, sorting out conflicting claims, identifying desired attributes and acquiring the latest, greatest thing. This overemphasis on purchasing yields a decline in personal satisfaction, economic sustainability and community vitality.

P2P strategy: Anyone who has over-consumed may eventually realize their own surplus of goods, tools,  living space or other resources. With the facilitation of their trust among strangers, awareness of availability and access to convenient outlets, widespread sharing takes hold. Underutilized things get transformed into convenient access, less consumption, supplemental income and vitalized communities. Consumerism erodes and collaborative dynamics takes it's place.

This is very good news for all of us inclined to save the planet, revitalize communities, increase consumer justice and/or reinvent capitalism. Ownership breeds surpluses, sharing and reduced consumption.

Opportunities to give

We often formulate strategies to GET more customers (fans, friends, subscribers, clients, patients, projects, etc.) revenue, visibility, or resources. We're thinking we'll have to give some time, money or services to GET what we're pursuing. So we figure we've balanced the equation of giving and getting. We not getting what we seek for free or giving away our deal for free either.

This equation is changing before our eyes. We're formulating more strategies to GIVE. Some are giving back after earning large sums of money. Others are giving a version of their product/service for free to create the following that migrates into paid versions of the offer. Some are giving away their talents to build reputations for serving, caring, knowing and collaborating effectively. Others are giving time and efforts to get familiarity, practice, connections and experience within a domain they seek to work in.

All this giving involves a different drive from strategies to get what we seek. Giving involves intrinsic motivations (self motivation) since there's no immediate reward to chase after. The giving process pays in ways that others cannot see or understand. We're being our selves when we give in these ways. It pays to be transparent about our process in order to be more trusted.

Opportunities to give will show up on our radar when we know of people and their situations in detail. We will see what is particularly needed, not working or getting left undone. We will discern how we can lend a hand, make a difference and ease others' burden. The way we jump in will get their attention, respect and appreciation. We won't need to sell our expertise or our capabilities. Those will "sell themselves" by how they make the difference, take effect or impact the situation. We will deploy an indirect strategy that gets us rewarded intrinsically immediately and extrinsically in the long run.

Questions of strategy & identity

Who do you think you are to be deploying a clever strategy? What's gotten into you to think you can succeed by planning ahead, assessing your risks and improving your chances? How can you be yourself and also deploy strategic thinking when you're faced with opportunities or obstacles?

These are questions in the intersection of strategy and identity. When we formulate strategies while disregarding our identities, we usually set ourselves up for failure. The incongruence between our way to succeed and who we are results in our sabotaging the planning and/or execution. We try to get where we want to go, but end up nowhere or somewhere else.

When strategic thinking seems like a big struggle, it seems that we already have to much on our plate to consider "identity issues". We get overwhelmed by considering all those questions to come up with a winning strategy. It may even appear to our agitated outlook that addressing our identity will weaken our position, make us vulnerable to setbacks and fall short of competitive advantages. In other words, identity issues usually appear self-indulgent and excessively introspective. However, when we can get around that obstacle in our thinking, we become free to explore those questions in the intersection of strategy and identity.

When we're deploying a clever strategy, we've identified ourselves as winners. We validate our ambitions as worthy of success and support. We see the impact of our succeeding as good for ourselves and others. We see the value in winning to our self-confidence. We expect to be more courageous, resourceful and spontaneous as a result.

When we're strategically assessing opportunities, risks and rewards, we've identified what we've got working in our favor. We think we can overcome our hesitation, past history and other hang-ups by becoming more strategic. We own our capabilities to think strategically as if it's "what we do" and "who we are".

When we get what differences it makes to combine these questions of strategy and identity, we're being ourselves to go into that intersection. There's no role conflict or opposing urges to protect us from selling out, being enslaved or getting stepped on by others. We can be ourselves while being strategic - no problem!

Got a winning strategy?

This morning I'm full of questions to help you get into thinking strategically without any advice from me. Take a look:

1. Got a place you want to get to that's better than where you're at right now? Got a feeling of what it will be like to be there? Got ideas about what difference it will make to you and others to be in that place? If so you've got a mission in need of some effective strategies.
2. Got some opportunities to make a move toward that place? Got a clear path, allies to help you get there or a map of the territory? Got ways of seeing the familiar in a unfamiliar way or lenses that reveal more than others see? If so, you've got a chance of succeeding at getting there. 
3. Got some resources to help you get to that place? Got the time and energy to take advantage of those resources? Got your mind set on making this a priority over other pursuits? If so, you've got some strengths working in favor of getting there. 
4. Got some obstacles in your way as you move toward that place? Got some ideas for getting around them, defeating them or diminishing their effect on you? Got ways to exploit the predictability, obvious tactics or blind spots of those obstacles? If so, your strategy may respond effectively to whatever adversity you encounter.
5. Got some vulnerabilities that others could exploit? Got some awareness of your own fixations, insecurities and patterns of self-sabotage? Got some ways to turn those weaknesses into hidden strengths and surprising maneuvers? If so, your strategy can delude the opposition to become over-confident and indifferent to you.

Got all five sets of questions answered adequately? You've got a winning strategy.

Culture eats strategy

Any strategy is a commitment to what is going to happen. A strategy is built upon projections, assumptions and yet-to-be-proven premises. There's no way a strategy can leave everything up in the air and make a move toward a desired future. The role of improvising, that I explored on Friday, must be partial, not comprehensive. Sustainability requires lots of stability and continuity, as well as adaptability and spontaneity.

This underlying set of commitments makes strategies extremely edible to a variety of cultures that impact the success and survival of an enterprise. This pattern of "culture eating strategy" is most evident at the aggregate scale of industry players, but it also applies to us individually.

The difficulty with addressing this issue is how invisible culture is to each of us. We get captivated by our own cultures. We take them for granted and assume there's nothing to question about their influences on us. It's in that way that they begin to nibble on strategies and eventually eat them for breakfast lunch or dinner.

Strategies for breakfast: The consumer culture is aware it's a new day. With all the new toys and tools buzzing about, it's time for a sunrise breakfast. The glut of innovations, welcomed changes and trends make it easy to devour slightly obsolete product and service strategies with caffeinated gusto. The high churn world of new fads and faces gets easily made into toast.

Strategies for lunch: The incumbent culture of established enterprises, industry standards and barriers-to-entry -- eagerly chows down on start-up strategies for lunch. For incumbents, it's the middle of the day with no sunset anytime soon. The incumbent culture seasons large helpings of new value propositions, business models and market niches with snarky cynicism about what's "realistically" in-demand, marketable and profitable.

Strategies for dinner: The internal, bureaucratic culture of established enterprises consumes their own strategy changes for dinner. The end is near - just as they fear. It's time to dig in their heels and protect their fragile business-as-usual. No cost-cutting, right-sizing or increased efficiencies will pass the test of "invented here" or "good for job security". New strategies are seen as "dead enough to stick a fork in them" before they're ever announced by top execs as "the only way to survive".


With three different cultures functioning as hungry predators, strategy formulation needs some heavy-duty biomimicry in order to survive the jungle out there. Besides the conventional fight or flight, there's camouflage, deterrence, evasion, stalking and coordinated flank attacks.

Improvisational strategizing

There's a time for making big plans and a time for winging it. The trick is to know which time it is right now. Corporations, institutions and NFP's may have departments for formulating strategies. They will say it's always time for making big plans because their paychecks depend on it. However, it's time for improvisation when situations are in flux.

Real Time Strategy (RTS) games are my favorite genre of the games I play on computers. Playing them teaches me, when scheming how to obtain higher scores or reach higher levels, that any big plans I concoct are doomed. The games have enough AI built in to detect my predictable conduct and then throw a monkey wrench into my "best laid plans". Games help us evolve into resilient strategists amidst turbulent situations. We learn to wing it in ways that work. That's very different from acting carelessly or hopelessly.

Chapter Six of Garr Reynold's first book: Presentation Zen, he reveals the wake up call he got in this regard. Working for Sumitomo in Japan in the mid-90's, he encountered the case-by-case approach used by managers. This contradicted his fondness for goal setting and executing plans. But as he became involved in designing presentations for clients, he realized the wisdom in relying on improvisation. His appreciation grew to include much more complexity, variability and unpredictability in clients, their messages and their audiences. He became a better designer by letting go of preconceptions, plans and big ideas. He learned to empty his mind and let what comes to mind serve the present situation.

This week on the Harvard Business Review blog, Rosabeth Moss Kanter wrote: Adopt a Cow - Strategy as Improvisational Theater. When actors depart from scripts or jazz musicians mess with the sheet music, they do what we need to do when improvising strategies. Kanter explored this in her recent book: Evolve - Succeeding in the Digital Culture of Tomorrow. She gives us lots of links in her blog post to further this idea of winging it effectively..

One other resource for improvisational strategizing is a book by Rob Austin and Lee Devin: Artful Making: What Managers Need to Know About How Artists Work. I found this book to be chock full of great ideas. Here's a few worth considering as we become more improvisational:

• relying on emergence
• replacing sequential processes with iterations, cycling
• turning the concept of control upside down
• embracing uncertainty instead of protecting against it

Now let's see if we can make up today as we go along.

Improving the feasibility of strategies

When we're utilizing our strategic thinking, it's easy to explore questions of feasibility. We want the strategies we're formulating to be doable and their intended outcomes to be likely. When strategies prove to be infeasible, they may be too challenging, costly, time consuming, over-reaching or long ranged to get accomplished. Their intended outcomes may be too far-fetched, dicey or speculative to get realized. Working on the feasibility improves our ability to execute and succeed while taking risks.

Feasibility is often a question of balance. Here are some of the tradeoffs involved when formulating more feasible strategies:

1. How much short term "fire fighting" to include with long term "fire prevention"?
2. How many ambitious undertakings to pursue weighed against the dangers of biting off more than we can chew?
3. How many people to get involved while being wary of setting up scattered efforts or huge coordination issues?
4. How much effort to put into making things happen compared against seeing the trends to align with and letting helpful changes occur on their own?
5. How direct to be in confronting obstacles weighed against becoming too obvious, aggressive or antagonistic which can make the obstacles worse?
6. How long to persist with a disappointing course of action while being cautious not to dig a much deeper hole for ourselves?
7. How often to question our strategy's feasibility without falling into stagnation induced by too much introspection?

Each of the questions offers no easy answers. They call for knowing our situations with great insights, multiple perspectives and acceptance of contradictions. When we becomes stressed, singled minded and very determined, we're poised to undermine the feasibility of our strategies. There's no may to make effective tradeoffs while wearing blinders, adopting tunnel vision and fixating on single issues. Feasibility gets improved by spending time above the level of strategic thinking.

Reading strategies in use

There's so much to see when we watch another person, team or enterprise execute it's strategy. We can see more than those who are caught up in their strategy. With enough experience to recognize patterns, we can see what they're missing, over-emphasizing and downplaying. We can catch the contradictions between what they claim is their strategy and what other strategy is actually reflected in their conduct.

The more practice we get reading others' strategies in use, the better our chances become of detecting our own. We can question the approaches we're taking without stirring up tons of anxiety. Rather than assume we're doing the best we can under our circumstances, we can consider reformulating our strategies. If we can see ourselves through others' eyes, we will notice more of what we usually taken for granted. We will welcome questions like the following to get a good read on our own strategies in use:

1. What are we relying upon as contributing factors to our success and how reliable are these supports?
2. What are we thinking the customers (users, clients, etc.)  will value, buy into and appreciate enough to tell others?
3. How close is our thinking about perceived value with those who's thinking we're counting on to appreciate our strategy?
4. How different is our strategy from those we're getting compared to in the selection process by potential customers?
5. How difficult are those differences between strategies to understand, accept, find uses for and tell others about?
6. How obvious are our strategies to others who are judging our determination, insight, innovation and concern with others' interests?
7. How subtle are our intentions to rivals who could want to copy our innovations, imitate our strategies or match our offers?

These are difficult questions to answer when we're caught up in doing the best we can with what we've got. We don't want to go there and think about strategic alternatives. That's why it takes practice reading others strategies. It becomes a routine we can execute with little anxiety. It becomes an outlook we accept as useful for becoming more successful. Then it becomes something we can do for ourselves too, like it's no big deal.