10 Branding Tips for CEOs

To begin with note that where the CEOs personal vision doesn't align with the company's vision the brand will eventually fail.

1. You are the first brand ambassador of your firm

2. Your personal brand is as important as your corporate brand

3. Communicate your brand's value in simple English. (Simplify) succinctly

4. Wear your brand daily

5. Find out how consumers perceive your brand

6. Know what people like most and dislike about your brand

7. Invest in Employer Branding

8. Never neglect Social Media as part of your brand LinkedIn is a MUST for CEOs)

9. Your private and public life are interrelated as long as you are the head.

10. Stay transparent, stay trusted!

Bernard Kelvin Clive is Personal Branding Coach/ Amazon bestselling author of “How to Repair Your Broken Brand & Manage Your Reputation” plus over twenty-five published books.

Read More

How Startup Brands Can Survive in the Digital Disruptive Age

The four C’s that SMSs and Startup Brands must utilize to make it in this age;

1.      Content: you must have content, as it’s said “content is king”, however not just any content, you must have relevant content which your audience will crave for, that meets their needs.

Your content must be timely; there is nothing worse than dead news, so ensure that you deliver your content when it’s needed. You need content that has been tested and trusted; the fact that content is required doesn’t imply throwing unverified, untrusted information out there.

2.      Connection: the first stage is to have relevant, trusted, timely content. The next step is to build meaningful connection with your audience; that is your market, fans and followers. Businesses thrive on relationships. Take time to build key relationships. Having great content that doesn’t resonate with your audience is futile, so by constantly engaging with your audience you will better understand their needs and wants which will enable you provide tailored made solutions for them.

3.      Contacts: from your connection you step up your game by establishing key contacts; connecting with influential people who can help push your business/brand to the next level. Some of them are the gatekeepers in the industry which you seek to penetrate, without them it will be difficult to breakthrough such barriers. Your contacts are the people who have the ability and capacity to help you in various ways. They are influential in their various fields. Take time to make such contacts.

4.      Contracts: your contacts should enable you get other clients, repeat business, and contracts. This is the last stage of the process of sustaining your business/brand in this age. Businesses exist to make profit (whatever that means to your business). Most often than not, it’s your contacts that will lead you to your contracts. That is to say your key relationships/influencers are the ones who will bring business to you. If you build this properly, your business will thrive, if not you will be firing arrows without hitting your target.

In conclusion, take note that big brands can readily afford mass media promotion to compete with price but as a small business owner and startup, focus on delivering outstanding offer with excellent customer experience to win. To survive in business today requires that you keep this cycle running constantly; to have something of value to offer – content, to build a bridge with your content – connection, to connect with key influencers – contacts, to get income coming through them – contracts.

Bernard Kelvin Clive is an Amazon bestselling author of REBRAND: The Ultimate Guide to Personal & Corporate Branding & Rebranding, and over twenty-five published books. A Personal Branding Coach, Brand Strategist at BKC Consulting. He has consulted for and helped hundreds of authors locally and internationally to self-publish books and build author brands. Ghana's foremost authority on Personal branding and Digital Publishing who hosts the #1 iTunes ranked Business & Career Podcast in Ghana. www.BKC.name 

Read More

Leadership duality— Encourager vs Challenger

In my recent article on leadership in which I made a point about the difference between effective and efficient leadership, I pointed us to effective leadership as the better option if change was desired. This article is a necessary installment intended to deal with the next stage of leadership i.e. guiding others (or leading if you like) through the new territory. This is based the premise established in the previous article; that leaders set the pace or lead the way in a particular area—it is what makes a leader. It is in this realm that such matters as leadership styles become worthy of the microscope.

Any reader of Lee Roberson is familiar with the expression; everything rises and falls on leadership. It is also a well-accepted notion that Leadership is cause and everything else is effect. Whiles much has be written and taught about leadership styles with so many different theories being thrown about, I find two attitudes showing up in my own experiences and observation; challenging and encouraging. 

To most people it is always the nice guy who is the most attractive. In many success stories, there is always that leader who encouraged someone to do something and how lucky they were to have met that individual. The encourager is loved because of his seemingly calm and loving nature. He is accepting of people’s weaknesses and encourages them to do what they think they can. People want to be treated nicely, feel loved and respected—the encourager model serves this purpose perfectly.

In a recent attempt to teach a lady friend how to drive, I found myself failing woefully simply because, I was not using the encourager model. You see I am more the bad guy type. The kind of guy who will throw you a challenge and expect you to rise to the occasion after having sold you the idea that I wouldn’t ask you to do it if didn’t think you could. The challenger doesn’t want what you think you can do, he wants what he believes you can do. The challenger wants to work with people who have a will to do things (transcend themselves) not those who need to be convinced to do thing. That’s the challenger guy and he is not the most popular.

The challenger is usually (not always) quite low on socio-emotional competence. He is more performance oriented and less people sensitive. He is not concerned that you havn’t had lunch and that your child has a headache. Nobody likes people like that but the fact remains, it is results that make great people and for that reason alone a focus on performance instead of comfort may be the winning formula. The larger point however, is that leadership is not for everyone (don’t look so shocked).  A leader is a game changer—he charts a course —a new course and from all indications a majority of people do not do that. Those who change the game are constantly in the face of challenges. It is the ability to rise above a challenge that sets them apart putting them in the lead creating something that others will emulate. A person who has trouble with challenges can therefore only follow such persons with pain. Yet a leader cannot be a leader unless he has followers who he must guide on this path. People have needs and that includes comfort and love. We also know that people are their best when they are comfortable in what they are doing. So that it is clear that the two models have merits and demerits. The most versatile leader will know not only how to throw a challenge but also how to encourage followers to take them up without threatening their self-esteem.

If you are an encourager, then encourage more while recognizing the need for throwing a challenge. On the other hand a challenger must challenge while encouraging where it is needed. As is always the case; one may be stronger in one area than the other, this is fine and decides what kind of followers he assembles. If John C. Maxwell is right, then a leader must aim to raise other leaders. What kind of a leader will you train, how will you do it and why? Go lead with high performance!

Read More

End poverty—did we miss the mark again?

I came very close to calling the World Bank End Poverty Campaign event held at the University of Ghana recently another patronizing charade. But for the fact that there were highly intelligent individuals who have demonstrated great capability in many areas on the panel, I am sure I would have stuck to my conclusion. When you have the likes of Tony Onyemaechi Elumelu   (Heirs holdings, the united bank of Africa, Transcorp, Tony Elumelu foundation); Forbes’ one of the 20 most powerful men in Africa on the panel, you tread cautiously. You might be missing something. We do not have many of such men on the continent and for that reason; we have a responsibility to protect the few we have. And yes, such men and women can be instrumental in our fight against poverty. But should we be fighting poverty in the first place?

I am in all candidness deeply concerned about the notion that agribusiness is the way forward as far as this end poverty thing goes. Apparently the figures for what they are worth, prove that young people are actually interested in agribusiness since 30% of applications to the Tony Elumelu foundation entrepreneurship program actually needed support to grow their agribusinesses (one would have thought that meant that we were already in agribusiness). This might be true but does it really support the idea that agribusiness is the way forward. One cannot help but to wonder what the other 70% of the applications were about but since we do not have the benefit of adequate information a degree of deductive reasoning must be resorted to.

Ghana’s very own Professor Nana Opoku Agyemang who happens to be minister of education on her part insisted that Women and children are the most vulnerable. Groundbreaking information! How about a more detailed analysis of the issue of poverty itself and not the group you think it affects the most? I am leaving the children out of the equation for now but is poverty really a gender issue? Is your country itself by accepted standards not poor and is that because we allowed the women to live in poverty?

Dr. Kim Yong Kim of the World Bank group (is that a Bretton woods institution or is it just me?) thinks it is the poor child living in and around rural areas between the ages of 0-5 that we should be concerned about. He insisted: “It is the height of unfairness to relegate children under the age of 5 to never being able to learn. Children have to be able to learn anything and quickly. We have to dedicate a huge portion of our operations to the achievement of this objective”. (Really? Show me) But the question is this; are we going to simply put the children in school or are we going to empower the parents to make sure they handle their responsibilities?

Dr. Kim adds ; “this is the most important thing I can tell you, the Korea of 1959 is now the Africa of 2015, we talk about Africa rising but in quiet conversations we hear all kinds of talk about impossible, you know what we hear from the prime minister about DRC lots of people were saying that’s impossible. Don’t ever believe and certainly don’t believe it by yourselves”. Erm, Africa is a continent Dr. Kim.

Mr. Akinwumi Adesina’s (President of the African Development Bank) view is not nothing near unorthodox; Agribusiness and technology is Africa’s best bet at reducing poverty. “65% of all the world’s arable lands are not in Asia, Latin America, but right here in Africa, great sunshine, great water, and cheap labour. You throw anything up, it comes down it grows”.  Yeah… thank you very much! We did not know that. Their final words did not add much;

Dr. Adesina: just end it. Well… How?
Dr. Kim: listen to young people and listen to the women. Oh Thanks but were they represented on your panel?
Opoku Agyemang: focus on quality education delivered in the right medium. Who will do that again? And are you saying these won’t be necessary if we weren’t s poor? Bright Simons has a few words for you on that language thingy.

Tony Elemelu at least gave us five factors on getting out of poverty; “hard work, enabling environment, discipline, culture of saving, long term thinking, aligning with people with similar perspective”. The first two; sound like something from an economic text book. But one can almost be certain that if hardwork made people billionaires, 98% of women in Africa will be billionaires ahead of Tony Elemelu. Nobody pays you for how hard you have worked; they pay you for what you have produced. Enabling environment however, is another matter altogether; it just doesn’t exist but we have to at least continue our search for it. The rest are just the usual you hear from motivational speaking sessions. It will be refreshing to learn that Mr. Elemelu saved his way to billions; that will at least provide some comfort in that direction.

The source of worry is simple; one cannot be so sure what purpose an event like this with all its pomp was supposed to serve. Maybe it is just useful to keep talking but if anyone is really interested in eradicating poverty (and I have reached a disturbing level of skepticism on the matter), they must first stop telling us that agribusiness is the way out. In America, less than 2% of the population is involved in agriculture, in Africa, some 65% is. The difference is that the American farmer is a billion times more productive. Perhaps we do not need to be told we ought to be in agriculture, we are already in it, always have been. For most of Africans, we return to the land when other things don’t work out. We have always been in it and if things don’t change soon, we are seriously considering migration.

But here is the thing though, if the idea that how one thinks about something determines how he deals with it is anything to go by, then we must stop looking at what we do and start thinking about how we do things. Africans always find something to do. Our “vulnerable” women are working hard in the markets and in the streets amidst the threats to their well-being often perpetuated by government and its agents. It is how they do what they do that is the bone of contention.

Walking through one of our many slums recently, I counted 6 traditional drinks; Brukina, lamugii, Asana, Ice-Kenkey, Sobolo, Shitor-daa, Nme-daaa. I am told there are many others. None of these drinks have made it to commercial levels and they have been around for a while. There is clearly a viable market for these products. A small study of Kenkey sellers and how they do their busin6ess (and they DO NOT think of themselves as business people and potential billionaires) revealed some obstacles to wealth creation. They all insist on making their own Kenekey. It turns out most of them are not good at making Kenkey (the process is nowhere near simple) yet they refuse to buy from those who make better Kenkey and resell. Or perhaps it hadn’t occurred to them that they could do that and possibly make more money. On the other hand, those who are good at making it do not even realize their competitive advantage so they do not capitalize on it to expand by making retailers out of their weaker competitors. Because of this, Kenkey making still remains a cottage industry even in the heart of the city whiles still remaining the nation’s number one meal. These are real thought problems that when addressed can unlock the wealth trapped within communities.

It is known that the way out of poverty is a positive motivation not a negative one. Negative is flight (trying to get out of a situation) positive is fight (making your way to an aspiration). Wealth creation mentality might just be the best thought system for ending poverty. Citizens must be led to think about aspirations—what they could be and how they could be it.

One must stress the point that we are not short of things to do; our issues are more to do with how we do it. Those who insist on agribusiness must at least see if they can promote the making small mechanical equipment with the engines and hydraulics that have been developed by Safo Kantanka in the hope of improving the performance of the average farmer.

These are the reasons why we think a project like SPiD-UP extremely important. Each African must be conscious of what we do and how we do it. We must insist on being the best we can be regardless of what we have chosen to do with our lives. We must see the world standards and want to meet or beat it. This is a way of thinking and it has to be said; it was to be the new African that Nkrumah wanted to create.

Those who claim they want to end poverty must therefore, of necessity turn to performance consciousness. Without that, we will put 80% of our people into agribusiness and end up worsening the conditions. This is easy to predict with the benefit of antecedents. A change of pattern is needed and if Dr, Kim is serious about ending poverty, lets see some -more investment towards changing mindsets towards performance consciousness. 

Read More

Effective and Efficient —An unclear dichotomy?

It is very easy to confuse efficiency as the same as effectiveness. There is nothing farther from the truth. The two can quite easily be opposites if we take a closer look. In everyday language, we can easily say a person is efficient and actually mean they are effective.  Hopefully your view will be well-formed by the end of this article and you will begin to look for effectiveness and not efficiency.

Efficient actually means you are good at keeping things the way they are—you meet the standard. There is a system and a standard in place, you follow it very well enough not to upset it. So that most people are in fact efficient (normal or average performers) and form the 80% of the population that keep things the way they are. As long as we remain efficient in what we do, we will get good results but nothing will change. There will be no breaking of new grounds. This is detrimental to human progress as by nature, the world itself is in a perpetual state of growth and nothing stays the same. The mobile phone in your hand has not always been the way it is. It has been continuously changed by effective people who consistently sought to improve.  It is normal for people to be born into the world, live and die. That is normal and a person can get very good at living life efficiently without making any real difference. Efficient leadership therefore, actually keeps us where we are— maintaining the status quo.

Effective on the other hand is another matter altogether. There are certain individuals who’s very presence challenges everyone and everything around them. They know not another way to live but to change things for the better. Such persons are responsible for the progress mankind enjoys. As soon as they become a part of something, that thing must change. It is the reason they are referred to as game changers. These are the effective people— the 10% responsible for raising the bar for everyone else to catch up. They are peak performers.

So that we can easily see what can be described as an effective leader and efficient leader. It is the difference between a person who got into a position and a person who actually lead the way with something they did. Effectiveness is what Jesus meant when he said “you are the salt of the earth”. Salt by nature is an effective change agent. You know immediately when the food is missing salt just as you know when Barcelona is missing Messi. When a person is born into the world, he must leave it improved—something about the world must be better or something of great benefit must come into existence because of his presence.

This then is the difference between being efficient and being effective. Most importantly it is imperative for every one of us to evaluate ourselves regarding our effectiveness. And if we are in a leadership position, ensure that we are true leaders and not position occupiers. What is the nature of your influence on the organization you are part of? How has that group changed for the better since you became part of it? May you receive grace to be the salt of any group you are a part of. May things begin to move because of you.
#spidup #hopemanexhortations

Read More

Capability the engine

If you are not new to my ramblings about performance, then you probably already know what role occupation plays in the quest for maximization of existence or peak performance for that matter. In uptimetrics, we describe it as the vehicle that must transport the agent to the set destination. From a practical viewpoint, destination is the goal a person sets for their existence (it is the ultimate determinant of a maximized existence). It answers the question; what one thing must you achieve for you to say you have given your best in life.

The description of occupation as a vehicle automatically proposes the need for an engine; a vehicle cannot move without a source of energy. That engine is capability. Capability for our purposes can be said to have four main cylinders—Talent, Skill, Interest and Traits. It is when these cylinders are well aligned and are all firing at their full capacities that the vehicle moves at full power. The importance of firing at full power is based on the premise that time is the only known unit for measuring existence and maximization of existence relies heavily on its optimum use.  

What you do + Quality(quality+quantity) of what you do / the length of Time in which you do it =Performance

Ok don’t let the math frighten you. I am not good at it ether. This simply means you have given it your best possible shot. The extension of this formula is the comparison to the best in the field but I shall desist from exploring that since that discussion is beyond the scope of this article. I am actually avoiding the Ecclesiastes 9:11 fanatics…for now. ;)

As a general rule however, the faster the vehicle the more likely it is for the goal to be reached and the less the time this is likely to be done in. Since one does not have the luxury of eternity, at least in this existence as we know it, it counts that you take the time factor into consideration and this depends directly on the power of your engine—capability. What can you do in a day? Not many of us have answered that question but a careful analysis will reveal that it is that simple answer, too often very hard to produce that will shape your whole existence.

Anyway, as you may already know, a well-oiled, well-functioning engine is critical for overall performance. Yet it is not the only determinant. It must be steered in the right direction and stopped when necessary. These two elements ensure that the capability engine remains an asset. A high performance vehicle is a death-trap without a good breaking and control system. There is an axiom for this; Great power must come with great responsibility. But that’s not the end of the story; there are also matters regarding weights or baggage (how much you are carrying along) which must be shed so the power of the engine is allowed to be what it really is. 

For a deeper understanding you need to read my theoretical foundation of peak performance which unfortunately is being rewritten at the moment—sorry. Stick around long enough and I might just give you a copy. In the meantime, spend some time thinking about your engine and how it is influencing your vehicle towards the possibility of maximizing your existence. #spidup

Read More

Dimensions of GOOD

Many are the thinkers who have treated good as an idea. The conclusions have not always been the same (You know how philosophers are). This is strange given the fact that good is an idea we deal with in every day activity—it is also what we all claim we represent. The consensus appears to be that; it is relative and only determined by the context of particular circumstances. What may be good for the goose may not be good for the gander after all. And what may be good today may not be good tomorrow. But don’t let me rock the boat too hard.

Think about this for a second; a person seeking justice will be very quick to point out that what is good for the goose is good for the gander and he may be right. But he will say so only because it helps his cause—it preserves his existence in one way or another. A person who is actually in the wrong, will refer to a judgement in his favour as good—it helps his cause. So in a typical scenario of opposing forces, there might be different definitions of what is good as it will be dependent on the cause it helps (in Plus-Thinking, we explore this notion in more detail). This may perhaps be the reason utilitarians turned to the idea of the general good i.e. that which promotes the larger cause of society though at the expense of one of its sub-components. This means a sacrifice of the individual for the larger good (perhaps that rings a bell).

While I personally like the idea of the general good, many of the scenarios that result from it are nothing short of petrifying. But I am digressing again aren’t I; the point of this article is to find a more humanly digestible understanding that can be applied in your daily activities as you map your way to high performance in your occupation and larger existence.

There are two levels to good which must be complied with if your output is to qualify as good. First is your very person; a good person is likely to produce a good product. This is based on the presumption that, a good person has good intentions and therefore creates good products. A beneficiary will describe your output as good because it helps their cause. But the question that arises is; is their cause good? The answer to that will be a resounding yes if we presume that the beneficiary is a good person who has good intentions. So that the goodness of the product is not simply because it serves a purpose well but more because the purpose it serves is good. We have seen that the larger good—the good that benefits the larger society is the ultimate good that must be aspired to. So that if the product meets the needs of the larger society is some way, it will be because it was put in place by a good person who by our understanding is good only because he has the needs of the larger society at heart even at the expense of his comfort.

Now, let’s not get carried away with the utilitarian thinking of which I am not exactly an aficionado by any stretch of the imagination. I am more the God kind of guy who, instead of saying larger good, will be happier placing God (the repository of all good) in the center of things much to the displeasure of one Richard Dawkins. If God is the repository of all goodness, then we must see how complying with his interest is what makes a good person who of necessity will put out a product that must meet the God standard. In effect, the single goodness of God when accepted makes a good person who puts out a good product that meets the need of the larger society.

We have seen from our research at the CSD that the high performing individual is a certain kind of personality with specific character traits (I shall treat this thought in more detail in a coming paper) which is akin to those proposed by scripture. Indeed we are yet to encounter any religion or spiritual path for that matter; that does not advocate goodness as the best way to exist. They all seek to develop devotees into such a personality. This substantiates the fact that any maximization of existence must begin with goodness and that the degree of goodness in that order determines the extent of the maximization of existence.

The high performing individual is a good guy. The better you are as a person the better your output and the better your life will be—all things being equal. It will be difficult to describe something as best without first passing it through the good stage. Be good at what you do but also do it for a good reason because you are a good person. After good comes better and best #spidup

If you Know anyone who is good at what they do, nominate them for the SPiD-UP high performance recognition program and we will reward them on your behalf.

Read More

Motivation VS Inspiration

Do you find some things really effortless and other things needing you to push yourself, and really focus on staying on task to complete?... You do. Everyone does from time to time, in one sense or another, but why? What's the difference?

Simply defined, motivation is driven from external forces- like expectations, deadlines, goals etc. Something that you don't intrinsically have, or are driven for example you need to be 'motivated' to do it, whether you motivate yourself, or you have someone else motivate you, like a coach or mentor or friend or lover etc.  Inspiration comes from within, and is much more powerful as a driver for behavior and ultimately results, yet inspiration &/or motivation alone don't equal results without action.

How many times have you had a fleeting moment of inspiration? An idea that at the time you had it, stirred up a deep positive feeling inside you, and in the next instant it was gone! Vanished into the depths of your biological filing system, no matter how hard you tried to recall it, you just couldn't, and the harder you triedthe harder it was to recall, until you just moved on.

One of the biggest keys to a fulfilled life is to act on your inspirations, like the great artists, engineers, architects, authors, thinkers, doers, leaders & changers of our time did and do. All of these people were driven not by motivation, but by inspiration, or in other words their ultimate purpose, the thing that no one told them to do, and everyone said they would never be able to do.

If you get a bucket and put one crab in the bucket, the crab will crawl out of the bucket. The crab is instinctually inspired to get out of the bucket and back to the ocean floor, where it knows it belongs and loves to be. BUT, you put two crabs in the same bucket and neither crab will get out....true story. You see, every time one of the crabs gets inspired enough to escape the limitations of the bucket, the other crab will reach up and pull it back down... 

So what is your purpose? What inspires you? Which is normally the point where a person will say either "I don't know" or they'll say what inspires them, followed by all the reasons they can't do it, based on the size of their bucket and all the crabs out there that keep them in the bucket. 

Inspiration doesn't have to mean changing the world, or going into business, or anything for that matter, it means what ever it means to you, whatever it is that provides you with real fulfillment. I have friends that are inspired to live very simple lives, completely off grid, and I can tell you they are happier than most other people that need to be continually motivated to do something that doesn't inspire them, but "pays the bills", but you can find inspirations in your everyday movements... if you look for them!

The bucket is your comfort zone. Your limiting beliefs about the world and what is possible, and the crabs are the external things that limit you (money, relationships, government, opportunity, privilege etc.) 

When things seem impossible think about this. The Earth is 4.6 billion years old.
If you scale this to 1B:1, or in other words down to 46 years, then the human race has been here for just 4 hours & The Industrial Revolution began just 1 minute ago!

Forget about what you think is possible, and start to think about what inspires you. Steve Jobs once said "I want a phone with one button..." and everyone said he was crazy - to which he replied "the people that are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones that do"

Step out of the bucket and into life, and if you have crabs, ask a coach for some inspirational crab removal cream...

_______________________
This article was contributed by John Fell. For more about the author click the link below; Click here

Read More

Different or Attention Seeking Disorder (ASD)

A few years ago, I wrote a rather long article that got me into a bit of trouble. It was titled; the demons that haunt originality. I have since been trying to develop it into a book, I have titled “down Demon Avenue”. But this hasn’t been as easy as I thought with the myriad of other books waiting to be completed. God is in control. The purpose of that article was to treat the idea of originality that in my opinion many people only make an attempt at; but never really attain. This is a tragedy of the serious kind. It got me into trouble because I mentioned the names of specific individuals as examples to bring my point home. I shall now attempt to make a similar point under a cloud of all the ambiguity I can muster at the inimical expense of my innate need to say things exactly as I see it.

Because the idea of originality is too broad for the purpose of this article, I shall focus on the idea of difference (being different and making a difference) which as far as I can see, is an aspect of the originality discussion. Nature itself thrives on diversity. We see the manifestation of this in the many different varieties it has of each entity. There are many different species of apples as there are of oranges. A larger variety is the citrus family and the much larger fruit family—yet they form a unit that integrates with other units to make a larger unit. No aspect of nature is without this diversity and no where do they not unite in one way or another. Yet it is the unity of this diversity that makes nature what it is in a plug and socket manner. What kind of life will this be if all the fruits were the same and had the same properties? So that nature needs this heterogeneity that it will unite into one working unit with many different players. Any attempt to deprive it of this difference is error. Let’s put that in the bag for now.

With the forgone as a premise therefore, we must see why it is required by nature that every one of its constituents be different, unique and original no matter how apparently similar and nature indeed makes the so by default. To be different therefore, one only has to simply allow the different and original that one already is—we have seen this in performance theory as a necessary ingredient.  The challenge most people have starts with the attempt at being different. Often when a person decides of their own accord to be different, they are forced to think up ways in which they can appear different from everybody else. This is not very difficult to achieve as a simple thing as walking around without shoes in a society where wearing shoes is the norm can make one significantly different in the immediate environment. Yet when we look far enough, we will quickly learn that there are others who already walk around without shoes. At that point what seemed different begins to lose its authenticity and starts straying towards normal in a certain sense. Walking around without shoes can easily be replicated by literally everyone. It is a falsity then to think that is how one is different from others. It is a learnt and created difference. It is attention seeking that became necessary because one somehow learnt that you can gain attention by being different. When it wears out, one will have to think up other ways in which they can be different.

For this group that tries to be different, they are often not very conscious of the effect of their actions and its consequences. What is most important to them is to gain the attention that being different or being seen to have challenged the status quo brings. It is a need being met by any means necessary and this is not different from a person who decides to rob others so he might feed his children. A musician who decides to perform stark naked in front of an audience will gain some attention no doubt. Possibly even world-wide fame and some have done that. However, we will have been attracted by a naked body or eccentric behavior and not great music. So perhaps this individual is not a real musician—his authenticity as a musician is then challenged by his own need to be different. His attempt at being different is actually a retrograde of civilization as we know it. Man left the walk-around-naked zone thousands of years ago because we decided that wearing clothes and shoes was the better option as far as our need for continuous improvement goes. As a matter of fact, all those who have made a difference did it with their clothes on. There is nothing special then about the act itself as it can be replicated by anyone and therefore not that different in essence. That which is different in essence cannot be replicated by another. Put that too in the bag.

Difference; when allowed to be what it is; brings humanity to a new level of progress its seeds rests within everyone. It is running the same one hundred meter sprint that many have ran for a millennia and bringing something new to it. Win it ahead of the elite, break the record and stand out. Be known as the only man who ran a sprint and actually slowed down in order to make room for a future breaking of your own record. A feat like this one can barely be achieved by simply showing up naked on the tracks. It is only with a certain capability (a unique combination of talent, skill, traits and interests) possessed by one person only. Of course the one who shows up naked will be remembered as the only one who showed up naked but that is as far as he will go. Should he break away from the pack and win the race by a significant margin, he would have made a real difference. However a person who has the capability to break records barely thinks about ways in which he can be different—he is already different.

My second concern is those who say that their life mission is to make a difference in the world. Fantastic! But they must by their occupation improve some aspect of our existence and be of benefit to many and not so much themselves. Benefit for the self is what most people do and hence we cannot claim difference when we do the same. It means going out there to do something phenomenal that inspires someone to do something too. Most importantly the conditions of others must change for the better because of something you did. So that beneficiaries can look at their situation at some point and say to themselves, I am different now because of something Mr. X did. Or perhaps an aspect of the world changed for the better because of something we have done. When we can make this happen, we can say that we have made a difference. It is for this reason that the expression change-maker can be equated to one who made a difference.

In conclusion, we should see that merely choosing to be different will not necessarily help us make a difference. To make a difference therefore, one has to just remain different. Simple as this is, it has eluded many. They therefore look outside of themselves for the solution to being different. This can only be described as a tragedy. The need to be different is ASD (Attention seeking disorder); it can be treated. Go make a difference with your already different self. #spidup
_________________________________________________________________________________
We are glad you stopped by. You may download your free copy of the Peak Performance Scrapbook here http://www.spid-up.com/p/books_19.html, its our gift to you

Read More

The Travesty of Second Nature

That something is referred to as second implies the existence of a first—the superior. So that, when it comes to one’s nature, what room is there for a second? Will this be necessary because one is unhappy with the true nature and for that reason is in need of a second? In my effort to answer a question that recently reached me by email, I turned to the Marriam-Webster dictionary to see what it has to say about the second nature idea. What I found was barely unexpected:

“something you can do easily or without much thought because you have done it many times before”

A rather trite phrase comes to mind very quickly; practice makes perfect. A very appealing idea and a common prescription by most motivational speakers. But practice in something you abhor is incredibly painful and requires an unreal helping of emotional labour. This affects the will to engage in the first place and one finds himself practicing in agony.  Concentration develops a heavy appetite for effort and very often the subject is reluctant to engage in practice in the practice that is to make perfect. Feedback also challenges the will by painting negative mental images of “I am not good at this”, or “I can never be good at this”. This is the result when the target nature that is to be second is in conflict with the true nature as is often the case. For no true nature will like to lose its place to second. This is conflict of the highest order.

The case however, is different when the subject is allowing his true nature to be trained towards its perfection. Practice in itself becomes an enjoyable experience ensuring that one is practicing more than others. Feedback is fantastic and it fuels confidence which returns more practice. The result is the very elusive cycle of performance.

After all, the titans of performance have already taught us that one must be more of what one already is to make peak performance a possibility. I.e. what you already are is a clue to what you must perfect through regular engagement. The high performer functions by his competitive advantage (his true nature). No second nature is as good as true nature and hence; he who functions by a second nature will at best be second only to others but to himself.

Peak performance is effortlessness and it comes from deep within when one has all conditions right. It is a simple matter of understanding and accepting what it is you are built for and functioning by it. On the football field, it is not so difficult to identify those who are naturally gifted and those who play with effort because they have learnt and practiced with hard work. I could give you two examples from Spain but I’d rather not. The idea of second nature is a tragedy to be avoided at all cost if one wishes to be their best. 

Read More

Understanding the Tri-Benefit Principle

In Uptimetrics© it is postulated that self-preservation is a key driving force behind all human behavior. Given that man is the dominant force on the planet this drive and its attendant thoughts and actions influence our environment in a miscellany of ways. And also because of the integrated nature of the universe itself, all things have an influence on other things in one way or another—NO! I won’t explain that; not in this article.

The tri-benefit principle is the next generation tool for self-preservation. Although the idea itself is not new, it is the understanding of it that has eluded the run of people.  It is the next big thing after the famous win-win idea. In fact the term Tri-benefit is simply a $20 world for win-win-win (notice the third win).

Prior to the win-win idea the majority of our specie functioned on the I-win-you-loose principle. It was thought then that the best way for one to perpetuate their own existence is to take from others and accumulate for one’s self. If necessary, the opponent must be eliminated. The place of others was not that important beyond serving our needs. Nietzsche and his cohorts might find this enchanting. It is the survival of the fittest idea and it is not sustainable as it is self-destructive. This is because in the long term when the one superman has eliminated everyone, he will be on his own. And since he cannot take from himself beyond what he has accumulated, he will bring the existence of the specie to an end. Sadly, many still practice this as it appears to have been wired as the first method for survival in all species-- instinct.

The next stage of human development saw the win-win idea brought to the front as the better method for self-preservation. With this thought system it was necessary to ensure that one’s opponent didn’t walk away with nothing as the deprivation of all opponents will ultimately mean (ceteris paribus) their demise which will in turn mean we are on our own. Because of the fact that the strength of any specie is directly dependent on the ability to collaborate, it is clear that we need the existence of others in order to perpetuate our own. And that our own existence is guaranteed by the continuous existence and strength of our entire specie. This works very well and it is evident that species who know how to collaborate are among the most thriving. 

The most advance idea of all is the tri-benefit principle which translates into win-win-win. The idea insists that there is a third (often silent) party to any transaction. This third party is the larger system that holds the two main parties together and makes the transaction possible in the first place. For this reason the two parties must not only think about themselves but also about the third party. Our classic example will be a business transaction between two businesses within a locality. They must pay taxes and levies to ensure that they both have a place to continue doing business.

In recent times, we have seen businesses taking an interest in the communities they work in. They are interested in matters to do with climatic changes and energy saving green solutions. They want their products and process to be not only customer friendly but also environmentally friendly. The reason is simple; in a matter of time they won’t have a place to operate anymore unless they are conscious of the environment enough to put some of their resources towards its maintenance. So now they research into safer production process in order to sustain the environment that makes them possible in the first place. They will continue to exist if the environment remains conducive.

Members of families must recognize that it is the family that makes them possible and that no matter how much progress they make by and for themselves, they are only as strong as the family they are a part of. It makes sense then that a fraction of their earning must find its way into the family’s well-being. Families who know how to manage its constituents well are among the most powerful. By this principle therefore people must be interested in contributing to all entities they are part off even in the smallest ways. From schools, to halls, to teams and tribes etc. we are all responsible in our own small ways for the groups we belong to.

Anyone who practices the tri-benefit principle understands that they must give something towards the welfare of the larger entity that holds everything together. If you are in church it will be your tithes and offering. If you are a citizen of a country it will be your taxes and CSR activities. If you trade in a foreign land, pay what is required of you. In a family it is your simple contributions towards its welfare. Modern businesses recognize this and make an effort in this new direction. When you are in a boat, it wise to ensure its safety as your own life and that of others depend on it. The tri-benefit principle is the future as it does not only ensure your own existence but that of others and the environment you are both part of. Man who hunted other species indiscriminately now thinks about preserving them. He is wiser and knows now that his true source of power and influence is not dependent on what he can take from others but instead what he can give.

What you do for yourself benefits only you and barely attracts appreciation from others. What you do for another person might attract their appreciation. What you do for the community is likely to attract the appreciation of the whole community. For peak performers, this is often the goal. The more people who benefit from our existence, the more useful we are. Driven by this idea, even the products we create must meet the needs of many people in an environmentally friendly manner for us to be truly wealthy. The maximization of any existence will be challenged in an insensitive environment and the environment is only as sensitive as we make it.

Read More

Simple’s Complexity

After my rant and rave about simplicity, I have had a few sleepless nights on the matter as is my custom when something I have said comes back haunting in karma style. I have always had a great deal of respect for people who practice what they preach and as the God of Abraham is my witness, I do make a fair attempt of my own. But my attempt at keeping things simple all the time has not always yielded the expected results. Do people really want simple? I think the answer is a YES but must be preceded with a very long …errrrrm trailed by an endless scratch on the head. Think about it carefully. Have you ever told some one that you didn't like them? You will think that will be considered honest, straight to the point and most of all; simple. Nop...you get absolutely no applause whatsoever for that kinds of comment.

No I have not made a turn around. First of all, it takes complex to (Make that the one thing you must walk away with from reading this article). What brought the iPad to its one-button simplicity is nowhere near simple. I mean think about the number of things that needed to happen for the product to be created. The years of R & D and the number of people and resources it took. Now although Steve Jobs himself is a champion of the Keep-it- simple idea, he himself was not among the simplest persons of his day. His methods from what I hear cannot be described as people-friendly. In fact an article in a recent offering of the Harvard Business review warned against replicating his methods. He was not that nice a guy and that’s the simple fact.

All the simple stuff you enjoy were made possible by very complex processes. Take a blink of an eye. You have no idea how many things have to happen for it to occur. When I learnt about the number of muscles it took to frown, I didn’t have a choice but to smile. A single step you take is made possible by very complex processes involving brains cells, bio-chemicals, muscles, bones and countless other entities you haven’t even heard about. Imagine your every single step is a project from the cells point of view. Yet you consider it is a simple matter—it is after all just a step. From all indications, this is the very character of nature itself. It is how God has created the world. It uses complexity to make things simple. An orange is a much more complex entity than the simple fruit you see.

So if the blink of an eye is such a complex event, imagine how complex a person is with his trillions of cells doing all kinds of things. With the many thoughts and emotions and the actions that result from the need to stay alive, complex doesn’t even begin to describe a human being. The more people you have in a setting the more complex things get. This is what makes socio-emotional competence possibly a harder subject in practice than rocket science.

I have tried the keep-things-simple in the social arena. Say when you don’t like something and tell the truth so you can be free. Go straight to the point and don’t waste time on useless preliminary. In my hometown, a conversation with elders must first begin with a five minute introduction and continue with an expedition into the lives of people who have no interest whatsoever in the conversation at hand. William James will make a terrible elder in Ada where going straight to the point is literally a taboo.

I cannot count the number of times I have sat there screaming in my head “why don’t you just say what it is you want” in a conversation as my counterpart continued with a well rehearse dance around the real issue. Of course these days I don’t let it out because it returns a lot of negatives and I already have too much of that. Now, I am more like give him time, he will get there eventually. Often, I have walked away from conversations without a clear picture of what had gone on-- you are not allowed too many questions either. I have to allow myself some decrypting time as it were.

I have come to respect those police officers who directly ask you for a bribe, they are easy to understand so you can figure what to do with them. I have had more trouble with those who expect you to figure things out by yourself. I have come to learn also that people are very cautious with simple. They find the complexity of pretense more comfortable. You can’t tell a woman she looks ugly. You can’t tell her, her she needs to cover some things. You can’t tell women not to come to church in topless dresses (I don’t know what else to call them).You can’t judge a book by its cover. You can’t tell a person you are tired of their company and that in fact you never liked them in the first place. You can’t tell a friend you need some me time. In effect you are in a system where you are told every day that you must tell the truth all the time. Yet you are hated for it if you even try.

Ok so maybe I am overstretching the people side of things. Maintaining relationships is a complex matter of balancing subterfuge and uprightness. One of the above alone is not enough or you are bound to become a social misfit. Ironically the lesson here is simple; there are two sides to the matter, your side and the world’s side. If you present simple to the world, it will love you for it and you will make some progress. But for this to happen you need a lot of complex work done on your side of things. You cannot present simple unless you have done complex. Simple is only possible because of complex.  In business, it is important to make things easy and simple for the customer. Those who have succeeded at this can be said to have gone the extra mile. Extra mile might sound simple in concept but perhaps you now understand why many organizations and individuals find it an impossibility.

I would like to give you a simple to-do-list that will make you the best in your field. And believe me I have tried that like many motivational speakers do. The fact is that this does not really work or we will all be supermen and women by now. People who function at a high capacity have a mentality that you can’t just tell people about. They have to develop this thinking through a series of complex processes. A person’s life is made up of so many departments and unless each one functions at appreciable level, the ultimate output will not be the best. Those who are willing to tackle the complex are able to give simple and will always be ahead of those who avoid complex. So hopefully you get it; make things simple by doing the complex work.

Read More