Insight, the counter factual to what we know

dot dot dot

A belated response to a package I unexpectedly left for a friend who apologized for not acknowledging its arrival sooner. ended with

” more importantly , I am at a loss for words.  Truly I don’t know what to say . ”

My return reply was this:

Its ok,

“it’s possible to talk about something and have the words themselves not be very telling”

associations ..the dog that didn’t bark?
I stole the quote, but it’s applicable
We live in strange times, and life is strange.
Obviously i was feeling a bit spunky…just looking at the word, makes me laugh.

to exchanges robbed of words but positive sentiments
you are very welcome.

His response:

“Riddle me this.”

I share this as example of human to human conversations.
There’s no chance that a cheeky chatbot would have written such a response. It’s why people are less predictable, making their every move less certain and the exciting part–capable of learning–both to be good or to be bad.

This was my reply.

riddle suggests you want an answer,
don’t have a personal one,
here’s what I’ve been reading and thinking
One. Roger Schank’s latest blasts courtesy reminder from another cognitive scientist acquaintance I made recently:
(Roger writes some great pieces on this…if you find it interesting as I do, here’s another series
Two, the dog that doesn’t bark? Shorthand for a famous turn of the phrase by Conan Doyle ascribed to Sherlock holmes seeking to solve a crime in which it was the absence of information that he cleverly used to solve the crime.  (see the short story  The Adventure of Silver Blaze). He collected the data, framed it in context to get information and then  use the counterfactual to obtain the insight.  What happened, what did you see or hear? When do dogs not bark?  when they recognize someone they know, so obviously it was the trainer….
[note this reference appears in The Big Short  too…great movie!]
Three, Comment I noticed by Leda Glyptis who is now at Sapient…what a great bio!
Extracting value from a wealth of structured and unstructured data, however, is not as much a technical problem, as a business problem. Technical heavy lifting will undeniably be needed to get you from having a ‘data lake’ to being a data-driven organisation but fundamentally: saying ‘there are 10,000 species of snake in the world’ is data; ‘there’s one under your seat’ is information; ‘it is asleep right now, so you can get up and walk away’ is actionable insight.

The whole interview is here:

My point –make the time to be human, take the time to notice and connect to more of what you know.  The payoff? Surprising insights will be yours



A couple of characters–how best to drive returns for your organization?

The big questionOK,  between Sherlock Holmes and Goldilocks, who would you trust with your current business challenges?

I have a colleague who recently re-read J Conan Doyle’s fictional representation of Sherlock Holmes and thought it represented a great model for his own consulting practice. So I can understand that many of you would also choose Sherlock Holmes for his brilliance. I’d like you to reconsider how Goldilocks may be a more appropriate choice for the times.

Yes, Goldilocks!

I’m sure you have read more than one post heralding the new age where social media and networking mastery will not only differentiate your business but also insure your long term survival. Or maybe you worry more about how to incorporate big data and the internet of things, or the sudden mystique of social capital has cost you to lose a little sleep. No matter what topic, the only certainty in life is uncertainty. Sure, Sherlock Holmes offers a variety of approaches that can help minimize the uncertainty. His methods deconstruct the immediate mystery, circumstantial problem and suggest solutions are always possible. True in time, but do you have that kind of time and patience? Do your customers, suppliers and shareholders?

This is why I propose Goldilocks may be a better hire. There’s no illusion with Goldilocks. She doesn’t fear what she encounters and does what we all wish we could. She’s focused and intent to try out all present possibilities and then decisively chooses what suits her. She quickly satisfies her immediate needs and then gets on to the next task.

Now Goldilocks doesn’t bear any responsibilities for her actions. Instead her confidence means she doesn’t waste time asking questions, second-guessing her actions, investigating or looking hard for clues.

Do you believe she lacks due diligence, or feel her actions suggest some shortcoming because she doesn’t stop and consider the possibility of alternatives beyond her line of sight? After all, she does what most of the people within your organization do in the absence a clear vision, leadership guidance and integrity. She muddles through.

I know, now you’re really puzzled. How does Goldilocks thinking really help me get through my immediate challenges?

The answer lies in the question. Action beats inaction, doesn’t it?

The oldest character tests, include a surmountable challenge. In many legendary tales, how the character responds provides the emotional tension in the story and drives the dramatic arc, and serves as a turning point. If you never thought of your own actions as part of a larger story that has yet to be played out, then I hope you will now.

point in many legendary tales and it’s how your answers to similar questions really hinge on your own leadership image.

This subtle business of our own character development deserves more attention, than the tasks that consistently demand responses. My colleague took a long time to realize his kinship with Sherlock, and once he did he understood his limitations and his opportunities better.

We all get caught up by time and its rhythmic certainty that we can’t control. It’s why I’m so intently focused on strategy, because it offers individuals and organizations perspective and a handle on the future and the inevitable variety of tasks and challenges we will encounter.

Don’t start with evaluating how much time may be available to decide, thought that will be useful. In this context Goldilocks does well, making split second decisions. Sherlock in spite of his amazing deductive reasoning skills requires time to investigate, learn the facts and only then be ready to help make decisions.

Instead I suggest you turn your attention to strategy and invest your efforts in character building. Recently Harvard Business Review shared a brief synopsis of provocative work done in 2014 by Fred Kiel of KKR. Kiel and his team surveyed 84 organizations’ employees to assess their leaders consistent exhibition of the following universal character traits: integrity, responsibility, forgiveness, and compassion.

“I was unprepared to discover how robust the connection really is,” Kiel says. In addition to outperforming self-focused CEOS [lowest scoring] on financial metrics, the Virtuoso [consistently top scoring] CEOs received higher employee ratings for vision and strategy, focus, accountability, and executive team character.

As a leader, you often don’t’ get the luxury of selecting your team, but you best have a strategy. Even the most zealous of organizations who screen for any number of capabilities and personality traits, still need to assign tasks and/or pair projects and teams. Pairing Sherlock and Goldilocks oddly may introduce the right tension, risk counterweight and inhibit delays in decision making. But neither will do what’s best for the organization unless you have made the biggest objectives and vision crystal clear.

Know and develop your own character and you too will be surprised by what performance will follow.