marginally subversive

"it's nothing personal..."

One of the things that keep on popping in my head when I am thinking about management is an ex-boss' advice: "In business, don't take things personally; separate the personal from the professional".

In the years that I have managed and interacted with people in the corporate world, though, I have come to realize that it is inevitable that the "personal" will be separate from the "professional".  I also think that such categorizations are misplaced and misinformed.

Companies hire people - and people being people, they are imbued with their rationalities and their irrationalities.  The "personal" is not distinct from the "professional".  And vice versa.  Dealing with people means dealing with the whole and the totality of each individual.

Such rationalities|irrationalities come with the entire "talent resource" package.  Defining one from the other is rather impossible - because people are people.  And people are complex.

I don't know where I read this - but it's probably in one of the microeconomics or behavioral economics books or perhaps, in one of the management magazines that I have been reading:  (I am paraphrasing)

"It is the irrationality of people that makes it difficult to predict human behavior.  Rationality of individuals is an assumption - not a given - in any situation, such that when the assumption of rationality is removed, all bets are off."

Should we give up then?

I think not.

The essence of leadership, I believe, is at the core of this realization: that people are people.  And whatever leadership or management style or theory we adopt, it is never - and will never be - perfect.  It is only when we truly understand people as people can we lead, inspire, impassion, involve, engage, enroll people.

 

From kellypuffs, aptly called Rational-Colored M&M's from Flickr

Irrational Exuberance - and Depression...

The stock market does not interest me a lot, to be honest.  I don't own that many stocks.  I don't follow my portfolio as much as my friends think I should.  I don't interact with my broker that much - and my broker's recommendations are usually left as that: recommendations.  I still decide on which to invest in - and when to bail out - which is almost 'never'.

My portfolio is full of, well, boring stocks.  I guess if you were to rate the "excitement" level of the stocks that I own on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being the max score and 1 being the minimum score, mine would be in the -1 to -2 region.

I guess it's all part of the strategy:  Let time run its course.

I know I'd be really down if I did monitor my stocks on a regular basis, I would be torturing myself for every downward change in my portfolio - and I know that I don't handle these pretty well.  So why torture myself?

Anyway.  I digress.

My thoughts about all these?  I am no expert - but let me weigh in some thoughts:  If there is such a thing as irrational exuberance, consider the possibility of irrational depression or gloom.

Finance theories assume that markets are efficient - and that their efficiencies are derived by the availability of information.  I would go a little further and say, it's not so much the availability of information that matters - it's the response of people towards the morass of information that they - collectively and individually - receive that matters more. 

The dot-com bust (well, it's the only one I really am familiar with - not that I was burned) taught us irrational exuberance.  The things that are happening now could well be irrational gloom or irrational depression.

And the funny thing is, we find ways to rationalize why we are in "depression".  (Pretty much similar with the psychological, "clinical" depression - we rationalize why we are depressed!)  Hindsight bias - hindsight is always 20/20.

Am I immune?  Of course not.  Is anyone immune?  I doubt so. 

It is human nature.  We are "wired" to think this way.

The best we could do:  Let it run its course.  And wait.

Fear, Hope, Love - and the greatest of this is Love

(With apologies to the author of the famous 1 Corinthians 13 discourse on what love is)

Seth Godin writes about the three 'roots' of the people's motivations - fear, hope, and love.  Interestingly, when I was a student of Psychology and Philosophy in the university, these three themes also emerged - though in different contexts -

According to one of my professors, "fear" and "love" are the most basic of emotions.  We either act in fear or in love.  And sometimes, the two intersect - and when they intersect, that is when humans become more impassioned resulting to either 'good' results or 'bad' results.

A mother who fears for the life of her child will gladly offer her life to protect her child in times of dangers:  that's an amalgam of love and fear - strengthening the mother, powering her up (so to speak) to rise up to the occasion.

At the same time, a thief running away from the cops after having stolen diamonds is acting also in the same amalgam of love and fear:  running away because of fear - and of love for the wealth she has amassed.

Fear and love are the most basic of emotions - and when they combine, I think they're a strong motivation.  In medical ads - specially those anti-AIDS campaign or anti-VD campaigns - I think are all about playing on the idea of syncing love with fear - or vice versa to achieve a shift in behaviors.  The cigarette packs in Singapore and in Thailand - which now sport dessicated lungs, gangrenes, and photos of babies of supposed smokers - are also playing on fear and love.  At first glance, you would think that they were all about fear - but in instilling fear, there is a secondary message of "loving yourself by stopping yourself from getting lung cancer".

Whether it works or not, it's still anybody's guess.

Anyway, I also read about Hope in philosophy.  According to Gabriel Marcel, hope is what keeps us human and centered and connected with others.  In his expression - "I hope in Thee for us" - is at the same an acknowledgement of the presence of an "I" and "not-I", who are nonetheless connected by a hope towards something bigger - something beyond - something that is Love itself and Hope itself.

I've always thought of advertising as supposedly identifying human truths - and translating and expressing them into a creative expression that would make people sit up, think, and consider their thoughts and actions and behaviors.

And indeed, it is the marriage of the three that somehow makes people reconsider.

Fear is a strong emotion - but with fear comes love.  Fear hopes to bring about love.  And fear on its own could generate response.  (Recall the SARS days in Singapore when everybody went all-out to buy face masks or when there was the rush to buy Tamiflu because it apparently helps in stemming the epidemic.)  But underneath that fear is self-love - and perhaps love for those people around you.

Underneath that - and perhaps even deeper - is hope.  People bought gas masks because of the fear - driven by their self-love and love of others dear to them - and the hope that these will work against the spectre of doom called SARS.

Could fear, hope, and love build a brand?

I think so.  Fashion fads, digital tech gadget trends, and laundry detergents are all based on some form of fear or another.  And advertisers and creative agencies - consciously or unconsciously - create the fear amongst their consumers:  "If I don't buy an Abercrombie&Fitch shirt, I'd be out..."  "If I didn't have the latest iPhone or iTouch, I'd be seen as too outmoded..."  "If I didn't have the right detergent, my kids' white uniforms won't be as good as others'..."

So does fear work as a brandbuilding tool?

Hmmm.  I think it does.

Is it the right thing to do?  I don't know.  A part of me wants to say "yes" because it could be effective - and whether we like it or not, people are motivated by fear and the eradication of fear.  A part of me wants to say "no" because it's unethical playing on people's fears.

And still another question - can we offer hope and eventually graduate to love without first 'resonating' with the "fear" within consumers' minds?

Seth Godin - you got me thinking again - and that's good.