We get opportunities,
however irregular
to make a difference.
Sometimes,
we’re able to step up
and take it on,
other times
life circumstances
are too much to bare
and we must stick with
what we’ve got
and where we’re at.
Life is a circuitous and
mysterious
journey will all kinds
of twists and turns,
experiences
and opportunities.
When your moment
comes,
will you be ready?

Change is hard, there’s no question about it. Sometimes, even a change for the better is tough for a team or an organization to make peace with; and things are even worse if the change isn’t for the better. I’m not talking about the slow gradual change of degradation, as much as I’m talking about quick changes, and their short, sharp shock effect. These changes, while quick in execution, to some appear to be better and more effective (I blame this one to many Dog Whisperer episodes where the watcher begins these techniques on humans) have far-reaching effects that definitely effect morale and an organization’s culture.

In our particular epoch, this post-9/11, quasi-depression era that we’re living in, people are often running scared, and any change, one way or another, fuels core fears – loss of job, loss of home, loss of health care. There’s not a lot that we can do about this except to be mindful and sympathetic.

It’s easy to lose sight of the human element when you’re working on the digital strategy side of things. However, this sympathy and mindfulness of where your users live will help a great deal in developing a strategy that’s both successful for the organization and for the human beings that you’re hoping to connect with.

For many years, I’ve been inspired by the Taoist concept called Wei Wu Wei, doing by not doing. This philosophy can be applied in many ways, but since the focus of this site is digital strategy, let’s focus on that: When you’re doing digital strategy the greatest success is found when you’re working with the Tao, or loosely translated, the unseen current of the universe. If you’re working against the Tao, then somehow, you just won’t succeed, or succeed for very long. Why? Because you can force anything, but forcing, by its very nature infers opposition, or opposing something… many dollars and much energy can be spent to force things, but eventually dollars and energy run out and whatever was being opposed prevails. If you’re working with the Tao, then there’s no need for force, because there’s no opposition.

You only have to look at what drives and what’s driven the Web to see that this is true. Whether it’s open source projects like Unix, Linux, Apache, or openness and sharing that occurs naturally on the Web, think Twitter, Facebook, or earlier BBS systems, or the approach of company’s like Google who’ve tried to harness these open source, sharing models. They’re successful, because, mostly, they work with the Tao rather than opposing it. Microsoft is a good example of an organization working counter to the Tao, specifically now, as they try to use dollars and energy to push their Bing search service to overcome the natural and organic (or Tao-centered) adoption of Google.

If you want to succeed, be concerned less about being a success, and more about how you can add value, centered in the Tao the rest will surely follow.

Note about Taoist references.

I’ve been a student of Taoism and Zen Buddhism for nearly 15 years. Early Zen was influenced greatly by Taoism, which preceded it, philosophically, in China, and so much of what’s been written in both schools of thought is complimentary. This isn’t always true, but frequent enough to mention. Taoism isn’t a religion as much as it’s a life philosophy. I’m wary of mixing anything that be construed as religious with my professional work, but I’ve been working on a translation of the Tao Te Ching, and I’ve come to see many examples of how working with or against the Tao can predetermine success or failure. In fact, patterns were so great that there was a point when it was hard to not correlate success and failure to how centered or uncentered in the Tao a given organization or service was. Anyway, there are sure to be more references to Taoism as I move through the translation and come to understand more of these small and ordinary mysteries…

When faced with a difficult problem, whether in developing a strategy or life, I spend a lot of time contemplating the issues, the variables, the landscape, workarounds, etc… I try to establish an equation. The equation allows me to weigh things, and come to conclusions, thus resolving the problem. Sometimes though, the most difficult problems are hard to wrap up into an equation. For those, I’ve realized that answers don’t come through thinking; rather the deep consideration of the problem eventually yields a solution. However, the solution comes in its own time, which is a schedule that rarely syncs up with our temporal schedule.

You can’t do much without a plan. It doesn’t have to be a super-detailed plan, because that kind of plan doesn’t allow for the organic expanding and contracting that comes with anything living. Yes, a plan is a living thing. Especially when people or an organization are living and breathing that plan every day. So you have to have a plan.

Without a plan there’s no strategy.
Without a plan there’s no way to calculate ROI.
Without a plan there’s a journey, but no destination.

Sometimes, it’s Ok to be on a journey without a destination, but other times it can lead to a feeling of purposeless meandering into infinity.

Even a very loose plan is better than being without any kind of plan whatsoever…

I’m actually writing this post out of sequence. I just composed a post based on an article I read at Seth Godin’s blog, here, but I intend to publish this one first, and then follow up with the initital post that I wrote. I’m doing this because writing the initial post, Open, et al… actually got me thinking about what it means to be open. I’ve referred to open source, or the open, egalitarian nature of the Web here, and elsewhere many times over the last decade (yikes, time flies!) and it’s always been a bit of an abstract concept. Tech and Web folks could get the gist of what it mean to use open source software, like Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP (LAMP) and others, but when referring to the philosophical nature of open on the Web, as a communications platform, many folks just kind of gave me a funny look. So I started to do some research on the philosophical foundation of open source, with the hope that I find some information that pointed to the open nature of the Web.

Most of the information that I found pointed to open source software, doing a search of open source philosophy on the Web via Google, this wasn’t surprising. However, after some digging, I found this page, Philosophical Tenets of Open Source, and close to the bottom of the page I found what I was looking for, I’ve taken this bit of text from the page:

Open Source Is a Gift Economy

To understand open source, it helps to make a distinction between a commodity economy, to which we are accustomed in a capitalist society, and a gift economy. In a gift economy, gifts are exchanged, forming a bond based on mutual obligation: In the simplest form of gift exchange, when one person gives a gift to another, the receiver becomes obligated to the giver, but not in a purely mercenary way–rather, the recipient becomes very much like a member of the giver’s family where mutual obligations are many, varied, and long lasting. A person may give a gift with the realistic expectation that someday a gift of equal or greater use value will be received or that the recipient will pass on a further gift. In an open-source project, the gift of source code is reciprocated by suggestions, bug reports, debugging, hard work, praise, and more source code.

The commodity economy depends on scarcity. Its most famous law is that
of “diminishing returns,” whose working requires a fixed supply. Scarcity of
material or scarcity of competitors creates high profit margins. It works through
competition.

The gift economy is an economy of abundance–the gifts exchanged are inexhaustible. Gift economies are embedded within noneconomic institutions such as kinship, marriage, hospitality, artistic patronage, and ritual friendship. A healthy Western family operates on a gift economy. In an open-source project, the status and reputation of individuals depend on the quality of the gifts they contribute.

The distinction really is that of the gift vs. commodity economy. It’s funny because as I write this I remember what it was that attracted me to the Web. I was a musician/composer, and I was working on a recording. After having played guitar for years, being in bands, playing shows, and trying to sell music at venues, I saw that the Web had the power to change everything for me as a working artist — the playing field had been leveled. On the Web, in 1999, Mp3.com had just launched, and it was skies the limit for artists to get out their, hang a virtual shingle, and let the world know about their work. However, it wasn’t about huckstering your product and bombarding folks with spam to inform them about your work (though there was some of that); rather there was an openness that permeated throughout this new platform. There were new channels for sharing what you were doing, as well as for folks, from all the over the world, to share with you. I’m sure at some point I’ll go into this story in greater detail, but for now, suffice it to say that the openness of the Web brought me in, and it was the openness and the economy of abundance on the Web that made me want to stick around, even forgoing my musical ambitions to see what a Web-centric world could look like. More to come, on what it mens to be open…

Just because you presented the better solution, doesn’t mean that the client will always take that route. Somehow, this defies good sense, but on the other hand, people are not always using good sense when they make decisions. There’s an emotional piece that equally defies good sense, and there’s nothing related to good sense as far as feelings are concerned, only what is and the hope that one will learn something from the experience of those emotions. Still, though, in the service of the client, you have to research and present the best option for them, and hope that there will be an intersection of what the client wants, what the client needs, and what the best solution is.

The thing about consistency is that you can plan for it, you can intend to do it, you can even develop a strategy for being consistent; consistent in message, consistent in approach, consistent in action, whatever, but if you’re not consistent, it won’t matter. Consistency is tough because it takes presence and discipline; presences to be mindful of what is and discipline to face it even when it’s more comfortable to turn a blind eye… especially when it’s more comfortable to turn a blind eye.

Do you what needs to be done, and do that every time.

That’s what it means to be consistent.