Archive | Creative RSS feed for this section

June Blog Blitz Begins Tomorrow

by on May 31, 2011 in Creative

Hello. My name is Chris and I’m a crappy blogger. I don’t mean to be…I’ve just lost my ability to blog on a regular basis. It’s a problem I’ve struggled with over the past few years.

But I hate wallowing in my own bullshit so I’m going to try to do something about it. Tomorrow is Day 1 of my June Blog Blitz. I’m producing a blogpost each day to give myself a kick in the rear, to get over this idiotic fear of publishing nonperfection. I’m also challenging myself to put a little more of ‘me’ in my writings, revealing more about myself in the process.

I started blogging in 2004 because I had something to say about the working world. I still have a lot to say; a lot of hard gained experience to share; a lot of new ideas about marketing, customers, and organizations to explore. But I’ve been holding back and that needs to end now.

Honestly, I have no idea how this will turn out but I do know this: I’m entering a land of shadows and gremlins where my dark fears lie in wait. I’m going to need encouragement and support if I’m going to exit the other side in ballsy badass blogging form.

I’m hoping you’ll come along with me on my quest. C’mon…it’s time to get started.

photo credit: sleepyneko (via Flickr)

Learning, Content Curators And The Politics Of Power

by on April 19, 2010 in Creative

I found this clip of Jeff Jarvis via Johnnie Moore’s blog. Contained within it are some rather provocative ideas. A few of them are spot on (like how our educational system still operates as if it’s an industrial world). A few of them might be bullshit but I’m still debating internally.

The awesomeness comes in the form of how we interact with learning. So much of our training tells us that an A is better than a C, that a glowing performance evaluation trumps one with negative marks, that perfection looks smarter than blunders. And our training is completely wrong. As Jarvis notes, mistakes must be the goal, the object of the lesson. Life is a beta. It’s messy and complex and in constant flux. We’re never absolved of our responsibility to learn and improve.

What did sort of put a twist in my knickers were Jarvis’s arguments that all the good ideas are taken and that the best we can hope to achieve now is “curator” status. I get where he’s coming from: Why recreate the wheel when great content already exists? Creating content is about the ego and when we get in front of someone – regardless of whether its on stage, in a classroom, or on a blog – we do so in a quest for validation.

What seems to go unsaid is that the audience, student, and reader are merely passive participants of the process. That’s a mistaken assumption. Instead, we should think of content creation as an ever evolving mashup of ideas and personal experience. But maybe this is where Jarvis was trying to lead us. Maybe his idea of a curator is someone who is able to collect diverse information, mash it up, and recreate new knowledge.

What I don’t want to see is a tiered order where curators are relegated to second-class beneath the creators. In such a system, creators maintain their elite status and govern it through the power to release information and knowledge. Okay, so maybe that won’t happen like that but power is an interesting construct. Those who possess it don’t often give it up willingly. So who has power right now? And who will have it tomorrow?

Let’s Love Experts Again

by on April 11, 2010 in Creative

Experts have been getting such a bum rap lately. It seems no one likes them and no one (at least who is reputable) wants to be considered one anymore. There are even some who believe they’re on their way to extinction.

It’s easy to understand why. Because they’re always in your face telling you how smart they are and how their way is the only way to do something. And all this bullshit is usually backed up with actual expertise that has about as much depth as a kiddie pool…or blasted at you by an ego roughly the size of the Grand Canyon. Never mind that they act like Moses just back from a tête-à-tête with God complete with stone tablet in hand.

But I’m here to preach a different gospel. I argue the true experts – the ones who know and value their own worth – will humbly submit what works fantastically for them and show others how they got their results. They don’t cast about with “should’s” and “must’s” and “do as I say’s.” Instead, they offer suggestions knowing that every situation varies and what works well in one place and time might not work nearly as well in another.

Put simply, it’s the difference between dragging and leading. A pseudo-expert feels they need to drag everyone to their truth. A true expert believes in their value and will lead anyone seeking new learning to their own experience.

Don’t be afraid to be an expert. Let’s show these pseudo-expert dimwads what true expertise looks like so maybe folks will trust and respect experts again.

Nuance is Dead

by on March 14, 2010 in Creative

Yesterday, during danah boyd’s keynote presentation for SXSWi, she made a comment to which I had to stop myself from jumping up amidst a packed room and shouting, “Amen! Testify, sister!” Her comment consisted of three words printed on a slide deck:

Nuance amidst extremes

It was in reference to quotes and soundbites from folks who have argued that “Privacy is Dead.” In the continuum of extremes, nothing is more polarizing than declaring something dead or evil.

I fear we’re becoming much too accustomed to being at those edges, our interests numbed by a media obsessed with getting people to yell at one another instead of actually listening and having cogent arguments. We’re living in a culture where nuance is getting set aside like a quaint antique writing desk, a reminder of another time.

Why? Because being salacious and provocative gets attention, gets click-thrus, gets retweeted and Dugg and shared virally. It means we really don’t have to take the time to think about instances where our reasoning falls apart. It means we get to stick with our safe, comfortable ways of thinking and doing.

Does this scare the hell out of anyone else?

But I don’t think we’re entirely lost, yet. It’s one reason why I continue to love blogs. Writers can propose a viewpoint and then allow for others to join the dialogue in a very public space. Online communities can function in a similar way. Thriving communities know how to help its members to share feelings and rationales, absorb the points made by others, and consider new perspectives. The point is to help people generate new viewpoints rather than get mired in their own stale ways of looking at the world.

Rather than accepting a lot of other “me too” comments, let’s encourage more diverse points of view. As bloggers, we need to challenge the thinking of our readers, reply to their comments, encourage them to keep thinking more deeply about issues.

I’m continuously hopeful of our ability to grasp “nuance amidst extremes.” But we have to keep listening to each other, keep talking, and most important of all, keep respecting the viewpoints of others we come into contact with.

PS. Yes, the irony of this post’s title isn’t lost on me :)

How Much Does Talent Really Matter?

by on September 24, 2009 in Creative

Recently, I’ve come across some interesting thoughts on the nature and necessity of talent.

This morning, Zig Ziglar at Great Management asked Does talent always prevail? And the answer is, “No.” In his article, Zig tells the story of Peter Vidmar, Olympic gold medalist, and why he succeeded when other athletes were more talented. Here’s a quote from Vidmar’s coach:

Peter is not particularly talented. I’ve had boys who were more gifted physically, with more kinetic awareness, strength and flexibility. But Peter surpassed them all because of his singular determination.

Geoff Colvin wrote a book called Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else and argues a similar point. Here are a couple of quotes that underscore Zig’s thoughts on talent:

Deliberate practice is above all an effort of focus and concentration. This is what makes it “deliberate,” as distinct from the mindless playing of scales or hitting of tennis balls that most people engage in. Continually seeking exactly those elements of performance that are unsatisfactory and then trying one’s hardest to make them better places enormous strains on anyone’s mental abilities. (p. 70)

If you believe that your performance is forever limited by your lack of a specific innate gift…, then there’s no chance at all that you will do the work. (But) If you believe that doing the right kind of work an overcome the problems, then you have at least a chance of moving on to ever better performance. What you really believe about the source of great performance thus becomes the foundation of all you will ever achieve. (p. 205)

What Zig and Geoff remind us to do is to not buy fully into the “Cult of Talent” that has taken root in our culture, the idea that if you weren’t born with a gift you’re out of luck. It actually doesn’t work like that. The reality is more liberating…and more challenging. It means that if we develop a habit of deliberate practice where we continually push ourselves, we can achieve more than we might otherwise believe. It doesn’t mean that innate talent is meaningless, it just means that it’s not everything.

Personally, where I struggle most is in trying to determine where to fully dedicate myself. My Renaissance Soulseems to rebel against the notion of selecting just one thing to dedicate my mental focus. I can’t claim to have a lot of answers to this question. How do you navigate the task of deciding where to place your dedication and create a deliberate practice plan? Love to hear your thoughts.