No Pain, No Gain. In Theory At Least.
One of the really fun things about being in the world of blogs is happening on an old post. And its even more fun when that post is just as vibrant today as when it first appeared. I just had that experience. Michelle Golden writes Golden Practices. Michelle is one of my favorites, and I happened on her post, What Innovation Really Looks Like. Michelle makes this point, as true today as when she first wrote it in 2005:
What I really want to get at is that most of us who work in and consult within the professions do bang our heads against the wall at times (no offense to any of my beloved clients...) because of the high level of complacency that exists for "good enough" or, in the case of some firms, "almost good."
Michelle then picks up on a great post by the legendary Seth Godin, from Seth's Blog, Understanding Local Max. Local Max looks like this:
and is described by Seth Godin this way:
"Everyone starts at that dot at the bottom left corner. You're not succeeding because you haven't started yet.Then you try something. If it works, you end up at point A.
A is where you see results as the direct output of a strategy and hard work. A is the job you got after investing in an MBA. A is the sales you got after running an ad.
Of course, being a success-oriented capitalist, that's not enough. So you do more. You push and hone and optimize until you end up at the Local Max. The Local Max is where your efforts really pay off.
So you try harder. And you end up at point B. Point B is a bummer. Point B is backwards. Point B is where the outcome of more effort against your strategy doesn't return better results. So you retreat. You go back to your Local Max.
And that is where most people stay. Most people get stuck at the Local Max because changing strategy in any direction (this is really a 3D chart, but I've smushed it to make it easier) leads to poorer results."
The key, however, is to break out from Local Max. The breakout looks like this:
and is described like this:
Local Max isn't actually that great when you realize that Big Max is not particularly far away.
The problem is that to get to Big Max, you need to go through step C, which is a horrible and scary place to be.
....
If your market is changing, this idea is even more important to understand. That's because changing markets are always surfacing new Big Max points, and the only way to get to them is to go through the pain (yes, it's painful) of point C.
You can't reinvent yourself and your organization until you deal with the fear of point C, and that's hard to do without talking about it. I think the benefit of the Local Max curve is that it makes it easy for you and your team to have the conversation.
The Big Max theory makes sense to me. I believe that most of us sell ourselves short. We have more within us but we hold back, perhaps from fear of failure, perhaps from fear of greatness. Or maybe both. But I am not sure I believe that we "have to" go through Point C. The painful experience of Point C may well be a liberating experience that results in some moving to Big Max. But why must one experience it. If you know you are destined to experience pain without change, can you not bypass experiencing it? Can you not learn from other's mistakes? Seth Godin has move on from this issue, but I would love to find out whether be believes pain must be actually felt. In her post, Michelle Golden had this to say:
"Big Max" is the innovation you bring to your clients. AND your firm.
Innovative firms strategize on how to get through C and on to Big Max."
I wonder if by "get through" she meant "experience Point C" or "navigate around it." I'll have to ask her.