• Hi, I’m Brad Abare

  I'm a make-it-happen guy working with big idea people. I design teams and orchestrate strategy so that great ideas I believe in get done.
  
  I am Jamaica's husband, Foursquare's comm director, Personality's founder, and a catalyst for CFCC.
  
  
• Search for:

• Archives (by category)

  Select Category Abare News Big Ideal Brad Works God, Faith & Spirituality Hot Topic Inspiration Leadership Life’s Journey Media Politics Rant Reading Room Stuff I Like The City Wisdom

• Archives (by month)

  Select Month March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 October 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003

• Recent Comments

  • Ben Eige on Managers, Ministers, Manipulators
  • Joshua Cody on Self-Sacrifice Always Wins
  • abby on Unity to Begin, Not End
  • Bernie on What Business Are You In?
  • Brad Abare on Unity to Begin, Not End

• Subscribe

  Add my RSS feed to your reader.

The ever astute funny man Joel Stein has some great observations about why video chat has yet to become a mainstream mainstay. He says that whenever the person you are communicating with is not physically present in the same room with you, we have better things to do with our time than to give that person our full undivided attention.

That’s because Skype breaks the century-old social contract of the phone: we pay close attention while we’re talking and zone out while you are. As soon as you begin to talk, I feel trapped and desperately scan the room for tasks I can do to justify the enormous waste of time that is your talking. I wash dishes, I file receipts, I read news sites, I make little fake suicide faces to my wife Cassandra about how much I want to hang up that cause her to yell “Joel, I need you now” in a really unconvincing way that I’ve asked her not to do, but I still can’t stop making the suicide faces. In desperate times, when I am on my cell phone in the middle of nowhere, I will pace. The only other time I pace is when I stub a toe or burn myself. But when I start talking, I assume that you are sitting perfectly still, rapt.

I think Joel is on to something here, and it doesn’t just apply to video chat. In our pursuit of real and virtual connectedness, it appears we’ve also figured out how to never really be present. “We want to TiVo our lives, avoiding real time by texting or e-mailing people when we feel like it.”

• I like watching movies/shows online, making appointment television a thing of the past.
• I like online education because I can pace myself according to my learning style, eliminating the need to wait for or burden the rest of the class.
• I like text messaging because I don’t have to type out long emails or make small-talk phone calls.
• I like ordering things from Amazon because it means I can avoid the hassle of traffic, people and lines at the store.
• I like email because it allows me to communicate when I want to.

But I worry that this ability to avoid real time, to create a sense of self control, might be hijacking us from what really matters. The ability to control our own time certainly affords greater flexibility for accomplishing more, but at what expense?

The late Peter Drucker was famous for asking the question, “What business are you in?”

I serve as a board observer (a non-voting role) for a not-so-small nonprofit. During a recent teleconference, the director of finance presented a report detailing the losses from an experimental investment strategy conceived and attempted several years ago. Every time this subject comes up, the board cringes with frustration and awaits the speedy recovery from this ugly black eye. Although the losses are relatively minimal, the lessons are no less so.

I’m encouraged that Drucker’s question was actually considered. “Hey board, we’re not in the business of this [experimental investment strategy]!” Unfortunately, this was lamented after the fact! After the loss. After the failed attempt.

The next time you consider launching or trying something new, ask yourself if it supports the business you’re actually in.

For what it’s worth, you might posses the same skill-set as a competitor, but the business you’re in may be completely different.

All graphic designers are not in the business of selling graphic design. Some exist to provide quick turn-around, others sell their ability to create amazing work for amazingly cheap. And still others are in the business of selling prestige because they command it.

Or consider restaurants. If all restaurants were in the business of selling food, we wouldn’t need so many options. Instead, we have restaurants that sell ambiance, some sell fast-food and some are in the business of selling the freshest ingredients.

There’s a crucial follow-up question to making sure that what you do supports the business you’re in.

“How’s business?”

If this question were asked enough, we’d focus on the desired outcomes of the business we’re in. For those that do not know the desired outcomes, the “How’s business?” question forces those outcomes to be identified. You get what you measure.

Two simple questions.

Never.
Asked.
Enough.

So, what business are you in?
How’s business?

I was in a meeting a few weeks ago brainstorming some new ways to approach an event that has been held for over 75 years. The event today is completely different from the way it started, but for the most part, it has been held hostage to the same rhythm and reason for the last decade, if not longer.

Not five minutes into the conversation and some in the meeting were already feeling threatened. The look on the face of the guy next to me screamed “How dare we consider changing our event in such a way!”

The conversation turned out to be very fruitful and everyone left the meeting feeling heard and harkened to consider and explore meaningful alternatives to next year’s event.

Since this meeting, I’ve been thinking a lot about traditions and values.

Traditions guard.
Values guide.

Traditions perpetuate the good and the bad.
Values parse the good from the bad.

Traditions make way for the predictable.
Values make way for the potential.

Traditions are inherited.
Values are imbedded.

Traditions can stall progress.
Values can stimulate progress.

Traditions can be eliminated.
Values can be illuminated.

Traditions can stop a company.
Values can sustain a company.

Traditions are neutral to meaning.
Values are necessary to meaning.

Traditions are contextual.
Values are collective.

What do you think?

If you’ve followed some of my thoughts for any amount of time over the past couple years, you know that I have a keen interest in the identity and soul of organizations. I’m interested in what makes organizations tick, and how values and principles must be embedded into the very core of who an organization is for it to matter long-term.

BusinessWeek’s Emily Thornton wrote a great article late last year about Mervin G. Morris, founder of the now defunct Mervyn’s department store. It’s a tragic tale of the rise and fall of a family business that lost its soul.

Founded in 1949, Morris sold the company in 1978 to the Dayton Hudson Corporation (now Target). Meryvn’s would eventually be sold off to private equity firms that would strip it of any dignity it had left. Over the last couple years, the company closed all remaining stores and 18,000 people were out of work.

What’s happening at Mervyns is happening elsewhere at an alarming rate. While private equity firms control just a tiny fraction of U.S. corporations, their companies are disproportionately troubled. Of the 105 big U.S. companies that have filed for bankruptcy [in 2008], 66 have been owned by buyout shops or been spun off by them…

When the identity of an organization is delegated to bottom line number crunchers and profiteers, everyone suffers.

In the March 2009 issue of Fast Company, Nancy Lublin wrote an article titled “Jurassic Park Syndrome.” She argues—unsuccessfully in my opinion—why for-profits need not-for-profits. “Corporate America,” says Lublin, “has realized it can bask in the glow of causiness without actually partnering with a cause. That could mean the end of a gravy train for not-for-profits and the beginning of competition with big, well-funded companies. (Read: We’re all kinda annoyed and scared.)”

I’ve been in the cause marketing space for the past decade, although I didn’t know it was called that until seven years ago. It’s been a steady trend in the nonprofit and for-profit world. The collaboration and commingling of brands to better business and better the world. In the words of Benjamin Franklin, from his Poor Richard’s Almanack, it’s “doing well by doing good.”

But Nancy Lublin worries now that since for-profits have learned how to do well and do good, they might not need nonprofits anymore to help.

We’re witnessing a Jurassic Park moment in the social-good space: Not-for-profits are screwed, and it’s partly our own doing. For years, we—the martyrs, the saints, the do-gooders—have had the keys to that door to heaven. But then we shared them with corporate America, through a practice known as “cause marketing” since 1983, when American Express launched a campaign in partnership with the National Park Service for the Statue of Liberty restoration project.

Cause marketing is turning into cause murketing, and I think that’s just fine. I heard a presentation from one of the marketing directors at Whirlpool a few years ago. He said that the future of Whirlpool would not be to increase budgets for cause marketing, but to increase focus on marketing that works. If cause marketing works, that’s good marketing, so it will become a part of the overall marketing plan.

We don’t need distinctions between marketing and cause marketing. What we need are corporations that understand the value of doing good. This is one of the reasons why the number of nonprofits has grown in recent decades. Corporations turned evil and measured success only by monetary profits. Nonprofits came along and put the focus back on people, which for-profits are finally doing again as well.

So let’s put aside our distinctions and recognize that there is always room to do well and do good. Whether you’re a for-profit or a nonprofit, your success will ultimately be measured by your return to people (shareholders, employees, communities and future generations).

In case you missed it, George F. Will’s Newsweek column from the December 1, 2008 issue is brilliant. As is typical with his articles, Will’s genius comes through his simplistic depth and linguistic smorgasbord. Will has a way with words. This article, “TARP and ADD” is no exception.

TARP stands for the Troubled Asset Relief Program and is more commonly referred to as the trillion dollar bailout. “The federal government’s blizzard of bail-outs is unconstitutional. At least that would be the correct judgment were the policy brought before the Supreme Court to be judged with reference to the doctrine of ‘nondelegation.’”

Will argues why “Congress has made bureaucrats into legislators; or perhaps it has made Hank Paulson into the fourth branch of government.”

Improper delegation is inherent in unlimited government, under which hyperkinetic legislators, for whom Attention-Deficit Disorder is an occupational hazard, are jacks of all trades and masters of none. Their expertise is inadequate to their pretensions of omnicompetence. Their desire to intrude government into every nook and cranny of life requires that their attentions be spread thin. So the “laws” they pass are often little more than endorsements of vague aspirations. If a law is a substantive rule that regulates private conduct or directs the operations of government, many laws are effectively written by the executive branch, exercising vast discretion in administration and rulemaking.

Will continues, referring to John Locke’s “Second Treatise of Civil Government” (1690), “which deeply influenced America’s Founders.”

“The legislative cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands: for it being but a delegated power from the people, they who have it cannot pass it over to others.” And: “The power of the legislative … being only to make laws, and not to make legislators, the legislative can have no power to transfer their authority of making laws, and place it in other hands.”

Sure seems like we’re drifting.

It doesn’t take much these days to bump into news on how the economy is forcing people to alter their spending. Or educated opinions on how being gentler to the environment makes business sense. Or stories on how social justice issues are gripping the hearts and heads of difference-makers around the world. These conversations have become a part of our collective consciousness.

But one good thing about the go-greeners, the economy-stressed penny pinchers and the social justice do-gooders is that in many ways, although their underlying motivations can be very different, the outcome of their actions are often very similar.

I’m seeing a convergence of causes.

The quick illustration above is a 5-minute brainstorm of such a convergence. With further study, the implications and intricacies of these causes converging would be a fascinating story.

If it weren’t for all of the ‘Christians’ out there, I think there would probably be more of them. I bumped into two reasons this week that might cause one to jump ship. Consider the groovy ministry moves from this trio or the outdoor sign for a church in Ohio. I’ll be honest, this stuff gets me really fired up.

When movies like Lord, Save Us From Your Followers come out I am both embarrassed and encouraged. Embarrassed by our conformity, consumerism and counter-productivity. Encouraged by the pockets of people all over the world that are replacing idiocy with love. St. Augustine said it best. “The church is a whore but she is my mother.”

Last night, Jamaica and I went to a fundraising gala for the Dream Center. It’s an organization that effectively helps society’s forgotten, abandoned and isolated people come back to whole and healthy living. The stories of people who are finding their dreams again and getting over the junk that has been holding them back were inspiring.

One of the ladies at our table last night made an interesting comment. In contrast to the many things we have to complain about when it comes to how whacked and weird Christians can be, she said, “but we’re not giving up!” We’re not going to throw in the towel and pursue something else. Instead, in the words of Michelangelo, we’re going to “criticize by creating.”

Church, you can be a real whore sometimes, but Dad is still crazy about you so I’ll follow his lead of love.

Remember in grade school when someone–never you, of course–had a bad case of flatulence and someone would blurt out a cheesy excuse like “He who smelt it, dealt it” or “He who sensed it, commenced it”? (Apparently there are tons of these corny phrases.)

I think a parallel exists for people that spot problems. The person that points out the problem is probably best suited to solve the problem.

“We need a more more unified team.”
“There’s got to be a better way to build this.”
“That design is awful, surely we can do better than that.”
“Why can’t we say it this way?”
“Are you sure we can’t automate that?”
“Does it have to cost this much?”

The next time you point out problems, blurt out critiques, or offer your humble opinion, maybe you should also consider a follow up response and come up with a few solutions.

One of the 18-minute presenters at the Q conference last month was culture-thinker/author Andy Crouch. He opened his presentation with a little research he did about books that have been written on the subject of changing the world.

In the first seven years of this century (2000-2007), there were 154 books published containing some iteration of the words “change the world.” Crouch estimates that by 2010, there will be 220 titles. In comparison, only 140 books were published over the entire 100 years leading up to 2000. The allure of changing the world is obviously on the rise.

I can relate. For as long as I can remember, whenever someone asked me what I wanted to do with my life, I always responded with an audacious, “I want to change the world!” Lately, I’m beginning to think this inclination is not only unhealthy, it’s also counter-productive. In my humble opinion, the idea of changing the world has derailed a generation from actually accomplishing it.

There’s a reason for this, and I think it has to do with how humanity has progressed over the centuries when it comes to knowing and being known.

Read more

Next Page →