Skip to content Skip to footer
Josh Allan Dykstra
BOOK JOSH
Josh Allan Dykstra
BOOK JOSH
Close
LegacyJuly 2, 2008

Lite-Brites, Sisyphus, & Expecting The Best

When in a position of leadership, how much does a leader's lack of faith in a subordinate actually create their downfall? Is there some kind of derivative of a self-fulfilling prophecy that happens here? To put it another way, will I, as a leader, only ever get as much as I expect out of the folks I try to lead? Is there some kind of projected glass ceiling of progress or productivity that I fabricate over their heads? Or can a leader's unwavering belief in a person actually help propel them towards success? I believe this to be true. I have personally been in a number of situations where it appears as though a protege simply needs someone else to believe in them... and, perhaps most, to believe in them even when they can't believe in themselves. I am hopefully always learning more about myself. It is one of my constant projects: to figure out why I act the way I do. One thing I have learned is that I'm so confined within my own skin that it's often a Sisyphean battle to even understand WHAT I'm doing half the time, as most of my movements have become completely rote programming. But every once in awhile something breaks through, and a light bulb turns on. I imagine I'm like one of those Lite-Brite machines from the 80's... eventually -- just maybe, someday -- I can light up enough LED's to actually get a complete picture of me. At the nonprofit I work with, we're currently looking for a person to take over our one of our departments. I've learned that I have an overwhelming tendency to be extremely optimistic when it comes to people. I always think they can accomplish great things, often more than they may even think. But at the same time, I've learned that a myopic view of only seeing "potential" and not necessarily "reality" can also have a dangerous edge. I know how crucial it is to have the "right people on the bus" and that making a hasty decision on the front end is a very costly error, in more ways than just financially. But as we look to add people to our staff, or to grow the participants we already have for that matter, isn't it more dangerous to set expectations too low, instead of too high? In any kind of relational setting, be it an organization or a friendship or a marriage, isn't there just something about the complete audacity of hope (to quote that other guy); hope that each person involved can change and grow and become more than they currently are? Isn't there just something grand about always looking for the best in people instead of expecting the worst?
The greater danger for most of us is not that we aim too high and miss it. Rather, it is that we aim too low and reach it." — Michelangelo
//
Legacy, LifeJune 27, 2008

Why 'Unrealistic' Goals Are Easier To Achieve

By Tim Ferriss (excerpt from The 4-Hour Work Week) I had to bribe them. What other choice did I have? My lecture at Princeton had just ended with smiles and enthusiastic questions. At the same time, I knew that most students would go out and promptly do the opposite of what I preached. Most of them would be putting in 80-hour weeks as high-paid coffee fetchers unless I showed that the principles from class could actually be applied. Hence the challenge. I was offering a round-trip ticket anywhere in the world to anyone who could complete an undefined "challenge" in the most impressive fashion possible. Results plus style. I told them to meet me after class if interested, and here they were, nearly 20 out of 60 students. The task was designed to test their comfort zones while forcing them to use some of the tactics I teach. It was simplicity itself: contact three seemingly impossible-to-reach people — J Lo, Warren Buffett, Bill Clinton, J.D. Salinger, I don't care — and get at least one to reply to three questions... Of 20 students, all frothing at the mouth to win a free spin across the globe, how many completed it? Exactly... none. Not a one. // Bigger Goals = Less Competition There were many excuses: "It's not that easy to get someone to...", "I have a big paper due, and...," "I would love to, but there's no way I can..." There was but one real reason, however, repeated over and over again in different words: it was a difficult challenge, perhaps impossible, and the other students would out-do them. Since all of them overestimated the competition, no one even showed up. According to the default-win rules I had set, if someone had sent me no more than an illegible one-paragraph response, I would have been obligated to give them the prize. This result both fascinated and depressed me. The following year, the outcome was quite different. I told this cautionary tale and six out of 17 finished the challenge in less than 48 hours. Was the second class better? No. In fact, there were more capable students in the first class, but they did nothing. Firepower up the wazoo and no trigger finger. The second group just embraced what I told them before they started, which was... // Doing the Unrealistic is Easier Than Doing the Realistic From contacting billionaires [here’s how one reader did it] to rubbing elbows with celebrities—the second group of students did both—it's as easy as believing it can be done. It's lonely at the top. 99% of the world is convinced they are incapable of achieving great things, so they aim for the mediocre middle-ground. The level of competition is thus fiercest for "realistic" goals, paradoxically making them the most time- and energy-consuming. It is easier to raise $10,000,000 than it is $1,000,000. It is easier to pick up the one perfect 10 in the bar than the five 8s. If you are insecure, guess what? The rest of the world is too. Do not overestimate the competition and underestimate yourself. You are better than you think. Unreasonable and unrealistic goals are easier to achieve for yet another reason. Having an unusually large goal is an adrenaline infusion that provides the endurance to overcome the inevitable trials and tribulations that go along with any goal. Realistic goals, goals restricted to the average ambition level, are uninspiring and will only fuel you through the first or second problem, at which point you throw in the towel. If the potential payoff is mediocre or average, so is your effort. I'll run through walls to get a catamaran trip through the Greek islands, but I might not change my brand of cereal for a weekend trip through Columbus, Ohio. If I choose the latter because it is "realistic," I won't have the enthusiasm to jump even the smallest hurdle to accomplish it. With beautiful, crystal-clear Greek waters and delicious wine on the brain, I'm prepared to do battle for a dream that is worth dreaming. Even though their difficulty of achievement on a scale of 1-10 appears to be a 2 and a 10 respectively, Columbus is more likely to fall through. The fishing is best where the fewest go, and the collective insecurity of the world makes it easy for people to hit homeruns while everyone else is aiming for base hits. There is just less competition for bigger goals. (Excerpted from The 4-Hour Work Week by Tim Ferriss) //
LegacyJune 3, 2008

Tipping Behind The Scenes

It's easy to discount all the things that are happening behind the scenes. In our entertainment-based culture, we tend to only respect the final, glowing, sparkling, gleaming product, free from all blemishes and glitches. We airbrush our photos, we put 7 second time-delays on our "live" radio and television feeds, and we have dress rehearsals for our church services. We want our news packaged into headlines, simple soundbytes to consume or discard. We want our politicians in suits and ties, not gym clothes. Anymore, there have almost become two strictly dichotomized worlds: one for presentation, and one for preparation. Everyday Life has become a TV show. But behind the scenes... that's where the magic happens. I just finished reading Malcom Gladwell's glorious book "The Tipping Point" in which he describes how relatively small things have a tremendous impact in "tipping" social epidemics, from fashion to education to crime. In the first section he describes The Law Of The Few, where a relatively small number of extraordinary people are crucial to kickstarting an epidemic. But I'm starting to wonder if it's those select few, those people that fit into some kind of "behind the scenes" Social or Informational Aristocracy, that actually do most of the world's work, period. When I originally came up with the "behind the scenes" idea for this post, I wanted to write about what I find to be an utterly demoralizing disconnection between how "the masses" seem to perceive reality and what I'd consider to be "actual reality." I am often frustrated by how so many people can be so infinitely clueless as to what's going on in the world around them. Ever met some of these folks? But I don't feel like the gap can be attributed simply to an lack of intelligence; in fact, I think the problem is mostly 1) a shortage of ability to manage one's own life or 2) sheer laziness (or a combination of both). I know that last little rant can make me sound a bit condescending, but actually, I bring this up because I know that people can change. If you want to learn to manage your life, do it. If you want to stop being lazy, do it. Also, I know discussions like this can make me sound like some kind of elitist, but I am not talking about human value, I am talking about human productivity, and that's an important distinction. No matter the reason, the reality is that it's really just a numbers game. At the end of the day, most people are responders, not innovators. We can talk in terms of Rogers' Diffusion of Innovation bell curve, of innovators-to-laggards, if you like... same thing. Here's a nice epidemiology diagram, for your visual jollity: You can see the "learning curve" that sweeps upward and which, by the end, represents the nearly complete diffusion of the phenomena in question. (Everyone feels more intelligent when discussing sociology with big words.) What I know is that there are all of these "things" happening out there in the world: from food crises to economic crises to violent military crises, and most people are content -- happier, even -- knowing that they won't every have to touch these problems with a 30-foot-stick if they don't want to. But for me, these realities hit me like a branch in the face. For me, it means that someone else is controlling my life -- or at least "pulling the strings" and directing aspects of the world I interact in. And I'm not a big fan of that. If you've read Gladwell's book and buy what he says, you simply can't get around the concept that, in terms of "phenomena tipping" at least, some people are simply more important than others. What I wonder is if this mystery also extends into the world's productivity. Are there a select few people pulling the majority of the weight? Does the 80/20 rule apply here? Are 20% of the world's population doing 80% of the work? Is there any way to tell? //
LifeMay 13, 2008

The Millennial Melee

An increasing topic of interest to me (and, apparently, the rest of the world) is the melee that seems to surround Generation Y. I'm sure you know many of these folks, as they are born between 1980-2000; they go by a number of names, including Generation Y, Echo Boom, the Net Generation, Generation Me, Sunshine Generation, and Millennials. In their recent book Connecting to the Net.Generation, Reynol Junco and Jeanna Mastrodicasa found a few interesting facts about Gen Y by taking a survey of 7,705 US college students (info taken from Wikipedia):
  • 97% own a computer
  • 94% own a cell phone
  • 76% use Instant Messaging (and 15% of us IM users are logged on 24 hours a day/7 days a week)
  • 34% use websites as their primary source of news
  • 28% author a blog and 44% read blogs
  • 49% download music using peer-to-peer file sharing
  • 75% of college students have a Facebook account
  • 60% own some type of portable music and/or video device such as an iPod
It's easy to find negative spew about Gen Y all over the internet. But today I came across this article from the Harvard Business School and wanted to share it -- someone is finally paying attention to the positive qualities of Gen Y:
How Will Millennials Manage? by Jim Heskett
I was struck by the eloquence of Anonymous Commenter #4, who is describing some of the core values of a Millennial:
I am ambitious but not overly committed. I prefer to work as a consultant because I am not chained to one company. I am a problem solver by nature, and I want to get immediately to the problem solving. I'm not interested in meaningless titles, mine or anyone else's, and I'm not willing to enslave myself to attain a position with a great title and no depth of purpose. I don't want the appearance of success. I want the integral satisfaction of succeeding. I want to make a lot of money, but only if I have time to spend it, and I'm more interested in health care and vacation than bonuses that I'd have to work too much to get and work too much to enjoy. My family and my pursuit of knowledge for knowledge's sake are more important to me than any particular job, with any particular company. I have confidence in myself, my marketability, and my ability to put my nose to the grindstone when it is necessary. I'm interested in being as efficient and productive as possible, but not every second of every day, and not under someone else's thumb.
If you're a Millennial (born between or around 1980-2000) let me hear it; does this description sound like you? //
LegacyMay 1, 2008

A New Way To Get Music?

The article I'm going to talk about is over a month old, but I just read it for the first time the other day, so 'round these parts (read: my blog) we get to treat it like news. ;-) Now, there are a lot of ways to get music. Some folks buy it from iTunes or some other digital equivalent. Some enjoy the "free-dom" of Limewire or a torrent. Some import CD's they bought way "back in the day" (like, circa 1999). Some listen to radio (AM/FM/XM/WWW). Some frequent the MySpace. "Piracy" has been a music industry buzzword since the days of Napster. It's also been the Industry's blatant and somewhat pathetic scapegoat for the fact that they simply didn't see the "digital age of music" coming. Well, almost a decade has now past since the lovable Shawn Fanning helped incite the music revolution, and the music biz has finally come up with an idea that just might work. If it flies, the thought is that it will preserve the Suit's high-paying executive job, pay the artists, and -- GASP -- maybe even create a workable solution for consumers. The idea, in a nutshell, is to provide consumers with an unlimited supply of music downloads for a monthly fee that will be bundled into their internet service charges. Here's the article that explains it more fully:
Fee For All Warner's New Web Guru
As always, critics already have their guns drawn, but I, for one, am having a hard time coming up with a downside to this agreement. I would GLADLY pay $5/month to get all the music I want, especially knowing that the artists I love would get paid! (Now, if we could only pay the artists fairly, that would really be something, eh?) But, existing within the current system, it's frankly the best idea I've heard in a long time. Am I missing something? //