Meet the Author

Everyone sets goals. But, what most people don't realize is that the type of goals you set can have a major impact on your long term performance.

The most basic type of goal is known as a performance goal. These are goals that are directly correlated to an outcome. You want to get an "A" on that spanish test, or hit your sales quota.

These goals can be great in the short term, but they also have some downsides. Performance goals by their nature are rather shallow. If you had to cheat, at least you still hit your goal. If you made a mistake in the sales process, well at least you still hit your quota.

Performance goals also tend to undermine long-term performance. If you hit your initial goal, you become less motivated to continue towards excellence (after all you hit your goal). And if you don't hit your initial goal, you become discouraged and de-motivated because your self-worth is based on external inputs.

On the other side of the goal-setting coin are what's know as mastery goals. A mastery goal is when you set out to become the best you can be at a single task. Instead of trying to get an "A" in spanish, you try to become fluent in spanish.

Behavioral Researchers have found that mastery goals are more effective because your satisfaction isn't related to external indicators. Therefore you're less apt to give up in difficult circumstances, and you persevere through setbacks.

Mastery goals are always just beyond reach. This makes motivation over the long term easier to maintain. They're like a line that's asymptote. The curve of the line gets closer to the goal, but you never quite reach it. There is always something to strive for.

People that reach the pinnacle of their skills rarely set performance goals. They're more interested in competing with themselves, than gaining external feedback and validation. This orientation allows them to compete at a higher level over a longer period of time.

With Mastery goals there's always something to strive for. Even if it's as simple as being better at something tomorrow, than you were today.

There are two types of organizations. Those that seek to constantly innovate, and those that seek to exploit their existing assets. Neither organization is better than the other. In fact, as organizations develop and age, their ways/methods naturally become more set in stone. They start following algorithms, instead of innovating. As a result they become more efficient at certain tasks and become more profitable. But, the unintended consequence is that they lose the culture required to drive innovation.

Proctor & Gamble is a great example. They have brand marketing down to a science. Their experience in rolling out consumer goods is unmatched. But, their ability to innovate in R&D declined over the years. Innovation is not algorithmic. To counteract this decline, they decided to take a completely different approach than you might expect. Instead of throwing tons of additional money into R&D and rebuild their culture, they now look to outside sources for innovation. If you have a great consumer goods product idea, they'll develop it and market it. They realized it was easier to let others do the innovating.

Pfizer does the same thing. Smaller innovation companies find new uses for drugs, and pfizer markets them. It allows them to focus on what they do best, and take advantage of the other company's culture of innovation.

This is in contrast to Microsoft, who has yet to develop a system of innovation that works. They struggle because any new innovation can be undermined if it threatens an existing business unit. And their existing business units are so focused on maximizing profits, and protecting marketshare that they inadvertently stifle innovation at the most basic level. To the business unit managers it's about self-preservation, but it hurts their long term prospects.

Dick Brass explained it thusly in a recent editorial in the NY Times.

When we were building the tablet PC in 2001, the vice president in charge of Office at the time decided he didn’t like the concept. The tablet required a stylus, and he much preferred keyboards to pens and thought our efforts doomed. To guarantee they were, he refused to modify the popular Office applications to work properly with the tablet. So if you wanted to enter a number into a spreadsheet or correct a word in an e-mail message, you had to write it in a special pop-up box, which then transferred the information to Office. Annoying, clumsy and slow.

The difference between Microsoft & P&G is simple. It's not that Microsoft they can't innovate, it's that there is a systemic bias that squashes innovation at it's earliest stages. Until that system changes, Microsoft will continue to struggle with bringing innovations to market.

This is a blog post about negative space. But, it's not about negative space as a design technique. It's about the idea of negative space as a way to differentiate your marketing communications in an overly crowded marketplace.

Every day we encounter hundreds of brands, all vying for our attention. Brands are shouting at us from bus stops, while we're at the urinal and from over designed flyers that are stuffed on our cars. TV commercials are interruptive by nature -- turning up the volume merely to get our attention. Banner ads flash, play video and kick in audio the second you get to a site.

Luckily, humans are great at adaptation. In response to these encounters, we've developed filters that help us block everything out. We've developed selective vision, and selective hearing. We're experts at ignoring.

So what actually gets noticed anymore? Marketing that doesn't try so hard -- that's understated, respectful and has value. Seth Stevenson of Slate recently referred to it as the soft sell approach. Coke's David Butler aptly described it in an older interview in Fast Company as well (Hat tip to the IQ Interactive blog for reminding me about the fast company article.):

As life gets visually noisier, brands that dial back to their core essence stand out by contrast

So next time you're creating a new marketing execution, think about dialing it back a bit. Give an overloaded mind a place to rest and focus. You might just get their attention in the process.

I was reading Brains on Fire's company blog yesterday, and they were taking about the process of interviewing a new employee and setting expectations. The discussion struck me. It's something that I try to communicate to our employees.

So, yesterday I had an interview. (Yes, we are considering a new hire and that feels good.) And when I asked this smart, bright lady if she had anything she wanted to ask me she replied, “What do you expect of me? What are your expectations?”

Hmmmmm….

I told her we are all in grad school now. Exploring new ideas. And the learning you choose to do every single day of your life is completely self directed. You’re driving the ship and collecting ideas and inspiration every single day. Read. A lot. Write. A lot. Think out loud and share with others. Even when you aren’t sure you’re right.

We live in a world that's changing faster than ever before. Culture comes and goes. It's not just the news cycle that's sped up, the amount of information that's available has grown exponentially. Everything you need to learn is at your fingertips. All it requires is commitment and practice. The ability to process, learn and digest information is natural. It just requires the re-awakening of your own curiosity.

It's no longer enough to "Know Your Strengths", and build on them. You have to work on your weaknesses. You have to round out your rough edges, and sharpen the dull blades. If you don't work on your weaknesses, they become even more pronounced. Atrophy sets in.

The challenge to someone looking to succeed in today's world is to push your limits. To learn, and to grow. Each day and every day. As Robin so eloquently stated, all I ask is that you treat every day like grad school.

Gabriel García Márquez is a master of fiction, but what most people don't realize is that he started as a journalist. But, he wasn't your standard run-of-the-mill writer. Below is a lede to an article he wrote for El Espectador about a remote part of Columbia. After reading an intro sentence like that, is there anyway you wouldn't continue?

Several years ago a ghostly, glassy-looking man, with a big stomach as taut as a drum, came to a doctor’s office in the city. He said, ‘Doctor, I have come to have you remove a monkey that was put in my belly.'

—Gabriel García Márquez, El Espectador