Rick Baker Thought Posts
Left Menu Space Holder

About the author

Name of author Rick Baker, P.Eng.

E-mail me Send mail
Follow me LinkedIn Twitter

Search

Calendar

<<  November 2024  >>
MoTuWeThFrSaSu
28293031123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829301
2345678

View posts in large calendar

Recent Comments

Comment RSS

Don’t put the cart before the horse... - Part 1

by Rick Baker
On Aug 25, 2010
Another father-to-son note…
There are carts and horses and chariot drivers and chariot warriors.
 
I figure the Greeks, about 3000 years ago, looked at it this way:
  • Horses were horses and they were worked so hard they knew enough to drink when they were taken to water. If they didn't, then they died. Then the soldiers ate them. Horses also became eaten if the soldiers ran short of other meat.
  • War carts were chariots. Horses pulled these carts, these carts didn't get to go before the horses. If the carts broke then they were either fixed or taken apart and the pieces were used for other things. If fuel was in tight supply then carts could be burned to create warmth and to cook food.
  • Chariot drivers: chariots contained two men. One drove. He was either junior, less skilled at fighting or both. His key roles were to protect the other more-valued man, the warrior, to protect the horses and the carts because they were expensive, and to place the warrior in a position where the warrior could have a good shot (spear shot, bow shot) at the enemy.
  • The warrior. He was the leader. He got all the gold - the spoils of war. He also, as a general rule, took the largest risk and got to die first. He only drove the chariot when the driver was thrown, was too injured to drive or was killed. If a driver was injured or killed then, after the skirmish, the warrior would replace the lost driver. I mean: the warrior wouldn’t want to be the driver because warriors fought, while drivers drove.
Drivers and warriors didn't pull the chariots. If the horses were injured or killed and the chariot was immobilized during the battle then the driver and warrior either ran, or tried to hitch a ride on another ‘single-manned’ chariot...or they stood their ground and fought.
 
Carts were deaf. The chariots simply could not hear or think or do anything on their own. So, they required hands-on supervision and controls. Without horses the chariots were only as valuable as the adornments they displayed, the cargo they held, and the protection and the maneuverability they provided to the men. Without horses, the chariots just stood around and did nothing. With horses but no men, the chariots looked good but for the business at hand (warring or terrorizing or perhaps parading) they were absolutely useless. At best when men weren’t around the horse and cart ran around in circles or took off and got lost.
 
When a driver was added, the cart and horse did a lot better. As a unified group they really got places. And, as long as the path was simple, without obstacles and without treachery the horse and cart and driver got along just fine. When minor issues arose, including attack by lesser-skilled fighters, the horse, cart, and driver prevailed. They did some off-road stuff and they killed some guys, got some loot, returned to camp, and bragged to their buddies over some wine and roasted meat.
 
But, when the combo of horse-cart-driver met an unfriendly horse-cart-driver with a warrior the following happened: the driver without the warrior died and was stripped naked and left for the kites to pick away at, the horse and cart and the driver's armour and weapons all got a new owner. That new owner was the opposing warrior…he took their lives then their stuff. However, when there was a shortage of manpower or a real dirty job needed doing, sometimes the driver didn't die. The opposing warrior just stripped him down and took him into slavery.
 
Warriors had a wonderful, absolutely terrible life.
 
The horses had it pretty good. At least, they had it good as long as they could perform. Horses really didn't plan for the future. They didn't have to worry about planning their day, or next week, or next year. They just plodded along until they got whipped - then they ran. When their usefulness was over, and that is something they didn't worry about because they were pretty much thinking about a bag of oats, their life ended quickly. The only pain they had was the pain of the whip and the pain of injury sustained in battle. But, when the pain was extreme it was quickly ended when they were killed and eaten.
 
Carts: again, they were senseless. Just tools for the men and work for the horses.
 
Drivers: these guys were doers. They got to manage carts and horses and from time to time they got to fight. Of most importance, they had the vital job of protecting the most-valuable asset: the warrior. They succeeded when they managed the horses and chariots in a manner that allowed the warrior to do his job. Killing. They got to fight after the warrior had taken his best shots or when the warrior was injured. If they fought well then they received rewards (a bit of loot, plunder, and maybe even slaves). If they had sufficient skill then they might be able to become warriors.
 
What's the point?
 
There are several:
  • horses are horses
  • carts are carts
  • drivers are drivers
  • warriors are warriors
 
Don't get them confused.

Tags:

Family Business and CFFB | Father-to-Son Lessons | Personalities @ Work

People Networking…Succeeding in the 21st Century #4

by Rick Baker
On Jun 13, 2010
Recently, I posted 3 blogs about 'People Networking' [#1, #2, #3].
 
After posting the blogs, I asked some LinkedIn friends to look at the blogs and provide their feedback about what I had written and provide input about what they thought I ought to write next. 
 
[FYI - my LinkedIn account is under WFC Rick Baker]
 
I notice a few readers 'rated' these blogs…and, overall, they were rated rather low. [I have dealt with that as best I can by (1) committing to improve my writing and by (2) recommending to some other friends they should use my blogs as a remedy for their insomnia.]
 
Back to People Networking
 
First: to my LinkedIn friends who provided their thoughts to help me and others…Thank You!
 
Here is a summary of the LinkedIn-friends feedback I received about People Networking:
  • I agree with your analysis of the two extremes of networking. When I began networking, I definitely fell into the latter group, i.e. the ones who go into a shell. You don't mention the third type of networker, i.e. the one who actually knows how to network, but I assume you will cover that in future instalments.
     
    I don't necessarily disagree with the inner-directed questions to ask yourself, but I'm not sure it's the best place to start. For one thing, when it comes to the first type of networker who grabs everyone to explain to them why they should be clients, many of them would give themselves a 10 as networkers, even if they are really a 2. The self-assessment won't work, in other words, if you don't first know what a good networker does.
     
    For me, my turnaround came when I realized that networking is not about what you can do for me. It's about what I can do for you. As soon as I changed to an outer-directed focus, I came out of my shell. There was nothing to cringe about if I focused on how I can help the other guy.
  • Yes I agree but I think it is deeper than that.
     
    You concluded: "Networking is meeting new people and re-meeting people in a business or social context."
     
    I would extend that beyond "meeting" to "developing a relationship with". A relationship can be, as you said, both social and business, but it goes beyond meeting which is often one-way (you introducing yourself to them) to a two-way commitment where you learn more about each other and start looking for ways to add value to each other. This builds trust over time - which from my perspective is the ultimate goal of networking. Once trust is established, an opportunity may present itself.
  • Great way to drive traffic!
  • I agree with your description of the two extremes of networking, the proverbial shrinking violets on the one hand and the gregariousness personified on the other hand. As a former shrinking violet, what works for me is to understand that effective networking starts and ends with providing value. It's not about me, it's about what can I do for someone, something, the world. Doing this consistently establishes credibility and provides the basis for a productive relationship that engenders trust. For me, meeting and re-meeting people in a business or social context is not a satisfactory goal, it is only a tool. The goal of networking, for me, is to develop relationships based on providing mutual value.
  • I'm not sure I agree with your definition of networking. Simply making and remaking contacts doesn't really add value. A network consists of a series of connections. The stronger those connects the better the network.
     
    In your example you explain that networking starts by looking at your own personality and development. I don't think that's where people should start. I think people should network with the intent of helping the other person. Help them smile, help them learn something, help them meet someone that is better able to help them. I would much rather network with someone that is more interested in what other people have to say than someone that knows how to nod at the appropriate time.
     
    In business I work on a simple axiom - people buy from people. Regardless of whether it is offline or online the idea of helping others will take you much further than polishing your presentation skills.
This confirms:
  1. My LinkedIn friends who provided feedback understand others have a wide range of ways of approaching networking: some are shrinking violets, some are gregariousness personified, some people think they are excellent at networking when really they are not, and some other folks are excellent at networking.
  2. The friends who provided feedback think my definition 'Networking is meeting new people and re-meeting people in a business or social context' is not sufficient because it does not capture the goal/intent of networking. My friends believe the goal/intent of networking is
    • helping the other person and/or helping the other person smile and/or
    • providing value and/or
    • it's not about me, it's about what can I do for someone else and/or
    • adding value and/or
    • making strong connections and/or
    • developing relationships based on providing mutual value and/or
    • even more than building relationships it is growing a two-way commitment and building trust over time
  3. My friends who provided feedback had differing views about my statement regarding the starting point. I had stated:
    So, the first Networking step is spending some time thinking about oneself:
    • What are my interpersonal strengths?
    • What are my interpersonal weaknesses?
    • Have I educated myself and learned enough about 21st Century networking?
    • What do the results of my past-actions tell me about my networking skills?
    • On a scale of 1-to-10, how do I rate my networking talent?
    Overall, it seems the friends who provided feedback are at least a little uncomfortable with the starting point I suggested.
So, in my next blog in this series - blog #5 - I will make [and discuss] some adjustments to my definition of People Networking and I will revisit 'the starting point'. In the meantime, if you have any suggestions about these things then please let me know.

How To - Pitch Your Business Idea

by Rick Baker
On May 4, 2010
A fascinating experience…
 
…watching people pitch their business ideas to people who possess money
 
For example: Dragon’s Den, Shark Tank, and other such TV shows enjoy a level of popularity. Our universities have business-pitch contents. Also, our community has its Golden Triangle Angelnet. goldentriangleangelnet.angelgroups.net  
 
And, of course, Spirited Investors receives many requests. www.spiritedinvestors.ca
 
In an effort to help people who struggle with pitching their business ideas I am working on a book, which will provide ‘How To’ advice.
 
Here is a sample –
 
How To Pitch Your Business Idea
  1. Know the way business funders think
  2. Project a pleasing presence…unleashing your personality
  3. Impress them with your natural confidence
  4. Keep it concise...in less time than provided, absolutely nail a few key points
  5. Keep it simple...do not bore them with details or annoy them with jargon
  6. Anticipate the questions...and when they are asked, answer them crisply
  7. Know the way business funders think
A couple of points:
  • Yes, I know I repeated “know the way business funders think”. I wrote that twice because I thought writing it 5 times might annoy you and subtract from the value.
  • Business Idea Pitches:  it seems to me this is an extreme territory for human communication.  Certainly, it is much more intense/extreme than everyday business communication. And, it is more intense/extreme than the average sales pitch or deal negotiation. 
For most people who take the adventure, doing a Business Idea Pitch is one of the most-challenging communications in business.

Tags:

Investor Funding | Personalities @ Work

Copyright © 2012. W.F.C (Rick) Baker. All Rights Reserved.