The Wow Factor

In business people are always looking to have a competitive edge over their competitors by providing the so-called 'wow factor'. What that means is simply the managing of their customers' expectations of what they are, by default, supposed to deliver.  The wow factor in simple terms is simply the practice of under-promising and over-delivering.

Great companies like Apple take great pain in finding out what their customers expect of them and then try extremely hard to outmatch that expectation. The end-effect of this practice is basically the creation of value for the company brand and it also induces strong customer loyalty.

A Great Cure For Procrastination

Firstly, let me put a disclaimer here by saying that I do not claim to have a guaranteed cure for the chronic disease of procrastination for you (yes, it is a chronic disease and we might really die from it). This is because what might work for me and everybody else might not work for you due to our differing experiences in life. Our backgrounds and experiences ultimately shape our psyche. But one thing is true. Most of us have had at some points in our lives struggled with the habit of procrastination. We have tried many ways in order to get ourselves to overcome this huge stumbling block and yet, oftentimes we miserably failed.

We do agree that the cause of procrastination is all in the head. The moment when we realize that we were able to stay up all night finishing our assignment when the deadline was the following morning, we stopped and fumed at ourselves in disbelief. It is when things become 'a must' that they really get moving. But the problem is, if we really are honest with ourselves, not everything in life is a real must unless it gets to the point when it becomes one of those can't live without activities. Doing our homework which is due next week is certainly not as urgent as breathing. We, in our right minds, correctly set the priorities straight.

A powerful idea I came across recently is that of Parkinson's Law. It states that:

Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion

At first glance this sentence is nothing but a mere description of the problem and read nothing like a prescription for it. But give it a deeper thought for a second. We will find that this is largely true and since it is an antithesis to a proactive living we might want to ask ourselves - can we actually defy this? Fortunately, yes!

So the next time we would like to get a work done and finding ourselves having a 'proc attack', remind ourselves that the disease has to be fought back. If we do nothing about it, the work will never get done unless it becomes a real necessity. And by being able to cure the problem, we will have a better sense of mastery over our lives and this in turn gives us a better sense of self-worth.

Good luck!

Mastering Any New Skill

Recently, I bumped into a lecture video which was delivered by Tim Ferris. For those of you who do not know him, he is a renowned and if I may, sensational, author and blogger who committed himself to being a human guinea-pig (in an attempt to delve into the human body), provides venture capital and mentoring to many startups, holds the world record for the most tango spin under one-minute, and just continues to dazzle and being awesome. In fact, in one interview I remember the interviewer dubbing him as the real life 'world's most interesting man' - a title given after a certain viral beer commercial icon.

Well, he is interesting and that happens when someone sets himself apart from the rest of the population in terms of what he does and achieves in life. Surely we can learn a thing or two from this guy. So, in that lecture Tim basically shared 4 ways on how an individual could master anything new. It can be summed up with the DiSS acronym.

1. First alphabet, the D

It stands for 'deconstruction', which means breaking the outcome into small bits and pieces. I don't know how, but shortly before I came across this video, I've had a very similar idea. I am currently working on a VBA-based risk management software and in designing the software, I have to make a list of the qualities that this software has to possess. And from there onwards, I work backwards to make every single quality comes into realization. In a sentence: breaking our goal down helps us to define it - comparable to a work-breakdown-structure.

An important idea under this alphabet is also knowing exactly what turns you off. Deconstruct your de-motivators. For instance, if you would like to learn cooking but due to some unclear reasons, hate to do it, all you have to do is to identify the sources of those negative energy. It could be the dislike for grocery shopping and dish-washing. In that case, get someone else to do those things for you so that you can focus on the act of cooking itself.


2. Be fussy, do the S

Yes, 'selection'. Wether or not we have noticed this, getting to our goals faster and working more effectively are possible if we focus on a certain percentage of the ways to get there. Tim is known for being a proponent of the Pareto principle, which states roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes. If you would like to learn a new language, you need to focus only on a handful forms of sentences in order to be able to achieve a certain level of mastery in that language. Simple as that. This is also in harmony with the principle of minimalism.


3. OMG, another S!

This time it stands for 'sequencing'. To me, this sounds more like pseudo project management now. After identifying and choosing only the necessary work-package, you have to sequence them. Logical.


4. The final S

'Stakes'. Here Tim tries to bind the logical to the emotional. He proposed to have a negative consequence should we fail to achieve our goal. Something that we really, really hate to see to happen. Nowadays, you can tie it to a lot of things, like donating to the George W. Bush Foundation or something. And always keep in mind that money is a very powerful motivator to the majority of us. So, make use of that fact in a positive way!

Macht, Widerstand, und Durchsetzung

"Macht bedeutet die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass ein Individuum - in der Wirtschaft ein Unternehmen - seinen Willen auch gegen den Widerstand anderer Beteiligter durchsetzen kann."

Max Weber, Soziologe

The Psychology of Success

Matthew Herper, 10.18.02, 7:30 AM ET

NEW YORK - Eighty years ago, a 14-year-old John R. Simplot ran away from home because he was sick of milking cows. 

Eventually he built a fortune growing potatoes; he still supplies McDonald's (nyse: MCD - news - people ) with french fries. Sixty years later, Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard to run a small startup called Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people ). Now, of course, he's the richest man in the world. 

Gates and Simplot are two of the world's most successful entrepreneurs. To psychologists, their stories raise fascinating questions. In what ways are the two men, born generations apart and raised in completely different surroundings, alike? More importantly, what makes them different from the great majority of people who never started a business, watched it succeed and become incredibly rich? 

After decades of what at first amounted to little more than guesswork, scientists are collecting data they think can answer those questions. Enticing clues indicate that telltale bits of psychology may spur people to start businesses and even help determine who succeeds and who fails. The venture capitalists of the future may use psychological profiles to pick entrepreneurs who are more likely to create winning companies. 

The first steps psychologists took toward understanding entrepreneurs were based on anecdote, not experiment. Alexander Zelaznick, a professor emeritus of psychology at Harvard Business School, says years of interviewing entrepreneurs led him to the dramatic conclusion that they simply did not feel risk, or weigh consequences, in the same way as other people. "To understand the entrepreneur," Zelaznick told The New York Times in 1986, "you first have to understand the psychology of the juvenile delinquent." 

"That's a great quote," responds Kelly Shaver, a professor of psychology at William Mary College who is working in the field today. "But I think it's really not true." 

Anecdotal evidence created a caricature of the typical entrepreneur: A young man with an appetite for risk and a persuasive personality, a gifted salesman with an independent streak. "I'd say the evidence that entrepreneurs have a particular personality 'type' is mostly unconvincing," says Shaver. However, he says, data collected over the last decade has allowed psychologists to confirm--or disprove--parts of this picture. 

Take for instance, the notions that entrepreneurs are risk takers. Robert Baron, a psychologist at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, has shown that entrepreneurs are more successful when they are persuasive and have strong social skills--in other words, that being a charismatic salesman is a big help. That would be no surprise to Apple Computer) CEO Steve Jobs, famed for being so convincing he seems to temporarily distort reality. 

Here, though, another problem rears its head. Most studies of entrepreneurs look only at people who have been successful. That is, they pick out people who have already founded businesses. Instead of first finding entrepreneurs and then asking what makes them successful, researchers are left looking at a group of winners, at least relatively speaking. 

To make matters worse, researchers often have asked these entrepreneurs to describe themselves at their career's beginning. This, it turns out, is almost impossible for anyone to do. We all craft stories about our lives that exaggerate some factors while leaving others out. Could Larry Ellison really give an accurate assessment of what was going through his mind when he founded Oracle (nasdaq: ORCL - news - people ), even if he wanted to? 

Shaver and some of his colleagues are trying to get around this through a survey called the Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics, which began in 1995. 64,622 American households were called at random, and, from this large group, the researchers found 800 entrepreneurs who had not been in business more than three months. They also assembled a representative sample of 400 people to use as a control group. 

Each participant in the study answered a 15-page questionnaire. From this data, Shaver and others have already been able to draw some basic conclusions. For instance, entrepreneurs and normal people seem to worry equally about financial autonomy and/or a feeling of being motivated in their jobs. Neither a need for financial nor personal independence seems to have caused any of these people to start their own business. 

Nor, says Shaver, do the entrepreneurs seem to be devil-may-care risk takers. Only a subtle difference in the way they appreciate risk emerged. The entrepreneurs are worse at coming up with reasons they might fail. "Being able to generate more unpleasant possibilities might be making non-entrepreneurs more afraid," Shaver says, but we don't know that. 

So far there is one other big difference between those who go into business for themselves and those who don't, Shaver says. Entrepreneurs don't care what other people think about them. "They really don't care as much," Shaver says. "They're just happy to go ahead and do what they're doing." 

Statistically speaking, then, Simplot and Gates would seem to have two things in common: They have trouble imagining failure, and they don't care what you think.

Source : (http://www.forbes.com/2002/10/18/1018profile.html)