Perception is a tricky and intricate thing. How you understand something is directly related to your perception of it, and if your perception is wrong, it can rock your world when your perception of something changes.
I’ve recently had some interesting feedback about me that certainly changed my world.
Someone told me that sometimes, it feels like I’m being a zealot, that things “must” be improved; the implication is that I’m the kind of person for whom the only constant is that things change, that I’m never going to be satisfied, and that in consequence I don’t just enthuse about innovation, I preach it, evangelise it.
On a blog on the subject, I guess it could easily come across as that, and maybe that’s not entirely inaccurate; I do talk it up a lot on here.
The thing is, I feel a lot like I have to talk it up because no-one else is doing it. I have the distinct impression a lot of the time that any competitors in a field are merely trying to one-up each other rather than getting to the heart of the matter.
For example, I specialise in forums. There are easily half a dozen “major” forum packages out there, some free, some paid. And as a friend put it, they’re like cars – they all do basically the same thing that the Model T did decades ago, get people from A to B, and that they’ve been refined and improved upon, but the basic premise is the same.
The problem I have is that there is a lack of people doing anything different in the ecosystem; cars have competition for the conveyance of people, they have bikes and vans and trucks, which all do the job of carrying people but some carry items, some carry very large items – but you can use them for the task of ferrying people.
The forum world is different, the forums all do the same basic thing, maybe the knobs and twiddly bits are different, but they’re like cars. There aren’t really any trucks or vans or bike equivalents for forums.
And I guess I do get a bit vocal about my dissatisfaction on the subject, I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t. But someone has to carry the torch, someone has to bang the drum, to get the message out there that what IS does not have to drive what MIGHT BE, and turn it into a MUST BE, to get the message out there that it’s OK to ask why, and why not, the way something is – to make what isn’t, into what is.
It frustrates me that more people won’t dare to be different, won’t leave their comfort zone and try something new – maybe it’ll fail, maybe it’ll succeed, but even if it fails, it’ll teach you something for next time, and some of the greatest improvements have come out of the most dismal failures.
I guess, out of all the frustration, of all the sadness in thought of what could be, rather than what people choose to allow to be, I feel I have to shoulder some of the mantle of trying to motivate people, I can’t do it by myself, but I have to try.
I actually said it myself on a discussion about this very issue:
Also note that what comes across as zealotry is because I’m daring to suggest things that are against the order of things, and to do that, you have to approach it with the belief and faith that you can single-handedly move mountains, because without that belief, without someone daring to believe in what could be, it won’t happen.
I’m strongly involved in what I’m doing, and that’s enough for me. I guess I just believe it in enough that it can be perceived as a religion. I don’t believe in it, but I have a pretty good idea…
There’s a subtle difference (in my mind at least) between ‘with zeal’ and ‘being a zealot’. One is approaching things enthusiastically, but tempered with soundness of mind and the other is pursuing it madly and blindly – regardless of prevailing reality and indifferent to squashed toes.
Innovation almost invariably requires one to dip into the latter group. The amount of reasons why one can’t, shouldn’t or ‘if it was a good idea, someone else would have’ *is* a mountain. It’s something you’re either ‘for’ — or you’re part of the inertia.
Blazing trails isn’t for everyone – even if they appreciate the eventual fruits.
Firstly, yes, I’ll agree that you can proceed with zeal without being a zealot. I like to think I’m the former, not the latter.
As for dipping into the latter… you don’t need to dive into it, though – I don’t recall ever approaching anything with madness and blindness, no matter how enthusiastic I was at the time. Pursuing to the exclusion of other things, maybe, but never madly or blindly.
That said, you do at least have to have some zeal about you because if you don’t, you won’t ever make it happen.
Here’s the thing that I suspect most people don’t quite realise about what I do, when I do what I do: I go in, aware of the reasons why not, aware of the ‘if it was good, someone else…’ mentality – and then promptly tear into it. If it is a good idea, it should stand up to those concerns, and you should be able to wear them down.
More specifically, it’s part of the implementation of the idea where you end up solving these things.
To give you an example, one of the projects on my desk, such as it is, does something incredibly funky. Unusual interface, pushing boundaries in implementation. I’ve spent quite literally months hacking back at the technical problems, and the conceptual problems – I think about that project most days on some level or another. Not because I’m so enthusiastic I’m proceeding without due care, but because it has problems that need to be solved and it is my enthusiasm that keeps me on the road to it.
And sure, blazing trails isn’t for everyone. The inertia slows down most people because they can have the best idea in the world but not the enthusiasm to figure out how to make it materialise (be it lack of skill, lack of materials, or simply lack of enthusiasm) – but often they don’t even go that far.
My main complaint is that people don’t even bother to think, they actually are happier to accept how it is, and complain bitterly, than bother to think how to improve it. The trouble is, I’m sufficiently on the other end of the scale that I am perceived to be a zealot over what should, in my world view, be the natural order of things: something is broken, it needs fixing, either have/develop the skills to fix/improve it or turn the idea over to someone who can.
In other words: I think most people need to try harder and complain less, because if they don’t try to fix something they complain about, I don’t think they have too much right to complain. Trouble is, that kind of critical thinking is pretty heretical!
For what it’s worth, I see my role as innovator/implementer less about trail blazing, necessarily, and more about enabling. I see it less as diving into unexplored territory and more about making much better use of what’s already explored, but it is definitely at least a bit of both.
In other words: I think most people need to try harder and complain less, because if they don’t try to fix something they complain about, I don’t think they have too much right to complain. Trouble is, that kind of critical thinking is pretty heretical!
Complaining is easier than doing, bottom line. Most today are taught to follow not lead. Personally I believe that you are correct. But beware your life’s mission will be full of critics and others attempting to bring you down to their level.
Oh, of that I have no doubt. Having done both in the past, I’m well aware that complaining is easier.
Where I get amazed is in the people who take great delights and pains in complaining, when for the same amount of effort they could have found a different solution.
As for my life being full of critics, I won’t argue that at all; everywhere I’ve gone, I’ve had critics, as well as supporters – because it’s easier to complain that something’s different and ‘worse’ (mostly because it’s just different!) than it is to embrace it.
One thing I will add, we had a thing go round at my old company, for ‘Change Champions’ representing the IT department as things like our corporate intranet were rolled out. Naturally, as the sort of person that was not only responsible for making changes happen, but also dealing with the fall-out of changes to the regular users, I was ‘encouraged’ to be part of the program.
Those who wanted to be officially involved had to fill in a short questionnaire. (I’ll spare you most of the details because I’m sure you’re already seeing the bad places this is going!)
The first question says it all though: “What is your stance on change, particularly changes you don’t agree with?”
In other words: if we change something, are you going to defend us if it really screws up? My answer to this question, and what lead to me not being part of it officially (which was awesome!): “Change that brings about an improvement for the workforce, even with an implementation cost in both time and money, but ultimately improves things, I can get behind and defend to the hilt. Change for the sake of change, however, is ridiculous, frustrating for all concerned and all too common in this environment, because no-one’s listening to the complaints that are made.”
You have to hear the complaints to understand how to improve it, and certainly, well reasoned criticisms of something will help improve it if acted on. Sadly, though, most of the time people complain simply because it’s different, usually for no good reason, or because it was changed without taking into account the actual issues faced. (In short: complaining isn’t intrinsically bad, if it’s approached with the view of helping to improve things.)