Some Basic Rules of Corporate Warfare

(Things to Include in a Corporate Warrior’s Toolkit)

Last week I was invited to dinner by two longtime readers of this newsletter that happened to be in town. Both are well known as being effective capitalists on a large scale. Both have, on occasion, been loudly criticized for being a bit on the savage side. Victors often are. That said, they have both done an outstanding long-term job of driving increasing equity holder value so, in my book, they are ok guys. I wrote about a meeting with one of them in How a Famous CEO Stays So Calm.

After agreeing on The Fundamental Rule ("Add value to the customer.") we got into a lengthy discussion about competitive behaviors and philosophies for competing to win in today's, and tomorrow's, marketplace. I started scribbling out notes and have put the tenets into the list below. It was an interesting and useful evening to say the least.

I encourage you to forward this to your staff since, eventually, the good of a competitive mindset, shared by all, reaches down and out to the tiniest roots in a world-class company and eventually finds its way out to the equity holders’ wallets.

This is a good basic list to pedal through while making any competitive decision. Keep it handy:

1.         Act according to a plan only after a thorough analysis of the possible outcomes.

2.         Minimize damage to the competition. Capturing him intact will typically maximize your gain (said from an M&A perspective but useful elsewhere).

3.         Maximize profit by minimizing the use of force, which is expensive. Force is more efficient when not actually used. The optics of known, but withheld force, are onerous.

4.         Weaken your competition before engagement (hire away his most valuable executives, disrupt his supplies, maybe spread around some FUD, etc.). This effectively strengthens you.

5.         Shape, or control, your competition. Make him do things he would not normally do (lure him into undesirable markets, force up his costs, make him trip). While often fun to do, these things should all be designed to increase your advantage and relate to a specific goal of some sort and not just to amuse you (Though that does have value. We work hard and life is short. Have fun. - Tal)

6.         Analyze every possible course of action for the advantages and disadvantages of every possible outcome. Endeavor to convert your own disadvantages into advantages, and your enemy's advantages into disadvantages.

7.         Use your enemy's own psychological and philosophical structures against him. Somewhat tough to do (and can backfire badly) but when successful this will rattle him and may have him gasping, “But hey, I thought we were the good guys!”

8.         When attacking/moving into a new market be extremely sensitive to any changes and adapt accordingly. "Be like water" (adapt to the terrain). Keep in mind you’re probably being watched so ask yourself “What do they see and what can they conclude from what they see?” Then ask, “How can I modify what they see to my advantage?”

9.         Attack with sufficient strength where you are not expected. Note: One of my hosts suggested using overwhelming force to debilitate the opposition. The other thought this would suggest you had misjudged the situation and thus wasted resources. I agree with the later. Less waste and destruction means more profit for you and yours.

10.      Try to achieve your goals via indirect methods your competition doesn't expect. Again, always be "unfathomable". If you are unfathomable your competition will have a very difficult time effectively planning and executing against you.

11.      Speed is everything. Always be asking yourself "How can I get this done quicker without more costs." Quicker wars (of all kinds, even with kids I’m still learning) are cheaper.

12.      Think it through. Never forget that battles are won or lost before they are fought.

The list is longer but these are the easy-to-deploy heavies. It's a quick list when you get used to the “mode of thinking”.

Think about it…

I had a useful sign made for my office wall: "Business Bullets are fast. Fire first." -T. Newhart

Avoiding Your Own Charge of the Light Brigade

To paraphrase an ancient Greek writer: "Ten good shoulders, wisely led, Will beat a hundred without a head." -Euripides

"The famous Charge of the Light Brigade is a useful study because it broke so many classic rules of basic management. Inflated egos didn’t help things either." -Tal Newhart

Let’s look at the famous “Charge of the Light Brigade.” It happened on October 25, 1854 during the Crimean War with the British fighting the Russians. The disaster happened for the same reason a lot of businesses fail: bad communication brought upon by a lethal collection of inflated egos.

In an act that appears to be of unfathomable stupidity the British Lieutenant-General the Earl of Cardigan ordered his light brigade (the “light” was because they were lightly armed, as opposed to the “heavy brigade”) to attack the Russian artillery positions. Success was impossible. The charge was through a narrow valley a mile and a quarter long. Russian guns were at the end of the valley and gunners were on both sides, forming a classic death box. In fact, some of Cardigan’s men did manage to get through to the guns, but were then surrounded by the Russian troops. When they turned to retreat they were easy targets. The whole thing took about 20 minutes and cost about a third of Cardigan’s force. And of course there is the Tennyson poem to remind everybody about it forever (sort of like our modern social media…).

But what really went wrong, and why, it is vaguely familiar if you regularly read the Wall Street Journal.

As is often the case, there was a sequence of careless—and completely avoidable—mistakes. And they all came down to poor ‘corpcraft’ (see my definition of corpcraft elsewhere). A successful attack was clearly hopeless. That was obvious—as is almost always the case in war (and business), success or failure is decided before the battle. And again, as in business, after the “first stupid mistake” was made, management suddenly couldn’t get anything right and the situation (and equity holder value) disintegrated with shocking speed.

In a nutshell this is the famous story of The Charge of the Light Brigade. It’s amazing that generally intelligent commanders, which these gentlemen were, could make such foolish mistakes. But, just as in the corporate world, that happens. The real problem is that a single minor mistake can set off what around here we call a “negative cascade”. (As opposed to a positive cascade which is what you and your equity holders want: good events leading to good events, etc.) A negative cascade is simple: think dominos. Big expensive ones.

But here’s the detail and it is easy to compare this to something you’ve probably observed or personally experienced:

Lord Raglan, the English commander (a.k.a. the Boss here), looked across a broad landscape, and from his high vantage point on a hill, could see the enemy (the competition) in the distance trying to remove some captured English cannons. Since captured cannons were a metric of victory or defeat in a battle this was a Bad Thing. Raglan sent down another in a sequence of orders to Lieutenant-General the Earl of Lucan—who was in a position 600 feet lower in elevation and didn’t have the same view—to recover the cannons “immediate” [sic]. The order was given to another officer’s aide-de-camp, Captain Edward Nolan, for delivery—Captain Nolan was chosen because he was an accomplished horseman and would take a speedy, more direct route down to Lucan. He did this, probably loving it, because he was a known showoff.

So Nolan delivered the order to Lucan to attack and regain the cannons. Reading the order Lord Lucan was justifiably baffled and reasonably asked for clarification because he couldn’t actually see any cannons. Nolan, eager to see some “real cavalry action”, arrogantly waved his arm in the general direction of the Russian front and snapped “There, my Lord, is your enemy. There are your guns.” Nolan repeated that the order was to attack immediately then trotted off to talk to another officer. Lord Lucan, flawed by pride, and always at odds with the arrogant Nolan (Nolan had authored books on cavalry tactics and made sure everybody knew it), failed to ask Nolan for further clarification. Note: Like Lord Raglan, Captain Nolan had seen the location of the cannons that were obscured from Lucan’s view because of the topography. But Nolan didn’t accurately point to where the cannons were—he merely swept his arm across the landscape in the general direction of the Russians. As you can see, the cascade now accelerates towards preventable disaster.

Lord Lucan rode over to the commander of the light brigade, the Earl of Cardigan (and his trusty horse Ronald). Lucan and Cardigan hated each other (Cardigan had been married to Lucan's youngest sister but was now separated from her) and, again, there was no useful discussion. Lucan simply ordered Cardigan to attack ‘down the valley’ with his light brigade. Cardigan pointed out the fact there were numerous enemy positions in the vicinity to which Lord Lucan simply replied Cardigan should take the ride at moderate speed so as not to exhaust the horses (good news for Ronald). Lucan would follow up with the heavy brigade. The cascade continues.

So off they rode into “The Valley of Death”. Twenty minutes later it was over. Nolan died dramatically in the charge, ostensibly trying to ride forward to warn Cardigan he was headed in the wrong direction (some historians disagree with this interpretation—nobody argues he was the first to die). Lucan, seeing what was happening to the light brigade in front, turned the heavy brigade around uttering the famous line: “They shall not have the heavy.”

The high level military history view says that the attack was a perfect misapplication of the sound strategy of applying superior force at a position of an enemy’s weakness (e.g. your competition, also see the Southwest Airlines comments elsewhere in this collection).

But that’s the easy way out. What happened was that the functional CEO (Lord Raglan) made a terrifically dumb mistake (the cannons were clearly lost to the Russians). That mistake, foolish in itself, compounded itself through a sequence of unquestioning levels of management (accelerating the negative cascade). In the final analysis it was Cardigan who took the most heat because he led the actual charge straight into the cannon battery. Cardigan, of course, blamed Lucan. And Lucan, of course, blamed the dead Nolan for the vague delivery of the orders. Nothing’s changed. This happens with poor management all the time. Look around. Hopefully you don’t see it, but you probably do.

It all sounds uncomfortably familiar doesn’t it? How many boards and executive committees behave the same way?

Let’s take a look at this via a few very broad strokes:

1.     Underestimation of a major obstacle. Raglan, like a lot of successful CEOs, probably thought “I’ve figured this out. Nothing’s changed. Go get the cannons.” Raglan had convinced himself he was the “master of the universe” and that he knew everything. Toss in a little of the “I can do anything” syndrome and it spells disaster. It’s the same in the market place. In his mind Raglan saw only the cannons being recaptured. He failed to think of the process. Does the name Vivendi ring a bell (sorry Jean-Marie)?

2.     Faced with a rapidly deteriorating situation Cardigan continued his charge. A Great CEO sometimes has to admit that he or she is wrong. Sun Tzu said excess pride in a general is a bad thing (poor corpcraft) because they worry too much about what others think of them. Even smart CEOs sometimes continue to throw massive resources at projects (often pet projects) that can’t work. Consider Ross Johnson of R.J. Reynolds and his so-called smokeless Premiere cigarettes. Like Cardigan, Ross continued the charge to prove “he could do it”. It cost Ross a couple billion RJR dollars and Cardigan a couple hundred men. Great generals and great CEOs can admit that sometimes “you really can’t get there from here”. They can say it even though there’s always somebody like Captain Nolan who will say “You see! I knew he couldn’t do it!” Great leaders admit they made a mistake and move on, limiting the destruction. Good managers don’t compound their errors. (See the chapter about mistakes.)

3.     Another mistake Raglan made was his assumption of domination in a fluid state. Raglan thought he dominated the landscape (e.g., marketplace). But there were what amounted to “marketplace eddies” where he could be overpowered. Great generals and CEOs know that battlefield or market domination is a highly dynamic thing. They know that constant adjustment and tuning isn’t optional, it’s required.

4.     Lord Lucan failed to get clarification from Captain Nolan and Nolan failed to pass on relevant information. A Great leader knows he or she has to listen to—pursue, understand and act upon—any credible source of information potentially relevant to the survival of the company. In many cases information “doesn’t know where to go” in an enterprise. That’s a serious flaw in a company since sometimes tiny pieces of information can lead to the destruction of even a huge company. The challenge is that extremely vital information frequently first presents itself in remote places along the outer edges of the organization. The datum or event may seem innocuous to the casual observer but can, if not acted upon decisively, cripple or even collapse a major enterprise. But that wasn’t the case with the light brigade. Captain Nolan had the critical piece of information—he had seen the location of the cannons! But, in the heat of the moment he didn’t pass it along. And Lucan didn’t ask him to explain further because he felt Nolan was his inferior and Lucan himself would look bad or somehow weak by asking. Great leaders give, and get, the information needed. Lucan knew he had incomplete information but chose to act anyway. No greatness there. Just poor corpcraft.

So off they rode into “a mile long jaw of death.”

The real tragedy here is how senseless it all was. The biggest box in the failure matrix was simply poor communication. The same thing frequently happens on Boards of Directors. Board level things often don’t happen like they should because the board doesn’t function as a proper, fluid team (and this has nothing to do with Sarbanes-Oxley, that’s a downstream consideration).

Remember, in business the cannons are always there, somewhere. But there’s no reason to ride into them.

Think about it…

____________________

My thanks to the British Government for their help in this account. –TN

A CEO Talks about the Importance of Grokking

I had lunch last week with an author of two once best-selling business books. I was interviewing him on behalf of a client for a consulting job. I was brought in because the client wanted a good arm’s length interview they could easily pass around the C-suite. The writer had once run a very large corporation, did so famously, and wrote well about it. The recorded interview itself was telling and useful relative to the client's decision about whether or not to consider him further for the assignment. But it was the informal discussion later when he brought up a useful notion he said I could share with other Corpwar readers.

This notion is his very deep seated belief of something called "grokking". This was what he always looked for in his inner team members. He said it was an even denser form of value, to him, than what I call a "corporate warrior" (a phrase he considers a bit pop and superficial). I had never heard the term “grok” before so I asked what it meant to him in a functional, as well as philosophical, sense.

He answered, "It means the guy or gal is really inside the skill set of something. It's not an external layer. Most people with good skills wear them like good clothes. But it's still external. A layer on the outside. A person that groks something knows it so thoroughly it has become part of them. It has become their retina through which they see everything."

"Doesn't that singular focus lead to a kind of social dysfunction?" I asked having seen exactly that in software engineers, actuaries, etc., that I have been responsible for hiring.

"Sometimes. Those guys we just put into a nice corner with good tools and keep the place dusted for them. Everybody that’s properly employed adds equity holder value in their own way; if they grok something of value to the organization, and therefore the equity holder, then that value add is pretty high. You need to support it and use it. My ongoing goal, perfection really, is having our most important critical paths composed of these kinds of people doing what they grok. It's a beautiful thing to watch projects flash up those human chains once they are assembled."

I asked him what he grokked. He smiled and said "Well, that's simple. People."

I left the meeting asking myself what I "grok" in my professional life, if indeed anything. I concluded it would be recruiting in its various flavors, such as doing useful interviews and selling exceptional candidates that don’t want to move jobs; that it will improve their life in various meaningful ways to take that leap. It’s a fairly diverse skill cloud that, when brought to a singular focus, is actually somewhat limited, which I found humbling.

It might be beneficial to ask yourself the same question: "Do I grok at anything, and if so what?" After looking at your core team members with the same question in mind, suggest they do the same. And so on. It’s a useful exercise for accelerating things.

Think about it...

The Risk of "Normal Innovation"

And what to do about it

The Gordian Knot, presented to Alexander the Great in 333 B.C., has become symbolic of an unsolvable puzzle. History suggests it may have been an actual knot, impossible to untie. In fact it wasn’t until recently when Polish physicist Piotr Pieranski wrote a knot program* called SOTOS that the knot was finally undone. It turned out not to be a knot at all (note: when Alexander was presented with the challenge no rope ends were visible) but rather a loop of rope (2 ends spliced together) that was probably wetted, somehow entangled, and then shrunk in the sun. With insufficient looseness it would have been impossible to unravel the rope.

However, Alexander the Great was innovative and had an interesting solution to “luein” (loosen/solve) the knot. After all, Zeus had said anybody that could undo the knot would rule all of Asia. Thusly motivated Alexander stared at the twisted mass for a while, then abruptly took out his sword and sliced the knot in half. Nobody had thought of that solution before. But that was ok. After all, the challenge was to “part the knot”. The how was left to the attempter. It wasn’t how he played the game—it was whether he won or lost.

Result: Problem solved by looking at it differently than others. And, of course, Alexander went on to rule Asia.

Alexander knew how to innovate.

Alexander the Great was known as a great innovator in matters of war and competition. Napoleon was using Alexander’s techniques a thousand years later and they still worked (well, except that last time…).

Alexander looked for different ways to do things. For example, Alexander was the first to use the “strike at the weak spot” strategy. It seems simple and obvious now but in 334 B.C. it had never been formalized and he used it to shatter more powerful, better equipped armies. Never satisfied, he then refined it by cleverly creating a weak spot in the enemy line, then attacking there.

How? Simple if you look beyond the obvious. Alexander knew the enemy (his competition) was always watching him. He realized he could cause the enemy to physically move around by rearranging his own men. Using this, Alexander would, by moving his men, carefully have the enemy arrange itself in a manner that would ensure its own defeat. This led to less costly victories for Alexander and in war cheaper, with good results, is always better. This is why smart generals/CEOs/managers are always asking themselves, “How can I control my competition?” This makes competition cheaper and thus better for our equity holders. It’s fun too.

However, in the example, you need to look carefully at what Alexander did in the battlefield. It has two parts. One was the pure innovation (strike at the weak spot), the second was a refinement (create the weak spot in the first place)—the second was a sustaining move on the previous innovation. Don’t confuse them.

One of the definitions of a well-managed company is one that carefully listens to its customers and provides what they want. Super performing companies do this better than their competition via a sort of hyper-alignment with their clients.

But this extreme client centricity relative to innovation does carry a risk. You are thinking inside the box (e.g. the client’s). And if you are doing a good job you are probably receiving rewards and that feels good in all sorts of ways. But you probably aren’t truly innovating. You must objectively examine your actions and see if you are really just sustaining, in some fashion, an existing product or service (even if it’s “new”). There’s a difference and the difference can doom even a great company.

How? Even if you are performing greatly you have to ask yourself what you will do if somebody comes along with a client usable solution that is so different that you never even thought of it. Your client never thought of it either. In fact, maybe nobody but the goofy guy in the fabled garage, or some small market “skunk works”, ever thought of it. But it works better than your solution. And your clients gravitate to that new solution because that’s what their equity holders expect them to do—wouldn’t you? (Have you ever noticed how often small cap skunk works often smell like money? It’s an invigorating odor, even if it can occasionally smell like people have forgotten how to bathe...).

What makes this especially grim is, on the surface, you’re being penalized for being a “good”, well-managed company. You listened and were guided by your clients. Maybe you even took a bit of a chance and got out in front of them—helped them see a marginally better way. Even improved them. Companies win awards for doing that.

However, in many cases what we’re doing with that innovation, without knowing it, is simply treading water. Looking at the knot the same old way. In fact some of your well-intentioned, engineering driven, innovation may simply be “over-satisfying” the client’s need and that’s not helpful to your equity holders. In fact it can be damaging because you are diverging from what your client actually needs and wants to pay for. Less can be more. Eventually customers learn this.

The point is although you are admirably aligned with your clients you are still at risk because your client will switch away from you if a better way comes along. They have to.

Find your industry’s Gordian Knot.
Then untie it.

The challenge is to also venture outside the often small and constricting, client-driven, innovation box. Really do it. A lot of us think we do it, but we don’t. Not really. Why? Frankly, it’s a strange place for a traditionally well-run company. Too many unknowns. Somebody will ask you, “But what’s the ROI going to be?” Huh? You can’t analyze what doesn’t exist. True innovation, the real fresh stuff that flips your industry on its ear, is a financial analysis black hole. I know many CFOs and they have it tough enough already. Black holes? “No thanks.”

But you have to do it. Some call it “disruptive technology.” That’s a bit pop for my tastes but the idea is there. And I agree with it. It is, after all, the polar of merely sustaining and that’s risky. It speaks to the notion that you can’t get stuck—sometimes you have to just throw away what you call normal.

Whatever you label it, figure out how you are going to pay for it and who is going to do it. Then give them some space and stand back. If it were me I’d tell them to come up with the industry’s Gordian Knot and when they came up with it I’d tell them, “Great, now go figure out how to untie it. Or find the guy or gal in the garage that may already know. Take a checkbook. Get going!”

Is the approach too weird? Too expensive? Then create an internal mechanism (preferably an accountable person or small group—and yes, it may be a peculiar job description) whose job it is to know about anything (ANYTHING!) that can cause your customers to do things differently. Why? Because if they start doing things differently they may not do them with you. And this has killed off many a “great” company.

I once had a plaque made for my office wall. It said: “A company exists to create customers.” As I’m older now I think I should add: “and keep them for a long, long time.” Focusing a little less on what we can actually see and measure is a good way to ensure the new addition.

Think about it…

____________________

*Lest you think Piotr had way too much time on his hands physicists study knots because they think that matter may be composed of string-like, possibly knotted, pieces of space time. Thus “String Theory.” Interesting stuff—especially if you have a bottle of aspirin around.

How a Famous CEO Stays so Calm

Hint: "The open folders will kill you."

Somewhere along the line I picked up the rule that says when you're having lunch with someone on their private jet you should pay special attention to what they have to say. Last week was such an occasion and I'd like to pass along part of the conversation. If you occasionally feel stressed out and overwhelmed you might find it useful.

As is our practice when we do an executive search we typically supply some video, or recorded audio, of the top candidates. Seeing, or hearing, the candidates, provides a better idea of who they really are. So it saves a lot of time, money and reduces hiring risk for the client. Normally we put all this material securely on the web so the hiring team can peruse it at their convenience. This saves even more time. It's a slick system and although low-tech by today’s standards, works very well.

However, recently a client, a Fortune-level CEO and a way-back reader of this occasional newsletter (we've mentioned him previously), called up and asked me to bring the interview content over to Chicago Executive Airport (a busy corporate airport north of Chicago) and we'd go over the candidates for a senior finance position and then have some lunch.

We met on his Gulfstream (nice ride). After reviewing the video and resumes, and making some decisions, we put the work aside as the flight steward set the table for lunch which was brought over by a famous North Shore restaurant. I replied a cautious “Sure," to the host’s comment: "I hope you like Atkins." For the curious the meal consisted of grilled tuna steak with a portabella, gorgonzola salad and a glass of One.6 Chardonnay (a "low carb" wine). For the record, I would have that meal again anytime, anywhere.

During lunch (which permanently altered my notion of "diet food") I noticed my host seemed totally relaxed and without distraction. This was notable to me because you almost never see it. Most people, from the McDonald's drive-thru window person, to Donald Trump (ok, maybe a bad example), have so much on their minds that you just know they aren't all there. And they know it themselves. But here was my host, a nationally important man responsible for over 50,000 employees, and ultimately responsible for countless projects and equity holders, and yet he had a relaxed "lightness" about him that suggested he had arrived someplace that I, and perhaps you too, want to be. So I asked him how he did it. Here is the salient part of the conversation almost verbatim:

He smiled at the initial question. "Ah, maybe it's just a trick. Maybe I'm as overwhelmed as the fella that brought the food. I just don't show it. Maybe it's a ruse."

Sipping the wine, I thought about this. "No. I don't think so. I'd be able to tell because that's my job and I'm good at it."

He smiled. "OK, then describe to me in a single word what you think you're observing, either by its presence or absence. Go ahead. You're creative, Tal. Give it a try."

I thought about this, then said, simply, "Carefree." I then looked around the luxurious $40 million jet and added, "Which strikes me as impossible!"

"Well, you're right. I absolutely am not carefree in the usual sense, but I am in a very important way."

Now we were getting somewhere. "And what way is that?"

"My mind is clear. And relaxed," he said, eating the crisp tuna. He then reached into his breast pocket, pulled out a dime store notepad, made a note on it with a nice fountain pen and replaced both in his pocket. The motion was fluid and seemed to take only a few seconds. I realized he'd done it a half dozen times since I arrived but this was the first time I really noticed. His motion was that practiced. That routine. Clearly he had done it thousands of times.

"So's mine," I announced confidently, referring to my mental state.

"But it's not," he said, waving his fork. "And, Tal, that's not a bad thing. It's just inefficient. Like most people you over and under react to situations, which means the situations control you. I’ve seen you do it. You need to remind yourself to respond appropriately."

I replied, "Like the old notion of reacting like water when you toss a pebble into it?"

"Exactly," he said smiling. "We're talking about the same thing. The water doesn't over or under react. It reacts appropriately. If you over or under react the input is controlling you. Phone calls. Meetings. E-mails and texts. I learned a long time ago to give everything exactly what it deserves. Nothing more. Nothing less. At the time I came to that understanding, it was a big step for me." As he said this the pad came out and a few seconds later glided back into his shirt pocket. Smoothly, like relaxed breathing. It was elegant.

In the background a Learjet roared down the runway and off toward the East. I confess to wondering if its expensive occupants were under or over reacting to something. I half expected my host to read my mind and whisper, "Over." I continued with my lunch. It was genuinely delicious.

There was an easy silence in the cabin. I finally asked, "I can understand the efficiency of a measured response. But that doesn't explain your notion of the clear and relaxed mind. You have to have more going on in your head than most anyone I know. How can you honestly say it's clear and relaxed?"

"Simple. No open folders," he said, pointing his fork towards his head. "The open folders can kill you."

"Excuse me? Open folders?"

"We all make commitments—far more than we are aware of, most of them to ourselves. The key is the way our subconscious mind handles them. Basically, all our outstanding commitments are kept track of. I think of these as open folders because literally that's what they are. Something unfinished and waiting for something. Waiting for action and closure."

"What's an example?"

"Anything you think of that you want to come back to. Think about the enormity of that. It's any task you need to do, anything you want to follow-up on. The moment you think of it, if you don't execute it right then, it becomes an open folder. Something that needs to happen in the future. The problem is, in a typical human being, the open folders sort of float around in your short term memory which is a finite space. In the majority of people it's very cluttered which is the opposite of having a clear mind."

"And the clutter creates stress?" I asked, reaching for the glass of peculiar, but tasty, wine.

"Of course. Because you've identified a responsibility you have, some task you need to do and your subconscious mind won't let you really relax until it's done. So you have to handle it. The problem is much of the time we "forget" it—but in reality, Tal, it's not gone. It's still up there. Still an open folder sponging up resources. After a while there's no more room so we get tense, lose focus, and become less effective. We founder."

Then it dawned on me. "Thus, the pad?"

"Thus the pad," he said, pulling it out and fanning it like a deck of playing cards. "This is where everything goes. And I mean absolutely everything. The key is you have to trust it. I know if I write it down it will resurface. [Note: This was later clarified. The little note pages, which are all dated, (idea, reference, action or desired outcome notations), are faxed to an admin support person for handling. The circle back/follow-up process is apparently quite rigid.] The point is I can then forget about it. Writing it down "closes the folder" freeing up bandwidth to think about something else."

"And what is that, typically?"

"Actually, a lot about family and other pleasant pastimes. But if it's business related, after envisioning a project's desired outcome, it's mostly next step related thinking. Much less big picture than you would think. I've known a long time you can't "do" a project. You do steps. Therefore, much of my focus is on what's the very next thing that has to happen to move a project along. And, since I’m a leader, that's typically making a suggestion to somebody."

"So your strategy is to keep very little on your mind."

"Broadly. And that's what you refer to as my appearing 'carefree'." With that he reached into a compartment in the leather arm rest of his seat. He pulled out a new red notepad. "Here," he said sliding it across the table. "Try it. You'll see."

I did try it. And he's right. By moving the things that can't be used or concluded right now into a trusted loop-back system I'm finding I have a lot less 'on my mind' which, in turn, makes my thinking a bit crisper and cleaner. And yes, knowing valuable thoughts aren't going to "escape" leads to a kind of mental relaxation you need to experience to understand. I doubt I'm the sort of person that will ever be truly "carefree" but it's proving an enjoyable and very useful experiment.

If you feel stressed and over committed you should definitely try this technique. I've substituted my smartphone for the little paper pad but it works the same.

Give either a try. You too may never look back.

Think about it…