Induced personality disorder, or: I tried it, but I'm not proud of it

(Update: The title should more accurately read "Induced personality disorder, or: I tried it, but I'm not proud of it I didn't like it.")

As part of my continuing development of the power of treating everything in life as a personal experiment [1], I applied recently the idea to marketing my consulting business. In spite of Richard Koch's admonition in The 80/20 Principle to be "unconventional and eccentric in your use of time," I decided (with tracking [2], of course) to try conventional (and reasonable) approaches including:

• Visualizing my ideal client,
  
• Creating a clear value proposition,
  
• Focusing on a specific industry (indeed specific companies in it),
  
• Tapping my network to get leads,
  
• Making warm calls (I now prefer "cool (as in not warm) calls"), and generally
  
• Studying marketing workbooks that promote these ideas.
  

NB: 1) These ideas are sound, and I respect experts who teach them, 2) I'm very far from being knowledgeable and principled in applying them, 3) I executed as well as I could, but with limited discipline, 4) I applied the ideas for as long as I deemed useful [3]. So a huge YMMV. The problem?

It didn't work.

I realize I'm an odd duck (my umbrella description is ultimately "philosopher;" check out other Cool Job Descriptions), but I got poor results from this "push" [4] approach ("I have something valuable, so I'll find prospective clients who agree"). It felt awful, and lead to an insidious change in personality and a rather mercenary perspective of others. Specifically, what I lost sight of was:

• People shouldn't be a means to an end: I was treating my business connections (and friends in some cases) as mostly a source of potential value to me. I forgot to ask "How can I help her?" [5]. This can also poison relationships: "Shoot! Here comes Matt. He always wants something and he's going to bug me about not responding. I'll avoid him.") That feels very bad. Related: "palm down" networking; see How To Help People. Question: What are the exceptions to this?
  
• Give freely, but avoid "Free for all": I was accepting every opportunity to talk or meet with someone, but not all (few, actually) of these connections led to business. Put another way, never give everyone equal attention [6]. Question: What do you think of "targeted giving?" That is, should generosity be carefully parceled out? Certainly not in the cases of noticing immediate need that we can offer help with (e.g., someone with hands full having trouble opening a door).
  
• Stay open to opportunities: A major problem (and contradiction) related to this is filtering out possibly useful relationships. For example, a stranger reached out to me after finding my post What GTD And Weight Watchers Have In Common, and wanted to talk about weight issues he has. My attitude (now corrected) was "If you're not a prospective client, I don't have time for you." In this type of case, as a result of a recent shift in how I see this blog's purpose, inquiries from readers are again now welcome and accepted. Question: Is doing the right thing (giving attention) for the "wrong" reason (forming relationships that lead to business) OK?
  

What can we learn from this [7]? A few take-aways that come to mind:

• Don't be afraid to try new ideas that (temporarily) change your personality,
  
• Ask if it's changing you into a person you like (hint: watch for shame), and
  
• Ask if it goes in the direction of feeling right.
  

Questions for you

• Have you tried any personality shifts like this?
  
• What did you learn? What are your general take-aways?
  
• How do you go about setting up personal experiments, evaluating them, and learning from the results?
  

References

• [1] Proposed title: THINK, TRY, LEARN: A scientific method for discovering happiness. It's in our agent's hands as of this week :-)
  
• [2] See A Key To Continuous Learning: Keep A Decision Log.
  
• [3] Giving an experiment a good, fair shot (i.e., experimental design) is crucial and personal. (Fun fact: This entry starts with a 1747 experiment in curing scurvy. Shoulders of giants...)
  
• [4] Much better for me seems to be to adopt a "pull" one - cast it out there through the net and let the work come to me. (I've received a good percentage of clients this way with zero explicit SEO effort, so the potential is there.) I'm not sure about this, but I want it "embarrassingly easy." Is this lazy? Is it an example of lazy entitlement stemming from having it relatively easy for so long?
  
• [5] A variation from Stephen Covey: "Seek first to understand and then to be understood." And one from The Fred Factor: How passion in your work and life can turn the ordinary into the extraordinary: "Be interested (not just interesting)."
  
• [6] I couldn't find the reference. I believe it's from Koch or Alan Weiss. Related: Carl Sagan, the author of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, and one of my heros, is said to have had a rule about face on mars questions. "Is this about the face? I can give you five minutes."
  
• [7] See Some Thoughts From Tracking "lessons Learned" For A Year.
  

Comments

[Sarah]

Hi Matt,

Fascinating experiment - sounds like you didn't really enjoy it very much or the kind of person that you became.

I think if you've helped someone or had a conversation with someone then that's a worthwhile thing in and of itself. Sometimes business comes from this and sometimes it doesn't.... c'est la vie. So, you ask "Is doing the right thing (giving attention) for the "wrong" reason (forming relationships that lead to business) OK?" It's probably ok for some people, to me it just doesn't seem to be a particularly fulfilling way to interact with others. Much better to give attention, because someone or their subject interests you. I talk to lots of people on planes - sometimes I end up hiring them (yes really ! not an entirely successful move), sometimes I end up doing business with them, sometimes I learn something new that I can use, mostly I just end up having a conversation - some are fascinating while others are just ok. That's also life!

And often, while one's offer might be great there isn't an immediate, important need to fill right now for the person. So, that's ok - let's just have a chat instead.

Where this kind of indiscriminate, friendly conversational approach gets dodgy is when one acquires 'groupies' - so if I comment on your blog today that's a good thing. If every time you wrote something I commented and asked you questions then I think you should turn the tap off :)

I think this was a great experiment to try - not sure I would have the guts!

Sarah

[Poojan Wagh]

Seems like you weren't playing to your strengths. Authentic Happiness by Martin Seligman states that you should play to your strengths, not your weaknesses. Kind of makes sense why you weren't comfortable with the results: they weren't authentic.

[matthewcornell]

Very nice to hear from you, Sarah.

> I think if you've helped someone or had a conversation with someone then that's a worthwhile thing in and of itself. Sometimes business comes from this and sometimes it doesn't.... c'est la vie.

Hmmm. How about a "task = conversation" metaphor? Like taking on work, there are limits to the number of conversations we can have. This means we have to make choices about whether to take them on or now. Ones that show up out of the blue, say, have to be evaluated, either by gut, by rational analysis, by fun, etc. These are akin to deciding whether to say yes to something entering your life (wanting attention). There are many ways to think about this, esp. comparing to goals. Then again, too much structure might limit spontaneity... ?

> Much better to give attention, because someone or their subject interests you.

Excellent point. I think I went overboard in not tuning in to whether *I* was engaged. Thanks for the reset.

> Where this kind of indiscriminate, friendly conversational approach gets dodgy is when one acquires 'groupies' - so if I comment on your blog today that's a good thing. If every time you wrote something I commented and asked you questions then I think you should turn the tap off :)

Interesting! I haven't had this happen yet, but I'd be interested in how to do it. Making myself valuable enough to pay for is an important part of doing business ;-)

> I think this was a great experiment to try - not sure I would have the guts!

I really appreciate that. It was pretty stressful, but one of those things that (apparently) had to be experienced - I couldn't work it out in my head.

Thanks for the great comment!

[matthewcornell]

> Seems like you weren't playing to your strengths. Authentic Happiness by Martin Seligman states that you should play to your strengths, not your weaknesses. Kind of makes sense why you weren't comfortable with the results: they weren't authentic.

Thanks for the insight, Poojan. There's an implicit need for trusting yourself and having courage. For a fellow quantitative analyst, "trusting the universe" ain't easy. I guess I need some TrustYourGut traning. Oh wait, I'm already doing that!

FYI here's the link to Seligman's book: [ Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realise Your Potential for Lasting Fulfilment | http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1857883292?ie=UTF8&tag=masidbl-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1857883292 ].

[Jeff Korentayer]

Hey Matt - this is a great post. I've had a parallel experience (although I didn't set mine up as a formal experiment, so to speak), and have come to the conclusion that its "resonance or bust" on this highway.

thanks for sharing.

[Mark - Prodcutivity501]

Trying to determine who is important for business and who isn't is going to be very very difficult. If it causes you to snub some people it can be very dangerous. People are connected in all kinds of ways that aren't readily apparent. The person who is of no value to you could very easily be the son of someone who needs your services.

One of the most highly respected traits in successful people is taking the time to value the "little people".

I'd be concerned that trying an experiment that changes my personality could cause permanent damage to my reputation.

If you felt that meeting with people wasn't producing any results, perhaps you didn't wait long enough. Some of my biggest contracts came from people I befriended who called out of the blue 3 years later.

Another problem is a poor follow up mechanism. Basically something that keeps your name in their minds. There are several people I've met in passing that added me to their monthly newsletter. I remember them while other people I've met around the same time have faded from my memory.

If people see you coming and think "he always wants something" you'll have a very difficult time marketing yourself to them. If people see you coming and think "he always helps me" you get a completely different reception.

[matthewcornell]

I agree, Jeff. I'd love to hear how you got to that point/conclusion.

[matthewcornell]

Wow, Mark. Great comment. Re permanent damage, there was no risk. Good point, though. I definately agree about gestation time. Two phrases come to mind: "You never know" (unpredictable effects) and "Patience is a virtue." I've seen work come both from unexpected sources and after months. Re steady contact, i've been hit on the head enough times that it's clearly time to start my newsletter. Look for "The Productive Intellect" soon! Finally, an excellent point re repute. I always act with integrity (my best), so I approached this as more agressive than sneaky. Though some methods were borderline. I didn't do those.

I really appreciate you commenting, Mark.

[jp in MD]

Hello Matt, et al. Just going to post some random stuff that Ive picked up in the last few days rather than trying to follow up on this week's post. Hope you find this relevant:

1. R's tips for organizing home/life/office:

!) Everything has a home;
2) Return things to their home;
3) Find a home for new things;
4) Throw out old stuff.

Comment: I think everyone probably does this already but it seemed like a well organized thought there.

2) K's tip for filing paperwork:

"TOUCH IT ONCE."

Comment: K was very successful in business and this slogan she learned as Accounts Payable person at a large corp. THe idea is that once you pick up a piece of paper you have to do something with it before you let it go and you have to put it or toss so you wont have to pick it up again. Now of course if it is reference material or whatever, you may have to pick it up again someday but the pt. is that you find a permanent place or permanent status for that paper at this pt in time, so if you never see it again, it is still in an acceptable place. I think this is a little more succinct phrase than the idea of delegate, do, destroy, as there are several suggestions along those lines and they dont all neatly corresond to one another.

3) Steeler Coach Timlin's rule for his players conduct off the field:

"Dont be the guy."

Comment: This has more to do with managing groups but I'd thought I'd throw it in. It came up on MOnday night football the other day and he explained that he doesnt want to have a whole lot of rules for his team because otherwise he has to enforce a whole lot of rules and he doesnt have the time. SO what does it mean: "Dont be the guy?" I.e. DOnt be that guy who:

dropped the .38 out of his pants during basketballl game;
stole money from teammates;
caught with streetwalker the night before the game.

THAT guy. Dont be that guy.

There are many benefits from this rule: Saves the time/energy of lots of rules; players have no idea what punishment will be-more mystery/more effective; flexibility; etc.

4) "Information comes in disordered". This is Matt's saying, but I was thinking of Obama's pick for chief of staff: Rahm Imanual and I thought what does a chief of staff do anyhow? Well basically he has to be the keeper of the gate so he has to sort through the wheat from the chaff and pick out what's good, whether it be information or whatever.

In a certain sense the president is entirely at the mercy of this person who sorts out the information. Garbage in; garbage out.

Anyhow, keep up the good work, Matt. I enjoy your BLog and I hope to add some more essays on whatever subjects I can.

Thanks, jp.

[matthewcornell]

> 1) Everything has a home;
> ...

Good one - it seems inclusive of many productivity ideas. I found a handful of "Is it all about ... 'A place for everything...?'" post ideas. Same category: "Productivity tips from kindergarten," including yours plus a few others like "have fun!" Finally, the supposed origin of this expression is Isabella Mary Beeton's [ Book of Household Management | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Household_Management ], England, in 1861. It's free [ here | http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/b/beeton/isabella/household/ ] (don't miss "General observations on the common hog" and "Jar-potting"). Here's the passage:

Cleanliness, punctuality, order, and method, are essentials in the character of a good housekeeper. Without the first, no household can be said to be well managed. The second is equally all-important; for those who are under the housekeeper will take their "cue" from her; and in the same proportion as punctuality governs her movements, so will it theirs. Order, again, is indispensable; for by it we wish to be understood that "there should be a place for everything, and everything in its place." Method, too, is most necessary; for when the work is properly contrived, and each part arranged in regular succession, it will be done more quickly and more effectually.

That by itself is inspiration for a post...

> 2) K's tip for filing paperwork: "TOUCH IT ONCE."

A classic! On the plus side, if we substitute "deal with" (or "decide on") for "touch," I'm happy with it. On the minus, if it literally means "touch," then that's infeasible - unless you trash it, you'll probably need to access the thing at some future time, as you suggest around reference material. I've heard this called "sticky," as in "Once you touch it, you can't put it back." I would love a succinct version of the "Ds".

> 3) Steeler Coach Timlin's rule for his players conduct off the field: "Dont be the guy."

I like the idea of meta rules like this. A good one that I, as a parent, things about is "Teach them how to think, not what to think." Your example, though, seems to be "Avoid stupid things by think about them before you try them." Of course this depends on an endless "include" list of stupid things.

> 4) "Information comes in disordered" .. Obama's chief of staff

I love it! Goes right into my upcoming post "Productivity lessons from Barack Obama"

> Anyhow, keep up the good work, Matt. I enjoy your BLog and I hope to add some more essays on whatever subjects I can.

Much appreciated, jp.

[jp in MD]

Yeah, you're right on the "touch it once' thing, but I did mention that, it doesnt literally mean that.

The Coach Timlin line is just full of meaning. If you take it from his stand pt. it saves him a lot of time and aggravation. Once you assign penalties for everything then you get people arguing about how much the penalty should be because X got A then Y should get only B. Or you leave it open for negotiation, deals, et. This way it is purposely left vague.

I've been given a lot of thought lately to Roberts Rules of Order and how they relate to group dynamics and decision making in the more conventional business/modern day world. THere are some really good ideas on Rob Rules.

But for the moment, I will probably go back to my alpha/beta types of thinking for my next essay. Just something I'm working on.

Looking forward to Matt's next essay.