The past is no longer a viable indicator of the future.

The reference systems that we've used to measure progress are disappearing quickly.

The pain is in between where you are now and where you wanted to be now.

Predictions based on today will undoubtedly look silly tomorrow.

So how do we move?

The same way we navigate when we are lost:

1. Find where you are now.

2. Map where you want to go.

3. Repeat. Readjust. Redirect.

Hug someone. Repeat.

When the benefits need no explanation, isn't it worth doing? The insight too should be obvious. If not, you're not hugging enough:)

Guy posted this insightful piece about Egonomics recently that really struck a chord with me.

For better or worse, I've not only worked with egomaniacs, but have also been a victim of my own ego. Sometimes, my ego has gotten the best of me even when I thought I was past it...

The Egonomics book undoubtedly will spark conversations about "the real business costs" of ego, but I wonder if there are strategic advantages/opportunities to capitalizing on the egos of your competition?

No is as smart as everyone.

Those that think they are, might just be presenting you with ready opportunities.

We all copy.

We copy because it is innate to our survival, and because it works. But we still want to be original. Why?

Because when we copy naturally, we are not really seeking duplication, but improvement.

However, the easier copying becomes, the easier it is to confuse causation with correlation.

We see the pitfalls when we mimic the wrong things in culture, commerce and technology all the time. We also see the enormous potential to biomimic, design, evolve and become more than what we'd previously imagined when we copy the right things. So the real question is not whether or not we copy. That's a given. But...

...Is your copy an improvement?

The topple rate for large established organizations have been at an all time high for some time as this McKinsey paper outlines.

Some of the most powerful players online are small, agile organizations, and like Seth says, Small is the new Big.

Emerging web companies have disrupted everything from media, commerce and telecom and there is no letting up.

Independent, connected knowledge workers make up the emerging workforce, not seniority based on time on the job and loyalty.

_______

If you are in any business context today, you don't need Tom Peters or me telling you the current reality.

_______

So why is it, that the Startup ecosystem (the Angels, VCs, Entrepreneurs, C-Level execs, Technology partners) are all geared to play to the potential M&A play, the IPO and other constructs based on the assumption that large organizations will always rule?

Why is it, that despite all the disruptive thinking of the founders that created the market advantage, most mid stage startups OUTSOURCE their leadership to ex-corporate execs? People who continue to mimic their large organization upbringing and stifle the original innovation and prepare for an exit (often to ensure a fat personal compensation over organizational health)!

How come people still hire or give credence to people based on pedigrees without 1st checking on their integrity or motivation?

_______

The reasons for the above are as human as any other time in history. It's tough to change, even if our life depended on it. We make decisions based on our "feelings", and our feelings are the direct result of our primitive hardwiring for survival.

I get it.

However, a HyperLocal, VirtuReal and hyperconnected world is very different than any other in history.

So in the age of disruptive creative destruction of everything from advertising, financial markets, telecom, media and more, is it really that outrageous to imagine the commercial power in the hands of us all?

More specifically, as change becomes a constant, what if legacy companies are a thing of the past and those agile enough to reinvent on the fly are the real power players?

This classic video always gets a few smirks and chuckles from the marketing community, but is its message really clear? While it's always convenient to bash Microsoft, I believe the real culprit is not the "best practices" of large companies, but rather the way most people still think of the role of design within their strategic objectives.

While myself and others with more impressive credentials tout the accolades of "design thinking", most marketing and corporate strategists still view design as aesthetics after the strategic "heavy lifting" has been decided. The end result is obvious in this parody video, but is it really obvious in your organization?

The cool factor of design centric organizations is just that: DESIGN is at the CENTER.

That means, involve designers and design thinkers when you are conceiving the plan, not bring them in when you need to "execute" the plan. As the video clearly states, the conventional thinking will yield not much more than crap!

The social commentary at this poor girl's expense has been all over the media recently, but is it just about the poor education system in the US? Or is it more about complacency, as in the desire to learn when you grow up and get through life on your appearance?

Just as this Miss Teen USA contestant is clueless about geography, aren't some companies with growth on their side guilty of bonehead moves because they think they don't have to learn anymore? If we could all get by on how we "appear" to the marketplace, what is the real incentive to reinvent the game? When we can "acquire" the smart technologies and the companies that produce them, why bother with understanding what all this Web 2.0 stuff means? Just say some words like "social media" and "user generated" and look good to your board and convention goers such as... and we should be good right?

Think again.