BUSY. BUSIER. BUSIEST.

As kids, we used to do the one-ups:  “Yah, my mom’s smarter and prettier than yours.”  The retort:   “Well, my mom has a Ph.D. and is a university professor.”

Things haven’t changed much in all those years.

These days, it’s all about being busy, a status symbol if ever we nailed one.  “I’ve got to fly to Jakarta, deliver a presentation, then work with a client in London.”  Or:  “The CEO asked me to work with him on a series of U.S. and Latin America site visits as well as filming those conversations for significant investors, turning it into a roadshow.”

Hard to beat, eh?  Problem is, it’s contagious, darned inefficient, and a barrier to real communications and effectiveness.  Because the “gotta be busy” syndrome stems from times of economic uncertainty, bosses who value hours above real thinking, and/or a psychological need to be important.

Sure.  The kinds of businesses we practice – from communications and design to marketing and branding – are filled with last-minute deadlines and client demands.  So it’s natural to bristle and state that you manage your schedules well, thank you very much.

Let us just point out one study.  At the Pentagon.  Some years back, they discovered that working hard wasn’t netting them the desired results.  The generals then mandated alternative work schedules and flex work policies.  Guess what?   Work quality improved; sharper thinking ensued.

So as masters of the [communications] universe, look around your shop, your office, your team.  Measure quality and productivity, along with sick days and goals.  Then tell us if Uncle Sam knows best.

GOOD ENOUGH: Is it, er, good enough?

While reading (belatedly) an interview with Larry Light, the then-new chief brands officer at Intercontinental Hotels, we braked hard at this sentence:  “Doing fine is not fine.”  [That quote, from Light’s CEO, segued into how this well-known marketer is upgrading and revamping/realigning the brand.]

Which got us to musing:  How many of us would actually say that … and mean it?

It’s one thing to spout the multiple mantras of continuous improvement, urgency, and burning platforms, phrases often associated with the change world.  It’s another to express discontent with reality – even though it might look pretty good to outside (and inside) observers – and begin making shifts.

Many change masters insist on building a compelling case for making things happen.  They talk to the critical needs of appealing to both hearts and minds, emotions and facts.  News of change on the way ricochets through the halls and plant floors, along with the names and accountabilities of task forces.  Implementation begins, goes onward, then is completed.  Now what?

Those who measure ROIs (and non-successes) of those efforts tell us that a majority never quite meet the assigned metrics.  Our burning question:  Was this a dramatic change, positioned as an “either/or”?  Or are employees and executives rewarded for following the dictates of Lean Manufacturing, Six Sigma, and other methodologies continually, rather than all at once?  Will those two very different situations differ in results delivered?

There’s no answer, yet.  The next time someone comments that “whatever” is pretty good or good enough, we’d suggest a sharp self-scrutiny is in order.