$1,000,000 Guru Tip Found Here...

I’ll get back to the opening statement in a moment for first let me tell you this post deals with an American from the 1860’s…the American Civil War. But don’t quit reading just yet because I think anyone can benefit from the knowledge this old-time ‘guru’ possessed.

John Buford was a general for the Union Army, he was a commander in the cavalry arm. If anyone has seen the terrific movie “Gettysburg”, John Buford was played (very accurately by most accounts) by Sam Elliot.

John Buford was unusual. He was an able and much respected commander during the early part of the war in which the Union cavalry was pretty much disrespected by both friend and foe alike. The question becomes why was John Buford regarded so well when so many of his contemporaries were considered ‘average’ at best?

John Buford had a firm grip of reality. It’s that simple. He was able to see the situation for what it really was and react accordingly. Buford always seemed to ‘view’ the battle at the right distance. He was never so close that all he could see was his immediate surroundings but he was never so far away that all the details became so unfocused that he couldn’t react.

A week or so ago I posted a link and a few comments from author Robert Fritz on viewing your life from the right distance. Mr. Fritz suggested that we have 3 distances in which to view things. Too close and we see details but not the most important details (remember the saying “Can’t see the forest through the trees”?). Too far and everything becomes too blurred to be seen accurately. But ah, the middle distance—just right!

John Buford seen things from the middle distance. When he had superior positioning and a superior force…he attacked. When out-numbered or out positioned he withdrew. Buford was neither over-aggressive nor overly meek. He simply took what was given him. He was able to do this because he was at the right viewing distance and didn’t let emotion replace common sense and reason.

Now contrast this with many of the people you know. I help people start businesses within my county. Many have grandiose plans for opening another pizza shop or becoming a big-time player in Multi-Level-Marketing schemes. They aren’t taking what the market is giving them. While good, money-making niches exist, they instead use emotion to convince themselves the direction they are going is a good one.

Same thing with many of the Internet projects I hear about…why are these folks going after over-saturated markets instead of pursing more opportune projects? Easy, they aren’t at a good viewing distance and they are using emotion instead of common sense. And remember John Buford was dealing in the most precious of resources—human life. While we as business folk make decisions concerning resources much less valuable and are much more replaceable. You would think our ability to make good decisions should be better.

Here is a quote for a civil war magazine on John Buford:

“Buford maintained his as one of the best, if not the best, Federal cavalry commander with the Army of the Potomac. His field management was superb, his tactical decisions crisp. His men fought with grim determination that would have been unheard of a year before. One reason is obvious: Buford continuously put his men into position to do good work.”

Do you put your projects into position to “Do good work”?

Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, and an honest CPA are locked in an office with a bag full of cash: $1,000,000 in small bills.

Q. What happens?

A. Nothing, they are all fictional characters.
-------------
Have you ever wondered how the IRS got their name?
It is no accident that the two words "the IRS" spells the single word "theirs". --------------
--end copy-------
Couldn't help it, surfing the jokes today....helping to lighten things up ;-)
Enjoy! Betty


A Team Masters

Thanks for the post, Mike. It helped give me some perspective on a decision I need to make soon.

And I agree that the movie "Gettysburg" was four stars and that Sam Eliot did a good job portraying Buford - better than Martin Sheen as Gen'l Lee!

Bob

Hi Mike,

Thanks, that was (as usual) a very thought-provoking post!

I read some of the writings of Robert Fritz which you linked to in your last post (such as this article), about different "frames" you can view things in.

As you pointed out, if your "time-frame" in which you view your activities is too immediate, you won't be able to plan for the larger projects, that require sustained work for anything more than a day. But,

Look at things with TOO big a time-frame, and you'll likely be dreaming a "pie in the sky" type of dream.

So, you need something in-between.

My question is - how do you determine this "optimal" in-between "frame" in which to view things? Do you have any insight into this? For example, what "time-frame" is the optimal one to consider (from the viewpoint of entrepreneurship)?

Or, taking it back to your example of John Buford, how did he determine which was the optimal distance from which to view things for his battles?

Thanks, Mike, for any further insights you can shed on this!

- Dien Rice

> Hi Mike,

> Thanks, that was (as usual) a very
> thought-provoking post!

> I read some of the writings of Robert Fritz
> which you linked to in your last post (such
> as this article ), about different
> "frames" you can view things in.

> As you pointed out, if your
> "time-frame" in which you view
> your activities is too immediate, you won't
> be able to plan for the larger projects,
> that require sustained work for anything
> more than a day. But,

> Look at things with TOO big a time-frame,
> and you'll likely be dreaming a "pie in
> the sky" type of dream.

> So, you need something in-between.

> My question is - how do you determine this
> "optimal" in-between
> "frame" in which to view things?
> Do you have any insight into this? For
> example, what "time-frame" is the
> optimal one to consider (from the viewpoint
> of entrepreneurship)?

> Or, taking it back to your example of John
> Buford, how did he determine which was the
> optimal distance from which to view things
> for his battles?

> Thanks, Mike, for any further insights you
> can shed on this!

> - Dien Rice

OK, you asked for it so here is my 2 cents on you can tell if you are, as Robert Fritz would say, “viewing things from the right distance”?

A while back we had a pretty good thread going on ‘strategy’ and ‘tactics’ and how they related to each other. I think we can agree that strategy without tactics is as worthless as tactics without strategy. You need a combination of both in order to achieve maximum return on your investment (or to live a full and relatively happy life).

Fritz says we can view things from three different distances:

“Too Close”—(any or all of these may apply) You can see parts of the project you are currently working on but you can’t connect this project with any other projects in your life. You are doing what you are doing strictly for monetary reasons. You put massive amounts of time into a project without seeing if there is a real market for it. You bounce from project to project with no relevance (other than monetary gain) between them.

“Too Far”—SOMEDAY you’ll start your project (of course when the TIME IS RIGHT). Your life will be ‘Perfect’ when…(You finish school…Your kids leave home…You pay off your car…or).

“Just Right”---You start and finish projects. You can see how the progress made in one project can benefit you in others (other than just monetarily). Your projects fall in line with what you want to accomplish in your life. Your projects follow your values.

I think you can easily see how these 3 definitions can be likened to ‘tactics’ and ‘strategy’.

“Too Close” is operating your life in a strictly tactical mindset. You have no overlying strategy except to ‘keep busy’ or ‘make money’, which is really no strategy at all.

“Too Far” is operating in a totally strategic mode…you apply no tactics what so ever. You’re a dreamer not a doer! You set no time frames or no way to measure your progress as you proceed in life (other than your bank account).

“Just Right” is a combination of tactics and strategy. Your projects are not totally independent of one another. The progress in one can help you succeed much quicker in another. Al l your projects support your life’s mission. As you progress you don’t just get more financially secure you get more emotionally and intellectually secure. As you complete projects, you become more confident. As you become more confident, you complete more projects. None of your projects compromise your values. You are willing to kill off a project only after it has been adequately tested. You don’t spend oodles of time and money on a project until it has been adequately tested. You don’t fear throwing a few hundred dollars away on a test because you know the results (good or bad) are far more valuable than the money being spent. Plus you are emotionally and intellectually secure enough to say, “this project is a loser” and quit (only after proper testing!) without feeling that you personally failed. You lay out timelines and set goals that are measurable.

Let me give you (what I consider to be) a good example of “Just Right” vision (or distance) using the generalship of John Buford during the Gettysburg campaign…

John had the strategy of using his troops as a ‘screen’ to keep the enemy from ‘seeing’ the locations of the friendly troops behind him PLUS he was suppose to locate ‘where’ the enemy was. Now keep in mind Buford’s grand strategy was to help the Union army win battles so that the North would win the war and preserve the United States.

Buford then used tactics that supported his strategy. He posted pickets far to his right and left to both ‘feel’ for the enemy and keep the enemy from getting behind him and accessing information about other troop movements and locations of the Union army. Buy doing this he also knew the enemy was more heavily situated to his front than his flanks (sides).

He knew (he didn’t ‘guess’ or ‘think’, he had reliable information) that the enemy had a large concentration in front of him. And he also knew (again he was operating on information rather than guesses or maybes) that friendly forces would soon be coming to his assistance but he needed to buy time for their arrival. If he didn’t those troops behind him could be struck piecemeal and maybe even worse—by surprise. Based all this, he posted the majority of the troops available to him in a defensive position in order to slow the progress of the enemy as much as possible. His troops also retreated short intervals when pressed too hard. Buford knew the annihilation of enemy was not possible with his force at hand. He also knew his force could be destroyed if he wasn’t careful. He put his troops into a position (tactics) where they would best support the mission assigned him (strategy). Let’s look at some of the options (tactics) Buford had available to him that he chose not to use:

1. Charge the enemy in a make or break massive assault.
2. Retreat without engaging (and slowing down) the enemy at all.
3. Don’t post a wide array of pickets around his position.

There were other options available to him but I think you get the message. The tactics he chose supported his strategy. He was viewing his situation at the correct distance (or ‘frame’, as Fritz would say).

Let me give you a real life example of someone not viewing life at the right distance or in other words their tactics did not support their strategy.

One of my neighbors wants to start a business. They’ve wanted to do this for some time. They became my neighbors when they moved into the neighborhood about a year and a half ago. She wants to open a beauty salon on her property, which is a good idea. The house they purchased is nice, very nice. The house was much more expensive than my own…and their incomes are less. They drive nice cars, certainly much nicer than mine. They own ATV’s, a big-screen TV and other ‘toys’. The previous homeowner left a riding lawnmower for the new owners. The new owners promptly went out and bought a new riding mower instead of using the old one. I think you know where I’m going with this. Now these folks didn’t get a large inheritance to pay for all this. They live week to week, how do I know this? They told me. Remember one my ‘jobs’ is to consult people on starting a business within my county. She wants to start a business, yet doesn’t have $150 to apply for a variance for her property. How in God’s name will she get this business off the ground with her ‘tactics’ being so out of sync with her ‘strategy’? Obviously she does not ‘see’ her project from the ‘right distance’ or she would see how her other projects do not support this one.

Just recently someone was telling about all these Internet related projects they were working on…yes they were supporting each (which was a good thing) but the person was doing the projects strictly for monetary reasons (greed) without regard for what how these projects fit into his overall strategy. But even worse, the person was doing these projects because he ‘believed’ the market would be good—he did not test, he had no proof. He let his emotions run away from his logic. Again…strategy and tactics did not mesh. He’s not viewing the projects from the right ‘frame’.

Dien, I hope this long-winded response somewhat answers your questions.

Take care,

Mike W.