(Readin’ time: 1m 21s)
Some of y’all get paid for your thinking more than for your doing, so you’ll probably find this bit of insight on thinking from professor of philosophy Rebecca Kukla quite fascinating: overcast.fm/+PbpJYEvbA/38:56. The whole interview is great, but this bit on where and how you do your thinking is really insightful, and might improve how you do your paid thinking.
And this, from Atul Gawande, begins with a really great bit on diagnosing: overcast.fm/+PbpJ6Ukpk. The good bit begins right after the show intro, and continues–well, honestly until the end of the program–but the good part about diagnosing continues until 4m45s.
Since so much of the value of a consulting engagement rests upon a good diagnosis, clear thinking about the diagnostic process–especially from fields that deal with life and death consequences–is really valuable to us consultants.
This, from photography blogger Mike Johnson, was quite interesting: theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2019/03/write-on-blog-notes.html Skip the part about him buying a new computer and read the part about him talking to an Internet business book writer.
It reminds me that part of the value of writing a book is selling the book and getting money in exchange, but a much much larger part of the value is a secondary value. Lead generation, building a reputation, etc.
A ridiculous idea I sometimes entertain is that there could be a sort of litmus test for whether someone has what it takes to be a consultant. To be clear, this is a ridiculous idea, and probably would never work.
But yet, when I come across something like this, I think we’re in the ballpark of that “consultant litmus test”. If you give that piece a gander–it’s on the difference between first, second, third, and fourth-party logistics–and you find it interesting, I suspect you might think like a consultant.