Writing blog posts is an interesting process. There is the composition of the post itself: the identification of a kernel of a subject, drafting a post, editing the post and finally publishing it. And then, once you have sent it out into the world, the reaction. Does your topic and your writing style engage with people?
And so it was with my recent trilogy of posts on the state of the employment in the Canadian oil and gas industry, companies who are finding a way forward and a summary of tools that can be applied to take a stab at similar ventures. I have been fortunate in the response has been strongly positive. Nothing is perfect. Would Dunkirk have been a better allegorical lead for the middle post?
An additional benefit is the connecting and re-connecting with people the posts have brought about. As an example, Alex Tworo reached out for a coffee. It is always enjoyable to catch up with people whose children are of a similar age and have been through the industry cycles.
During our conversation, Alex, being a baseball guy, brought up his movie metaphor. He likens to process for smaller companies to Moneyball . And he has a point.
As a small market team, the Oakland A's were not able to compete for the expensive flashy players needed to develop a winning team the way the Yankees did. All of Billy Beane's advisors (the scouts) told him he needed to find a way to pay the big money players. But he couldn't change the fundamentals of his market.
Every expert told him he needed to build his team the way the big boys did. Except for one outsider who told him that there were new methods available to evaluate players and build success. Billy ignored the experts and focused on players who "can get on base". And the movie had a happy ending (as Hollywood movies always do).
Perhaps we should focus on which plays make up the bases and which teams are able to get on base?