There has been a flurry of news lately about Barnes & Noble’s new e-reader, the Nook. It will compete head on with Amazon’s Kindle and Sony’s Reader, offering additional features such as limited book sharing and newspaper subscriptions. If successful, of course, those features will be matched by the Nook’s competitors, just as Barnes & Noble has matched their price points.

It’s fascinating to watch these three powerful companies–the dominant bricks-and-mortar bookseller, the dominant online bookseller, and a long-dominate electronic industry player–compete in this new arena. And word is that Apple’s e-reader isn’t far behind, which will further mix things up (and will be good for us all).

I couldn’t help noticing, however, a little aside in a recent Wall Street Journal article about the Nook. The article was talking about how Nook users would be able to receive discounts and other special offers when they walk into the store, a smart use by Barnes & Noble of its one true competitive advantage over Amazon. But the piece went on to say this: “Eventually, the company says, customers will be able to read entire e-books for free inside the physical store.”

Read entire e-books for free? Why would Barnes & Noble want to give away content? How’s this for a reason: the company may have up its strategic sleeve the idea that it can become the other Third Place.

Starbucks has always been an appealing place to linger, and many people go there to enjoy a good read as they nurse their lattes (most Starbucks locations sell a handful of newspapers and books to encourage just such behavior). While Barnes & Noble has in recent years been adding coffee bars to many of its locations, they have always seemed to be somewhat of an afterthought and secondary to the company’s primary purpose of selling books. But by offering free in-store content with the Nook, Barnes & Noble seems to clearly be saying that this is they place they want people to linger. And Since none of us can be in two places at one time, Starbucks and Barnes & Noble may increasingly butt heads.

It’s a fascinating world in which we live, where two previously unrelated companies can wake up and find themselves arch-competitors, and it’s fun to watch such changing dynamics unfold. Keep your eye on Barnes & Noble as it continues to take advantage of its physical locations (the one thing its current big competitor, Amazon, can’t match). In combating one foe it may have just picked a fight with another.

If you’ve read When Growth Stalls, you understand the internal dynamics that tend to keep struggling companies down: Lack of consensus among the management team, loss of focus in the marketplace, loss of nerve (usually evidenced by how a company invests–or refrains from investing–its resources), and inconsistency.

I long ago ceased to be amazed when I saw struggling companies dealing with two, three, or even all four of these issues, as they tend to feed off one another. What still amazes me, however, is when more than one of these destructive dynamics rears its head within a single, 750-word newspaper story.

The Wall Street Journal’s October 12 column about Carrefour, the world’s second largest retailer, is a case in point. The Journal’s Ellen Byron and Christina Passariello interviewed new Carrefour CEO Lars Olofsson about the current state of affairs at the company, and published selected excerpts. Here are a few of my own excerpts from his answers (emphasis added):

“If Carrefour had some difficulties in the last 10 years or so, it is because they lost focus on the consumer.”

“Carrefour wasn’t consistent in the execution of its strategy.”

“There has been this ambiguity between going for the bottom line or for the top line, and that means the whole organization hasn’t been aligned in one clear direction.”

Three-for-four in less than a thousand words is pretty amazing, and I suspect if they would have published the full interview evidence of a loss of nerve would have also been apparent. After all, Carrefour brought Olofsson into the stumbling company in January, presenting him with (as the Journal put it) “one of the most difficult assignments in the industry.”

Carrefour has some 15,000 stores around the world and a leadership team that is second to none. But no company is exempt from the forces that plague management when growth stalls–not Olofsson’s, not mine, and not yours. The key is to stare them down and fight them off. As you do, you can get back to business.

Who said it:

Did I behave irresponsibly? Not totally, because I had something in mind I wanted to do. Am I sorry for what I did? Yes, I am. Would I do it differently? Probably not. It’s the way I was, and that’s something I have to live with today.”

Sounds like a corporate creep who got caught with his hand in the till, doesn’t it? But it’s not. It’s Arnold Palmer, one of golf’s all-time greats, reflecting on a decision he made in the 1966 U.S. Open. Palmer had a seven-stroke lead on the final day but ended up losing in a playoff. Why? Because he had the opportunity to break the Open scoring record, and he went for it rather than playing it safe.

That day, Arnold Palmer lost. But today he’s recognized as a sports icon because he played the game to win. He lost his share, but he was a fierce competitor whose career speaks for itself. Sometimes in business–especially when growth stalls–we play not to lose rather than going for the win. There’s evidence of it in every industry, including my own–some big advertisers fear running any ad that hasn’t been vetted to the extreme (despite the fact that the “science” of ad pre-testing is unsophisticated and unreliable).

Instead of trying to be sure of everything before we risk anything, how about adopting Palmer’s attitude and simply going for it? I’m not talking about being irresponsible–Arnold Palmer was neither unprepared nor foolish; he simply believed that his natural abilities, hours of practice and years of judgment equipped him to take qualified risks.

Allow for the fact that some ideas are going to work better than others. Recognize that the arc of progress is much more important than any point along it. Try stuff. It’s a good strategy–in good times and bad.

On October 1st we launched a new executive microsite called FindYourNerve.com. In that day’s post, I explained that the rationale for the site was that at some point we need to get past what’s happening outside the walls of our organizations and address what we can actually control, and it all begins with our personal mindsets.

With that in mind, the results of our first weekly FindYourNerve.com poll are quite interesting. They show that business leaders’ views of the future are split right down the middle, with about half choosing to be optimistic (and making decisions accordingly) and half continuing in fearful uncertainty (or worse). The results are fitting, I think, since every good economic story we read in the press seems to be balanced by a bad one these days.

Of course, no one really knows what’s going to happen, but the way we choose to believe events may unfold can become self-fulfilling. As I’ve been traveling around the country on my book tour I’ve met a great many people with a variety of outlooks and perspectives. On two separate occasions within a single 24-hour period last week, I ran across people in the magazine business who cited emails from their bosses representing both ends of the spectrum.

One said that she and her staff received an email that was unfocused and full of fear from the one person who should instead have provided a steady hand. She said it really discouraged her and certainly didn’t help her remain in the frame of mind she needed to succeed. The other told me about an email he received from his boss full of encouragement, instruction, and a healthy perspective on the real challenges he and his team were facing. As a result, he was motivated to continue persevering.

I’m not suggesting that anybody should adopt a Pollyannaish view of the future, ignoring the possibilities of a continued slump and putting our companies at risk. But I do believe that how we view the difficulties we face affects how the people around us view them as well, which has a real impact on the results of our efforts.

I encourage you to keep visiting FindYourNerve.com each day to get a brief bit of encouragement from the contributor of the day. And pass it along to your friends and colleagues. A little optimism can go a long way.

When was the last time a speed limit sign made an impression on you?

Note that I didn’t ask about the last time you noted a speed limit sign; anybody who drives a car has to take note of the speed limit. But when was the last time you really thought about the speed limit?

For me it was when I passed this sign. It’s located on a quiet street near my office, and the first time I passed it I did a double-take.

Why 18 mph? Why not the more typical 15 or 20 mph? I’m sure the traffic engineers who work for the city could provide a whole host of reasons why the sign should conform to traditional standards. But really, why? Is it just because that’s the way it has always been done?

I was not only taken aback by this sign, I thought it was charming. And it made me think about why the speed limit is 18 mph (it’s Bicycle Boulevard, that’s why). In other words, because it was different it was engaging. Because it was engaging, it encouraged me to complete the mental picture. And because I completed the mental picture, Mountain Road will be that much safer for bicyclists (and everyone else, for that matter). Mission accomplished.

I never thought I’d call a speed limit sign–with all its inherent limitations–a great ad, but I think this one is. And I think it can be an inspiration not only for ad guys like me, but for anyone in business.

I say we go and do likewise.

We’re in the middle of another exciting college football season, and two programs that have struggled of late are doing better this year. I’m speaking of Michigan and Notre Dame, the two winningest programs in college football history. Their recent experiences can serve as a lesson to us all.

Both schools have proud traditions, terrific facilities, and rich and powerful alumni. Yet both schools lost momentum in recent years. You might even say that with respect to their win-loss records, growth stalled. They had to question all of their assumptions, adjust their style of play to the changing dynamics of the college game, and once again find their nerve. But while they were willing to re-examine all of the non-essentials, some things they were unwilling to change.

Way back in 1969 new Michigan head coach Bo Schembechler hung a sign in the locker room that read, “Those who stay will be champions.” The sign was meant to reflect the fact that living up to the proud Michigan tradition wouldn’t be easy, but it would be worthwhile.

Similarly, every Saturday as the Notre Dame players exit the locker room to take the field, the last thing they do is touch the sign that says, “Play like a champion today.” Nobody knows the exact origin of the statement, but legendary coach Lou Holtz had it put up to remind his players what was expected of them.

Those who stay will be champions–a reminder to all of us that while business can be brutal at times, perseverance will pay off. Play like a champion today–encouragement that no matter how difficult things get, our job is simply to do our absolute best.

Sports are a great metaphor for life, and both Notre Dame and Michigan have proven their staying power over generations. I’m confident that both will again be at the top of their games soon. Perhaps by following their advice, our companies can be as well.

I love reading the newspaper. I like the feel of the broadsheet in my hand, the anticipation of turning each page to see what’s next, and the sense I get of being plugged into the world through the rhythm of daily reading. I am a newspaper loyalist, and I’m an endangered species.

That, of course, is not news. Newspapers are shrinking and their circulation shriveling, like a mirror reflecting the Internet’s growth and expansion. Politicians and pundits (including many newspaper editors and publishers) who aren’t schooled in business don’t recognize the absolute and inescapable law of creative destruction. They wring their hands as if what’s happening is a tragic thing. I see it simply as the way of the world.

To a news consumer, the Internet offers many advantages over ink and paper, from timeliness to portability, affordability to dialogue. And for a generation of readers spawned in the wake of the Web, getting their news online is not only better than in print, it’s more natural. Even old guys like me who love the sound of the thump on the driveway in the morning increasingly turn to our Macs and Blackberrys to keep up with breaking events.

But while the Internet is rapidly replacing ink, paper and newsstands, the Web is to news as an aluminum can is to Coke—a terrific way to deliver the product but not the source of its value. Newspapers are struggling because newspapers are confused—they forgot they were in the business of building an audience and focused instead on selling the audience (to the advertisers who increasingly bore their cost of operating). That was fine as long as they had a monopoly on distribution, but it led them to spend their limited resources on adding more ink colors rather than more color to their ink. Now that advertisers have (ultimately) infinitely more choices, newspapers are stuck.

But the answer isn’t so difficult. The key to the future of the newspaper industry lies in its past. There will always be a market for news, and newspapers still have core competencies in gathering, reporting and interpreting what’s important to their readers. If they do their job well, they’ll continue to be able to provide the exclusive content for which readers will pay, regardless of whether or not it results in ink-stained fingers.

The more the newspaper industry focuses on “news” rather than “paper,” the better off it (and we) will be. That will enable it to embrace evolving distribution opportunities and find new sources of revenue and competitive advantage. Just like every other industry must do.

I’ve kept my eye on Sara Lee for several years now, originally because the company was a poster child of the Loss of Focus principle. But in 2005 new CEO Brenda Barnes introduced a plan to streamline Sara Lee, which analysts would have described as a conglomerate but could more accurately have been characterized a beast.

Launched in 1939 as C.D. Kenny Company, over the course of the next sixty-plus years the organization acquired and divested brands in industries as varied as supermarkets (Piggly Wiggly), electronics (Electrolux), apparel (Aris Isotoner, Hanes, Champion, Playtex), shoe polish (Kiwi), and even chemicals (Oxford Chemical Corporation). It took its present name from a company acquired in 1956, The Kitchens of Sara Lee.

By the early 2000s Sara Lee’s strategic chickens had come home to roost in the form of slow sales growth and weak earnings. A company that had fueled growth for decades through artificial diversification had simply become too unwieldy to manage.

That’s when Barnes launched (according to internal company documents) “a bold and ambitious multi-year plan to transform Sara Lee” by divesting brands comprising 40 percent of its revenues and focusing R&D; efforts on food. By 2007 Sara Lee was increasing market share faster than any of its major competitors, and last month Barnes announced that she was selling Sara Lee’s deodorant and skin care brands to Unilever. When asked about the rationale behind this recent move, Barnes—no doubt for the umpteenth time over the past four years–said, “Our intent is to build a great business in food and beverage.” (It was a “multi-year plan,” remember?)

Count me a fan. Contrary to the strategic flailing about demonstrated by many companies when they encounter rough waters, Sara Lee has kept its focus. Barnes has consistently executed on her now four year-old strategic plan, and the nearly $2 billion take she’ll get from the sale to Unilever will equip her to further strengthen Sara Lee’s food and beverage brands. Which will leave a good taste in the mouth of the company’s investors. Smart.

It’s time we all found our nerve.

That’s the idea behind FindYourNerve.com, a micro/social/website that launches today based on the idea that re-igniting the economy starts on the inside of every company. At some point, we all need to get past what is happening outside the walls of our organizations and address what we can actually control. It all begins with our personal mindsets.

FindYourNerve.com is intended to help provide a needed jump start to our collective corporate confidence. Throughout the fourth quarter, the site will offer an opportunity for visitors to peer inside the minds of a cross-section of corporate leaders via compelling polls, fascinating facts, and daily insights related to business growth penned by more than 60 leading CEOs, bloggers, authors and athletes. Every weekday during the fourth quarter, the site will post a contribution from a different expert.

Economic indicators seem to be improving, but uncertainty is still widespread. The ultimate goal of FindYourNerve.com is to instill in corporate leaders a renewed sense of confidence. Just imagine what would happen if every CEO in America resolved to get back to business as usual at the same time. The impact would be immediate and impressive.

I encourage you to visit FindYourNerve.com today and every day over the coming weeks and months. Please pass it on to your friends and colleagues as well. You never know what a daily dose of encouragement might do.