Enlightened Conflict

echoes of all the footsteps

May 21st, 2013

“This may be the most important proposition revealed by history: past visitingAt the time, no one knew what was coming.” ― Haruki Murakami

 

Well.

Looking back is a timeless tradition in second guessing and seeking blame … okay … okay … as well as even some forward thinking.

But the opening quote is a humdinger of a Life truth … at that time no one knew what was coming.

Yup.

 

You can be pessimistic <and be proven right … or wrong>.

You can be optimistic <and be proven right … or wrong>.

You can plan incessantly … and smartly <and the plans can work perfectly … or go awry>.

You can make it up as you go <and it works perfectly … or all goes wrong>.

 

But in general … you are guessing.

Sure.

You can make an educated guess … and the odds may be higher or lower based on what you decide to do … but someone is lying if they say “I knew it was going to end up that way.”

 

They did not know.

They guessed <and possibly guessed well>.

 

Here is a ponderable factoid.

‘History teaches by analogy, not identity.’ <Hank Kissinger … Hank to me>

 

Analogy is … well … not a blueprint of what will be. People tend to mistake a study of history, or a historical moment, for proof of what is to come. They are often sorely proven wrong.  And, in fact, those proven right have the benefit of going backwards and connecting dots <even when the connection is tenuous at best> to prove why they were right.

 

Hmmmm … once again. A reminder. “No one knew what was coming.” <corollary?: sure is easier to know what came>

 

Regardless <here is the entire thought from Hank>.

 

History teaches by analogy, not identity.

This means that the lessons of history are never automatic, that they can be apprehended only by a standard which admits the significance of a range of experience, that the answers we obtain will never be better than the questions we pose.

No profound conclusions were drawn in the natural sciences before the significance of sensory experience was admitted by what was essentially a moral act.

No significant conclusions are possible … without an awareness of the historical context.

For societies exist in time more than in space. At any given moment a state is but a collection of individuals, as positivist scholars have never wearied of pointing out.

But it achieves identity through the consciousness of a common history. This is the only “experience” nations have, their only possibility of learning from themselves.

History is the memory of states.

To be sure, states tend to be forgetful.

It is not often that nations learn from the past, even rarer that they draw the correct conclusions from it. For the lessons of historical experience, as of personal experience, are contingent.

They teach the consequences of certain actions, but they cannot force recognition of comparable situations.  – Henry Kissinger

 

What a powerful thought.

… teach the consequences of certain actions, but they cannot force recognition of comparable situations.

 

Once again … cannot force recognition of comparable situations.

I love it.

So often we suggest ‘this has happened before’ and … well … yeah … kind of. Close. But close only counts with hand grenades <and horse shoes>.  Ultimately you are simply assessing the echoes of history.

You may listen to the echoes of history … but until they walk in to your life … you will not truly recognize who and what they are.

 

follow him“I have sometimes sat alone here of an evening, listening, until I have made the echoes out to be the echoes of all the footsteps that are coming by and by into our lives.” - Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities

 

Studying history is just like Dickens says.

You are inevitably sitting alone listening … listening to the echoes of the footsteps of those who have walked before and envisioning, from those echoes, who may be coming into your life.

 

That is it. No more. No less.

 

In the end.

I believe all of us would probably like to have a better sense of how to plan for the future. To better understand the best and proper actions to take to maximize the future in some form or fashion.

Therefore we do the best we can … and most often that means examining the past to assess actions affecting the future … trying to understand consequences for our decisions yet to be made.

The intent is good … and true.

 

However.

 

We should never confuse honest good intent … with ‘what is right’ or even worse ‘what will be.’

The echoes of footsteps are context. But they are simply echoes.

And as for the future?

We simply hear the echoes of footsteps but never meet their owners until they actually enter our lives. And, frankly, you cannot control all that ‘are coming by and by into our lives.’

 

Oh.

And at each point in time … no one knew what was coming.

 

A Life truth for all to remember.

the strongest bridge

May 20th, 2013

So.

hope bridge by michael underwood

hope bridge by michael underwood

Several of my friends give me crap because of some of the obscure things I have stored away in my pea like brain <because I tend to read random obscure things and store it all away>. Therefore they ask me random obscure questions to see what I have stored away.

The random question this time?

 

What is the strongest bridge in the world?

 

My random answer?

Hope.

Hope is the strongest bridge in the world.

 

“All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope.” - Winston Churchill

 

Well.

It was a flippant response on my part … but it kind of made everyone at the table sit back and hesitate … because it is one of those rare insightful non-smartass flippant responses.

Ok. First.

To be clear.

I am not a psychologist <nor psychiatrist … I get them mixed up> nor am I a behavioral scientist <possible a mad scientist though … a childhood goal>. I say that because I may just not know jackshit. But here’s what I think.

Lots of discussions about the strongest motivators/demotivators on human behavior seem to revolve around fear, love, self esteem, hate , etc. <Maslow created that excellent chart which I have used so often and adhere to> … however … I tend to believe that all these experts overlook hope.

Research digs deep down into the moments of minutiae with regard to why we do the things we do.

Heck.

That is how the best companies in the world attempt to derive strategies to make their companies <and products & services> a success in people’s heads, hearts & wallets.

In my own pea–like brain something shadows each response found in research … hope.

 

“The present is the ever moving shadow that divides yesterday from tomorrow. In that lies hope.” - Frank Lloyd Wright

 

I imagine it is so often overlooked as something impactful or something we should pay attention to because it is stealthily present in everything. Yup. Everything. Attitudes & behaviors. Thoughts & actions. And because of its omnipresence it gets overlooked as “non differentiator.”

Silly thinking.

Because it is everything.

It is what someone called “the well of self” which can permit you to begin again … and again.

 

hope bridge feelings“Hope arouses, as nothing else can arouse, a passion for the possible.” – William Sloane Coffin

 

Everyone wants to be aroused by the possible.

And I am not even talking about this in the grandiose abstract <dreams and such> but even in the drivel of the day.

A grocery shopper has the simple hope that everything will be found as quickly as possible.

A coffee drinker hopes that the first sip is everything they expected <and desired>.

A father hopes his daughter has a good day at school.

You get it.

Hope isn’t often the really big things … it is in the gazillion little things that happen in everyday life as well as the big “I want a better life” type things.

And maybe that is why I flippantly suggested it is the strongest bridge in the world.

It is strong enough to span generations of years.

Strong enough to span yesterday to tomorrow.

Strong enough to span the micro-second subconscious thought.

 

So. I say all that maybe to suggest that losing hope deprives someone of an essential structure in Life. The bridge to … well … make it in Life.

To be able to get from here to there.

Now. That said.

I do believe more of those who actually have hope to share … should share it <pragmatically> with those who struggle to reach that bridge.

Yes.

I do believe professionally I am a ‘dealer of hope.’

Yes.

I do believe all forms of hope, realistic and unrealistic, are better than no hope at all.

Yes.

I do believe the moment you have lost sight of how to see, or reach out and touch, hope you have entered some version of Hell.

Sure. Life offers a multitude of disappointments. Life is not easy. But I fear it becomes unliveable without hope because then disappointment becomes infinite in a finite Life.

That, my friends, sounds overwhelming distressing even as I type it.

 

“We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope.” - Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

John Lennon suggested people like me … believers in hope … are dreamers.

Well.

Maybe.

But Martin Luther King also said this …

“The hope of a secure and livable world lies with disciplined nonconformists who are dedicated to …”

 

In a way … a secure livable world lies with those dreamers. We disciplined nonconformists. Or maybe more pragmatically … bridge builders.drink from well of self

The resilience of Hope lies in we happy few … we happy disciplined nonconformists … we happy believers in hope despite what appears to be an infinite disappointment.

We happy few who have bridges to share.

We happy few who constantly drink from the well of self and … well … know how to begin again.

So, yes, the strongest bridge in the world is Hope.

murphy’s laws of war (& business)

May 15th, 2013

Well.murphys stupid

This post is partially silly and partially truth.

And maybe that summarizes all of Murphy’s laws in general. What makes them fun to read is that they almost always seem to contain a <maddening> grain of truth.

I was cleaning out a folder and came across a shortened <there is a website that has almost 100 Murphy’s laws of war> list of Murphy’s Laws of war.

And, no, Murphy is no Sun Tzu <The Art of War>. Oh. But just to say this while it is on my mind … every business person should, at minimum, read The Art of War but it doesn’t hurt to have a copy of the little easy to read pamphlet in your working space. Its good <business> stuff.

Anyway.

Let me share Murphy’s version of war theory before I wax poetically on how relevant they are to business.

Murphy’s Laws of War:

 

-          Professionals are predictable. It is the amateurs that are dangerous.

-          Never draw fire … it irritates everyone around you.

-          Friendly fire … isn’t.

-          Never forget your weapon was made by the lowest bidder.

-          The enemy invariably attacks on 2 occasions:

  • When they are ready
  • When you are not

-          If the enemy is within range … so are you.

-          Mines are equal opportunity weapons

-          When the pin is pulled Mr. Grenade is not our friend

-          When in doubt, empty your magazine.

-          Don’t ever be first, don’t ever be last, and don’t ever volunteer.

-          If it’s stupid but it works, it isn’t stupid.

 

Well.

On every single point I was drawing a correlation to business.

 

interviewing jonny_asking_questions_2Professionals are predictable. Professionals can be bad … good … lazy … but predictable. And consistent. Why? Because they actually do know their shit. They may get lazy, or play politics or even get bullied by someone louder … but they really do know their shit. Amateurs? Well. Simply … they don’t know their shit. Sure. They may get lucky on occasion as well as they may instinctually be okay <on occasion> but they are extremely unpredictable. Even worse? If an amateur has an early success they stretch that to ‘I am now a professional’ and become dangerous. Amateurs are valuable to have around because (a) they can see things differently so you can work the wheat from the chaff and (b) someday they will be professionals. But on their own? They are dangerous.

 

Never draw fire … because it does irritate people around you. There is an art & a science to actually raising the objection … drawing out a complaint or criticism. It also contains risk. People do not like risk. Especially if they are not controlling it. If you draw the fire … be prepared to take the bullet(s). If you are not ready to do so? You will irritate the people around you even more.

 

Ah. Friendly fire. Let’s call it constructive criticism or what could be <and is often called> ‘healthy debate.’ Well. It may be healthy but it sure doesn’t feel good or healthy. I guess this also falls under the ‘if it hurts it must be good for you’ philosophy. By the way? That is a stupid philosophy. Work is difficult enough without offering up the supposed friendly fire to your co-workers.

 

Your weapon is made by the lowest bidder.   Oh so true. In today’s business world, despite the fact everyone says ‘quality is number one’ they don’t really mean it. Ok. Maybe they mean it sometimes. And ‘sometimes’ means … well … there will always be an aspect where someone decided to go ‘lowest bidder.’ What do I mean? I have a project with 25 aspects. I decide to go lowest cost on 15 aspects so I can go high quality on the other 10. Murphy’s Law? Somewhere within the 15 going on the cheap will haunt you. I say all that <bringing it back to business> because while you may decide to put your ass on the line because you feel confident ‘we did it the right way’ … just know that somewhere within all that ‘right way’ a component was given to the lowest bidder.

 

The enemy attacking. I laughed when I read this. Why are people in business always scrambling to address competition? Well. It’s because they are always surprised when it happens. And it’s crazy. More time is wasted (a) preparing yourself for an attack that will never come when you want it to and (b) flailing in response to an attack. The point? You control what you can control. Your own company and business. Ignore an attack if it has acceptable losses and attack when you are ready.

 

If they are in range … you are in range. To me this is the disillusionment of believing you have an advantage. Advantages are so fleeting if you blink you can miss it <and get your ass blown off>. The moment you have an advantage … trust me … someone is already moving into either (a) the space you just left to get you from the rear or (b) into the same space you are moving into to attack all on their own. Never assume you have an advantage. Never assume if you perceive you have an advantage that it will last. Well.  Never assume you are out of range.

 

Mines are equal opportunity weapons. Pointing out problems doesn’t mean you are absolved from (a) blame, (b) becoming part of the problem or even (c) getting your ass blown up. Notice how people are often hesitant to complain or point out some flaws? It isn’t because they don’t see them or recognize that they shouldn’t be solved … it’s because they also recognize that they could get hurt themselves.  Oh. That’s why having a minesweeper employee is priceless. Pay her/him anything they want if they are good at it.

 

The grenade one. Well. That is a silly one. Kind of. Why kind of? Everyone makes mistakes … in life and in work. Mistakes, like it or not, are like grenades. Once a mistake is made … the pin is pulled. It may be on a 5 second timer, 5 hour timer … even a 5 year timer … but it is a grenade and it is on a timer. Too many times I see people trapped by their own mistakes. And, frankly, they get their ass blown off simply because they held on to the grenade. I know the metaphor is silly … but you get it. In business <for sure> and in Life <most of the time> mistakes have to be shared. By sharing you not only potentially save your own ass … you most likely decrease collateral damage. Simplistically … Mr. Grenade is not your friend.

 

When in doubt, empty your magazine. Whew. If I had seen this earlier I would have put it up as a sign in my office. Inside an office there is so much discussion on strategy of what to do and what to say and ‘showing all your cards’ and when … and it is such wasted energy. If you have the bullets use them. Trust me. If you use them all and still get killed it’s because you didn’t have enough or you didn’t shoot straight enough … you didn’t get killed because you should have held one or two back. Plus. There is a fairly well-known fact that magazines <business bullets> are manufactured in quantities. You can always grab another magazine if you get the opportunity. Say what? No more magazines or bullets! Oh well. Just means someone was smarter than you and had more bullets. Holding one or two back ain’t gonna help here either. Use it if you got it.mustache reindeer

 

Don’t be first, last or volunteer. This one is tricky. But I will give a personal opinion on this … I prefer, in business, to be a quick follower. I know that may sound strange <because leading implies being first and I like leading> but I have always tended to believe the ‘first’ <in general> were simply the most hasty. The most impatient. The ones most scared to not be first. In their desire to be first they just didn’t have all their proverbial shit together. In fact … my dream business scenario is actually to see 2 hasty ‘firsts’ coming out of the blocks duking it out and bludgeoning each other. Whew. Did I just say I liked being the 3rd out of the blocks? Well. Yeah. If it could play out that way. Being last? Nope. Too late. But a quick follower? Absolutely.

 

If it’s stupid and works it isn’t stupid. In the business world … too often when things go right and someone perceives it happened out of sheer luck or ‘stupidity gone right’ … it gets ignored. It gets ignored as (a) non replicable and (b) don’t want to replicate <because it was stupid>. You want to know what’s stupid? Ignoring something that worked. I am certainly not suggesting that the ends always justify the means but I am suggesting that working is working. Somehow, someway … it worked. Therefore somewhere within what happened something was not stupid.

Please note that it is mostly the arrogant know it all senior managers who overlook the ‘stupid but worked.’ They “know better.” They “know the right way to do it.” Aw … baloney. They are being stupid.

 

Well.

That was fun <for me>.

Oddly <in my pea like brain> I thought of writing this using Murphy when I saw this list in some magazine from the J.Crew CEO on business. Maybe because some of the things he suggests would make great Murphy’s Laws at some point.

In addition? I happen to agree with him on his list. Here are his thoughts … the ones I really liked.

 

corporate cultureCreativity Tips From J.Crew CEO Mickey Drexler

 

-          “Every business could be creative.”

I talk to so many people about the lack of creativity in companies in America. Part of creativity is contrarianism. Creativity battles common wisdom. Because if there’s common wisdom, there’s an opportunity. In my own experience, whatever was a good idea was a bad idea to most people.

-          “Companies are in the Stone Ages organizationally.”

You can tell by the offices. “I’m going to see the king!” The king is on the top floor and there are 17 people in front of the king’s office. There are layers of bureaucracy. It shouldn’t be like that.

-          “Most companies should have a rule about how big they get.”

Not necessarily assigning a billion-dollar value or a 10 billion-dollar value, but companies that become too ubiquitous go one way.

-          “America’s companies are built to destroy creativity.”

If you become the head of a big company today, you’re not the youngest person in the world. You have a contract. You get a jet. You have a huge overpaid salary. You get bonuses. Do you think that CEO is going to screw around with fast, creative change? No. And the board of directors–the last thing they want is someone who’s going to change things. Steve Jobs–he would bet the company, he wouldn’t care. But there are very few people who run companies that way.

-          “You have to keep moving forward.”

Everything has a trend to it; I don’t care if it’s appliances or engines. I always ask: What has a company done in the past five years that somebody’s noticed?

-          “You cannot copy high quality.”

It takes a long time to get a reputation for quality. There are people in our industry, they’re basically copiers. Look at the cars on the streets. They all look alike. But if you put quality into a product, then have it validated, you have huge credibility. It takes time to earn that.

-          “Simplicity is very difficult to achieve.”

Try to ask someone to make a really good roast chicken.

—–

Good stuff.

Smart guy this Mickey. Maybe he should meet Murphy and create some laws.

 

the antichrist bigfoot and global warming

April 18th, 2013

“One in four Americans suspect Barack Obama to be the anti-Christ”. – Public Policy Pollconspiracy theory director

<note: for the mathematically challenged that equates to 25%>

 

Well.

There are moments where I not only scratch my head with regard to the present possibilities for the human race … but there are also moments that I encounter full despair about the future of the human race.

25% think the American president is the anti-christ?

Please. Someone tell me this is a joke.

Unfortunately it is not a joke … and it is because of this recent Public Policy Polling survey conducted in America with regard to conspiracy theories that has me very worried about the future.

Because in the here and now? There are a shitload of people who are either unequivocally nuts or absolutely clueless.

Ok.

Maybe not nuts.

But they are … for some reason … deluded into believing some really wacky things.

Like what?

Beyond the 25% who suspect that President Barack Obama might be the antichrist … more than a third believe that global warming is a hoax  … and more than 50% suspect that a secretive global elite is trying to set up a New World Order.

Yikes.

conspiracy paranoiaHave we become so paranoid?

The survey asked a sample of American voters about a number of conspiracy theories, albeit the phrasing the questions in eye-catching language that will have the country’s educators banging their heads on their desks makes for interesting reading itself, and the results are disturbing.

The study revealed:

-          13% of respondents thought Obama was “the antichrist”, while another 13% were “not sure” – and so were at least appeared to be open to the possibility that he might be.

Thankfully … some 73% of people were able to say outright that they did not think Obama was “the antichrist”.

-          37% of Americans thought that global warming was a hoax, while 12% were not sure and a slim majority – 51% – agreed with the overwhelming majority view of the scientific establishment and thought that it was not.

-          The survey also revealed that 28% of people believed in a sinister global New World Order conspiracy, aimed at ruling the whole world through authoritarian government.

Another 25% were “not sure” and only a minority of American voters – 46% – thought such a conspiracy theory was not true.

 

At least some of the insane theories suggested by the poll were dismissed by large majorities. For example:

-          only 7% of Americans in the survey believed the moon landing was faked

-          only <a stunningly large amount to me> 14% believed in Bigfoot

-          only 4% accepted that “shape-shifting alien reptilian people control our world by taking on human form”

-          only 6% believe Osama Bin Laden is still alive

-          21% of voters say a UFO crashed in Roswell, NM in 1947 and the US government covered it up.

-          20% of voters believe there is a link between childhood vaccines and autism <thankfully 51% do not>

-          29% of voters believe aliens exist

-           14% of voters say the CIA was instrumental in creating the crack cocaine epidemic in America’s inner cities in the 1980’s

-          9% of voters think the government adds fluoride to our water supply for sinister reasons (not just dental health)

-          4% of voters say they believe “lizard people” control our societies by gaining political power

-          51% of voters say a larger conspiracy was at work in the JFK assassination, just 25% say Oswald acted alone

-          15% of voters say the government or the media adds mind-controlling technology to TV broadcast signals (the so-called Tinfoil Hat crowd)

-          5% believe exhaust seen in the sky behind airplanes is actually chemicals sprayed by the government for sinister reasons

-          15% of voters think the medical industry and the pharmaceutical industry “invent” new diseases to make moneyConspiracy Theory Words

 

In some good news, Paul McCartney will be relieved that a mere 5% of respondents believed that he died in a car crash in 1966 and was replaced by a double so the Beatles could continue their careers

And thankfully just 11% embraced the concept that the US government knowingly allowed the terror attacks of 9/11 to take place.

 

Here is the link to the full results: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_ConspiracyTheories_040213.pdf

 

Ok. I won’t dwell on the real purpose behind the survey <it was carried out in order to explore how voters’ political beliefs impact on their willingness to embrace conspiracy theories> despite the fact it did indeed find that the partisan divide that is blamed for many problems in Washington DC also extends to the world of paranoia, aliens and Big Foot.

I will not dwell on the politics because my real concern has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans but rather the fact such paranoia, fear and irrational thinking is so prevalent among people.

Look.

I have written many times on how difficult it is these days to discern truth from non-truth as well as partial truth.

But at its core … conspiracies have a sense of irrationality.

 

According to conspiracy monger Alex Jones, “The military-industrial complex killed John F. Kennedy” and “I can prove that there’s a private banking cartel setting up a world government because they admit they are” and “No matter how you look at 9/11 there was no Islamic terrorist connection—the hijackers were clearly U.S. government assets who were set up as patsies like Lee Harvey Oswald.”

 

This is crazy talk.

But people are listening.

And even more scarily … if they are not fully believing … they are accepting this garbage.

 

I dug up some research to try and explain what I would consider ‘indications of an ignorant paranoid population.”

University of Kent psychologists Michael J. Wood, Karen M. Douglas and Robbie M. Sutton in a paper entitled “Dead and Alive: Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories,” published in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science.

The authors begin by defining a conspiracy theory as “a proposed plot by powerful people or organizations working together in secret to accomplish some (usually sinister) goal” that is “notoriously resistant to falsification … with new layers of conspiracy being added to rationalize each new piece of disconfirming evidence.”

Once you believe that “one massive, sinister conspiracy could be successfully executed in near-perfect secrecy, [it] suggests that many such plots are possible.”

With this cabalistic paradigm in place, conspiracies can become “the default explanation for any given event—a unitary, closed-off worldview in which beliefs come together in a mutually supportive network known as a monological belief system.”

This monological belief system explains the significant correlations between different conspiracy theories in the study.

For example, “a belief that a rogue cell of MI6 was responsible for [Princess] Diana’s death was correlated with belief in theories that HIV was created in a laboratory … that the moon landing was a hoax … and that governments are covering up the existence of aliens.”

The effect continues even when the conspiracies contradict one another: the more participants believed that Diana faked her own death … the more they believed that she was murdered.

 

The authors suggest there is a higher-order process at work that they call global coherence that overrules local contradictions:

“Someone who believes in a significant number of conspiracy theories would naturally begin to see authorities as fundamentally deceptive, and new conspiracy theories would seem more plausible in light of that belief.”

Moreover, “conspiracy advocates’ distrust of official narratives may be so strong that many alternative theories are simultaneously endorsed in spite of any contradictions between them.” Thus, they assert, “the more that participants believe that a person at the center of a death-related conspiracy theory, such as Princess Diana or Osama [bin] Laden, is still alive, the more they also tend to believe that the same person was killed, so long as the alleged manner of death involves deception by officialdom.

Wow.

That is scary.

Alex Jones proclaimed in Conspiracy Rising: “No one is safe, do you understand that? Pure evil is running wild everywhere at the highest levels.”

This is rampant paranoia … at its worst.

 

Okay.

To me … conspiracies are for the lazy thinkers.

I now that sounds odd because the amount of energy they take to think these things up would make you believe they are hard working thinkers.

But here is the deal with conspiracy thinking.

Conspiracies are all about isolating empty spaces … empty of information … or the gaps as it were … and then accumulating all the empty space and creating a theory <and feasts on empty minds>.

But what is a conspiracy theory in the end?

Just empty space filled with speculation and not facts.

Yes.

Everyone is entitled to challenge conventional wisdom but that doesn’t mean the alternative conspiracy theories are true … they simply represent intriguing possibilities.

And these possibilities only exist because the theories’ “reality” only lives in the empty spaces.

And the biggest empty space seems to be people’s minds.

On his Infowars.com Web site, Jones headlines his page with “Because There Is a War on for Your Mind.”

Well. There is certainly a war on for our minds.

It is called the war between reason and fear & the irrational.

Conspiracy mongering feasts on the second at the expense of the first.

 

I imagine the lure of conspiracies is twofold:

First it makes the believer special, in their own eyes and the eyes of many. That person knows “the secret” … something no one else knows. It’s a matter of having inside information nobody else has, unless they are wise enough to be in on the scoop.

Second it permits the believer to blame someone else for their lot in life.

The possible third lure is conspiracies can never be proven … nor disproven to a conspirator … therefore they are always right <although they are not proven right>.

 

conspiracy threatIt makes my head hurt.

Here is something I read that explained why my head hurts on this topic:

“… remember that the best place for a nefarious conspirator to hide is inside a conspiracy theory which by its nature is infinite in complexity, there is always another layer needed to cover up the inconsistencies.

Conspiracies are non-falsifiable hypothesis. There are the refuge for those without proof.

What we have then is the extremes at both ends, those that believe in nothing but the norm, the mindless sheep awaiting orders. And at the other end those that believe nothing they are told and no longer have a coherent grasp of reality because of their missing pool of shared experiences.”

 

So.

I blame a lot of things and mostly people themselves <because they are being unerringly paranoid and duped by selective truths and speculative thinking> for this trend but I will point out a major contributor … television. This report summarizes why I wanted to point out TV as a major culprit:

 

According to “The State of the News Media 2013”, a report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism at the Pew Research Centre, the deteriorating financial state of news organizations has hurt their output.

Americans who think media firms are putting out fewer original, thoughtful stories are probably right. Weather, traffic and sport now account for around 40% of local television newscasts. The average length of a story keeps falling. Only 20% of local TV stories exceed a minute, and half take less than 30 seconds.

On cable-news channels, live reports, which require camera crews and journalists actually to show up somewhere, have fallen by a third in daytime programs in the past five years. Interview segments, which are cheap, have risen.

Americans may also prefer talking heads because they increasingly prefer to hear opinion rather than fact.

This trend is highlighted by the popularity of Fox, a conservative news network, and of MSNBC, its left-leaning counterpart. CNN, which tends to toe the middle line, continues to struggle with its ratings unless there is a big news event.

Pew says the news industry is “undermanned and underprepared to uncover stories, dig deep into emerging ones or to question information put into its hands.”

 

This dependence on “opinion entertainers” as news is probably the most damaging … and disturbing.

I know lots of people who get 100% of their news from Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh or Jon Stewart. Unfortunately, while smart people, they are entertainers.

Their existence is based on ratings not truth. Opinions drive ratings. Apparently Truth isn’t a big seller these days.

 

Anyway.

Conspiracies and paranoia and irrational thinking.

Sure.

Be skeptical.

Disbelieve, doubt and look askance.

If you want, look askance twice.

Assume you are being lobbied if not actually lied to if you want.conspiracy anxiety-bw

But in the end make up your own mind using common sense <and try and avoid too many ‘what ifs’ and made up shit>.

And remember a conspiracy theory is just empty space filled with speculation and not facts.

Make sure that description isn’t your mind.

Oh. And make sure you just aren’t paranoid.

Oh. And you may have to recognize that all this poking holes in conventional wisdom and faux science and conspiracy theories will take strength of character, a constant battle for clarity <and common sense> and a boatload of courage to take on people whose only real argument is “so you just don’t get it”.

the web as the problem? (and children’s education)

April 17th, 2013

Well. web is problem mr peabody-and-sherman

 

My project global generation may never go anywhere … but it certainly puts me within some of the most interesting conversations with regard to educating the youth.

 

Let me share the part of the conversations that is a head scratcher <at least to me>.

 

But it is a consistent head scratcher part.

 

Like in the over 90% of the time consistent.

 

My conversations begin with ‘it is a web based global children’s education’ and always <and I mean always> veers very quickly to someone stating unequivocally … “how the world wide web has made things more difficult-worse-insert some negative comment here.”

 

 

The web is destroying reading skills.

 

The web is destroying cognitive skills.

 

The web is spreading criminal (lower value-ethic) attitudes to a broad audience.

 

The web facilitates laziness.

 

The web is diminishing attention spans.

 

The web is giving voice to thoughts that are encouraging the destruction of character.

 

All, some, most and more.

 

The majority of older people want to go back to the “way it was before” because it was better (definition of better would be “we weren’t lazy, had broader attention spans, stronger character, less people thought criminal like thoughts, we read more … ).

 

 

The majority of older people seem to think of the past as ‘simpler.’

 

 

“How many people long for that “past, simpler, and better world,” I wonder, without ever recognizing the truth that perhaps it was they who were simpler and better, and not the world about them?” – R.A. Salvatore

 

 

Well. after scratching my head … In the beginning I used to just chuckle and try the “it is what it is today … we cannot ‘undo’ the web so why waste energy looking backwards?”

 

Well.

 

Experience has taught me that (a) that is not the A response (b) that response got me nowhere very fast (c) there are a shitload of people – people with leadership roles, smarts and influence – who are dedicating a shitload of energy into trying to reintroduce past plans of action <albeit at least focusing on those which can often be associated with some success thank god>.

 

So.

 

I have regrouped. While my path of least resistance would seem to be to find those who don’t want to go backwards but instead embrace what is and move forward , alas, I can’t.

 

Maybe I am too stubborn <yes>.

 

Or maybe in some semi smart way I have realized there is a significant group damming up the flow of progress. And this ‘stubborn against change’ group are creating a double fold issue:

 

web is problem teach 

 

(1)    – They are increasing creating an ever increasing gap between age generations.

 

While there is always friction between age generations as innovations occur something like the web (just as the printing press and maybe the automobile did) is a lightning rod of paradigm shifting attitudes and behaviors. Generations have never been further apart.

 

 

(2)    – They are increasing the problem gap.

 

Issues are being exacerbated as they balk at moving forward. No solution behavior translates into issues being permitted to gain momentum (which I feel obligated to point out from a physics perspective that a faster moving object is more difficult to slow down, stop or change direction than one moving at a slower pace).

 

 

Anyway.

 

Let’s try some of this thinking out.

 

 

-          1. Kids read more today than ever before.

 

Oh. And reading is reading.

 

Yeah.

 

Reading is reading (with regard to cognitive skills). I was part of an online TED forum on this subject and I was getting the shit kicked out of me (by people who were arguing the web/texting/twitter was destroying cognitive skills in children) until this gentleman stepped in (or ‘up to the plate’ or ‘to stand by my side’ or whatever phrase indicative of a sigh of relief on my part) and said this:

 

 

 

“but … I don’t even know where to begin with this one. I have a PhD in reading. Not that this necessarily means I’m smart, it’s just that I’ve studied and continue to study reading. So here goes…it doesn’t matter what a person reads, in what form, by which author, on which device. Reading is reading.
My first “Crayola secret” for you is that we all read on 4 different levels: instructional, informational, recreational , and frustrational. Not any one is better than the other. Just read. The definition of comprehension? It’s still being worked on. No one, not even the experts and researchers, can seem to agree.”
- Marti Dryk, PhD

 

 

Amen.

 

Reading is reading. And between tweets, social media, web searches, e-books … and good ole fashioned paper literature … kids are absorbing more words and thoughts than ever before.

 

 

-          2. Young people have always had short attention spans.

 

<note: and I could argue changes in parenting style have affected children’s attitudes and behaviors – including attention span – more than the web>.

 

Regardless.

 

A teen brain has always been a teen brain. As I have written before in that stage of development it simply gets overloaded (with stimulus) and it is wired for short bursts of stimulus. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be teaching the value of “make haste slowly” but on the other hand we do not have any research proof suggesting teaching USING how their brain works (of which the web provides that opportunity where an adult teacher is not readily capable (their brains are built differently) is not effective. If you search for data you will find it is mostly negatively anecdotal (obviously from adults). All I am suggesting is that sometimes a classroom is less effective because we are teaching one way and the recipients natural way of absorbing is another way. That misalignment creates inefficiencies. Why not use a tool and educate in a way that is aligned.

 

 

-          3. The web is not encouraging laziness <or lazy thinking>

 

First.

When we were young we were exactly the same type of ‘lazy thinker’ we older folk claim the web is creating. In our youth we wanted to get to the solution <or whatever would get us the good grade> as quickly as we possibly could. The web is a double edged sword. Quick solutions or answers  are easily at your fingertips. Now. They may not be the right solutions or answers but they are right there. On the other hand … multiple solutions or answers are at your fingertips. Some right and some wrong. I have to be honest … I see as many adults today seeking the ‘shortcut’ to answer as I do the youth.

 

Second.

I actually believe the web is creating a more vigorous thinker … albeit a different type of thinking than we old folk were. The web makes such a myriad of factoids <and semi-factoids> available so quickly that the young are becoming more discernible analyzers, evaluators and thinkers earlier than any generation before.

 

Who gets the credit? The web <note … with some good guidance from teachers>.

 

 

Ok.

 

Moving on. 

 

I always hesitate to say this <as a nonparent> but I am not sure it is any more difficult to bring up children today than it was in the past.

 

Different? Absolutely … more difficult? I think not.

 

Kids are kids.

 

And they have always been kids.

 

They are adults in training.

 

As adults we want what we want. Kids are the same. The web has simply given them a new tool to do what kids do and have always done. The web has probably made it more difficult for a parent to be lazy thinkers (as parents) and at the same time make it more difficult to be “opinion selective” when sharing thoughts.

 

I think of it as a balance sheet. The web has increased both assets and expenses. But it is still a balance sheet.

 

I just tend to believe that the value of the overall balance sheet has increased with the advent of the web.

 

 

gg thinker and girlAnyway.

 

I cannot remember who wrote this <it was an author> … “the web … it is just a matter of time before some kid from North Dakota decides to blow past the popular kids … just blow them out of the water … with something spectacular.”

 

 

Maybe the greatest aspect of the web is the fact it is an equalizer. It can level the playing field so that all kids … whether they are popular or not … whether they live in upper income New York or rural North Dakota … whether … well … whatever … can do something spectacular.

 

And, geez, who the heck wouldn’t want that for our kids?

 

 

aging gracefully, scandals, legacy & judgment

April 10th, 2013

 

Sorry.conviction benjamin_disraeli9

This will be a winding post including Rick Pitino, Margaret Thatcher, Ray Lewis, Annette Funicello and Rutgers.

But the past several days has made me think about legacies … and judgment. We judge every day … sometimes simply an event … or a moment … and sometimes reflectively. All I know for sure is that we seem to be quick to judge, relentlessly unforgiving in the moment and oddly selective in circumspect.

Anyway.

Rick Pitino.

Rick Pitino is a great basketball coach.

But he also shapes young men. The other night I was watching a group of 18- to 22-year-old young men teach us a lesson about life.

<side note: to all the boomer 50/60something managers out there who bitch & moan about managing younger generations maybe you should put a picture of Pitino up in your office because he is 60 now … and was 40something when he brought a group of 20somethings to another championship and he was in his 30’s when he brought another group to a Final Four … maybe it isn’t the younger generation … maybe it is you? … oops … I digress>.

It would be easy to focus on his recent success … but his path to where he is today <I was tempted to use ‘greatness’ but didn’t> was not a straight line. There were failures and transgressions. Simply put … today he is not the man he was in his 20’s. Do we judge him on his hall of fame career? Do we judge on basketball statistics? How his young men athletes do in Life? How he did in his own personal life?  Or do we judge him in totality?

Margaret Thatcher.

Margaret Thatcher was neither the smartest <a British paper used the word ‘cleverest’> nor the most eloquent politician of her generation. But she was without question one of the most determined. Maggie’s <that is what I called her> unwavering belief in her convictions is most likely her most important characteristic. Whether you believed she was right or wrong  … you knew she said what she meant and meant what she said. It was never about style it was always about substance.  The content was almost irrelevant because  the intent drove in to the minds of people. conviction vaclav havelMaggie did not become a great prime minister by being nice. She was tough-minded, determined, and convicted. Do we judge her on popularity? The success, or lack of success, of things she implemented? Do we judge her as a mother? Or do we judge her simply as one who led and not any specifics?

Annette Funicello.

On the same day Maggie died … Annette Funicello died at the age of 70 from complications of multiple sclerosis <which she had had for more than 25 years>.

For anyone growing up in the 1950s, Annette Funicello was a huge celebrity, one of the original Mouseketeers on Walt Disney’s “Mickey Mouse Club.” After it ended she had a couple of records and starred in Beach Blanket movies … then she left the business to raise her children. <trivia: Paul Anka wrote “Puppy Love” about her>.

Do we judge her on her insanely bad Beach Blanket Bingo movies? Do we judge her on being a Mouseketeer? Do we judge her on her moral compass? Do we judge her on the way she dealt with multiple sclerosis? Do we judge her in total?

Ray Lewis.

Ray Lewis is probably the polar opposite of Annette Funicello. Retired this year more as a motivational inspirational leader than the truly monsterly talented football player that he was. He was a beast on the field. So much of a beast that we may tend to forget that he didn’t become a beast simply by walking on the field … he dedicated himself off the field to not waste his talent. He was an imperfect man off the field … but focused on not wasting the one true talent he had – playing football. And you know what? His motivational ability was simply him sharing that conviction … make the most of what you have <and don’t let the other shit get in the way>.

Oh. Yeah. Ray may have shot someone. He may have just been with someone who shot someone. Ray was definitely a young punk in the 90’s. Brash, arrogant and wandering. Do we judge him as that? Or how he has matured? Do we judge him on an event or a series of events? Do we judge him simply for the fact he didn’t waste an incredible talent despite the fact at one point he could have chosen another path?

Ah.

The Rutgers basketball coach … and that path to choose I just mentioned with Ray.

If I were to judge this coach on a 30 minute video tape I would not judge him well. Please note that I believe this is not about any ‘generational style of coaching’ … his actions are, and were, unacceptable for someone who has the ability to shape and mold young men for life beyond sports.

But.

We never get to see the thousands of hours of coaching video that would make him look like a first round Hall of Fame coach.

Look. Someone could make a 30 minute video of me from my entire professional career that could make unhireable for the rest of my life. On the other hand someone could make a 30 minute video of me that could put me in the top boardrooms in the world.

Highlights, or lowlights, are just that … the peaks or the valleys. And it is silly to assume we are always at the peak of our best. You should notice that most of the great coaches being interviewed have been very careful about how they discuss the situation … why?

Geez. I bet even Pitino is sitting there thinking “whew … if someone went back to when I was a younger coach and created a 30 minute lowlight film I bet I wouldn’t look so good.”

We are being awful quick to judge this coach.judgment Quotes-Graphics-6

And being awful quick to judge how it was initially handled. Beyond the fact we are in a maniacally litigious world and the university is kind of trapped between ‘being in the right to fire’ and ‘providing the opportunity to improve’ … it would seem like the university <which is in the business of teaching people and improving them for future success> actually gave someone, who must obviously have some redeeming professional value, a good spanking, some good support … and then sent them back out to be a better person.

We are quick to judge the coach … and the university. And from the outside looking in sometimes objects look closer than they really are <sorry … that’s the side view mirror perspective on Life>.

Me?

What he did was unacceptable. What the university did was acceptable <in some ways>. Everyone should be careful how they judge … the event … as well as legacy of the event.

 

The point of all this?

We seem so quick to judge people these days. We judge with a strong dose of nearsightedness.

In addition we debate judging people on character, deeds or sometimes even lifetime consistency.

We forgive … but we don’t forgive.

Here is a Life truth.

If you sift through the rubble of anyone’s life you will find some cherished mementoes … and some rubbish.

Some people will hold the mementos high and declare sainthood.

Other people will flaunt the rubbish as proof of poor character.

It is all silly.

These people may not have been the smartest nor the most talented nor even the nicest. But they all had conviction.

Despite challenges and any transgressions they may have encountered they got their proverbial train back on the tracks and moved forward with conviction on what mattered to them.

Pitino has always been a great basketball coach. He is now a better man … and a shaper of young men.

Thatcher was never a great mind. She was a leader … not just listening to what people wanted to showing them what they needed.

Ray Lewis has always been a monsterly talented football player. He is now a monsterly talented football player who did not waste his talent.

Annette Funicello was never the most talented. But in the end she could certainly be judged well on moral compass and integrity and heart.

But what did they all have in common?

Conviction.

The Rutgers coach? He is at a crossroads. After the witch hunt has died down and we stop judging him as evil incarnate he can decide where he goes from here. And he has a lifetime to build events that will ultimately decide how he is judged. He will find this is a test of his conviction.

Ok.

conviction willpowerI say all that to show judging a person is tough. They have professional success and sometimes Life success … and sometimes one or the other … and certainly some failures along the way.

And in the moment you are simply judging … well … a moment. Life is a series of events. Some good and some bad. Some gooder than others and some a lot badder than others.

But people have a lifetime of events to build a legacy for the rest of us to judge them on. And in the end they will be exactly as we expected them to be … flawed.

Me?

I imagine I would like to judge people not on their greatness or even individual events but rather how they dealt with the flaws in their life.

We can isolate specific events within a Life and find something good or something bad. That is easy. In fact … that is lazy judgment.

But judging how someone deals with the flaws … the mistakes.

Well, maybe, just maybe, that is judging their conviction.

And, well, conviction is a reflection of character … not brains nor genius nor talent nor skills.

a penney for my thoughts

April 10th, 2013

 

So.jcpenney 1

A quick thought on JC Penney and the firing of their CEO. The bleeding was too much and now the CEO, a guy named Johnson, is gone.

Without investing a lot of energy researching the details nor insuring I have all the facts right … here is a quick summary of the situation and my own penny and a ½ thought.

 

A year and ½ ago. JC Penney is showing profits but becoming increasingly irrelevant in the category and shrinking as frightening levels.

They hire a new CEO <from outside the industry>. He decided to make “the big change.”

-          On joining the firm, he said, “In the U.S., the department store has a chance to regain its status as the leader in style, the leader in excitement. It will be a period of true innovation for this company.”

They institute the ‘big change.’

-          Abruptly scrapping dubious pricing policies of marking up prices and then offering discounts, with heavy promotions, and coupons as well as incorporated  new more fashionable items at reasonable prices all the time.

Sales plummeted.

-          The approach didn’t fare well with Penney’s customer base of bargain hunters. They rebelled, traffic declined.

Penney slowly returned to the prior era of pricing, with lots of promotions, lots of price-focused ads, and marked-up prices that would be later marked down.

JC Penney reports a $20+million loss.

CEO fired.

<note: all his happens in 17 months>

 

Look.

I buy the fact the immediate priority for JCPenney is survival. Stop, or slow, the bleeding.

And I can guarantee a boatload of pundits will rush to the forefront suggesting the CEO didn’t understand the “woman buyer” or “how women like to shop.” <in other words … they will pull out Paco Underhill – the master of shopping psychology – and start saying ‘it’s the thrill of the hunt, not the buying. “>

Baloney.

He knew exactly what he was doing.

And you know what?

He may have been right and judging after 17 months is ludicrous.

Particularly after a knee jerk “whoa! Let’s go back to lots of promotions to bring people back” action.

The CEO was well aware of the mismatch between the vision, strategy and the existing management and culture.

jcpenney clearance2In addition they had to make changes to the product line, marketing and sales and, most importantly, the customer’s perceptions & attitudes <which affect their behavior>.

But he was also aware that radical changes needed to be made <assuming everyone wanted to have a radical result>.

Penney’s aggressive discount practices had not only cut into pricing strategy <it had actually become their pricing strategy> but the company <and brand> had diminished in consumers’ heads.

Macy’s & Kohls were stealing Penney’s business.

The guy came in and decided to clearly re-position the company, and brand, in the marketplace.

Was it a misalignment with the portions of current customer base? You bet.

But wasn’t that the point?

And the new strategy was about authentic & honesty.

Geez. That’s a shitty strategy, huh?

Even better?

I bet good ole Jacque Penney himself <assuming there was one> was standing up in heaven applauding that someone was actually implementing the original vision.

The vision was incredibly sound.

I was not in the board room but I envision no one forecasted this huge a loss … but, you know what? That is where conviction gets tested.

Shit. If Margaret Thatcher was a CEO she would have been fired after 17 months if this was the way of judging.

I am not suggesting the decision to move forward would have been right, nor easy, but judging in 17 months is ludicrous.

 

My point?

A boatload of people are going to rush to judge this event.

In fact what inspired me to write about this was one of the talking heads on CNN who unequivocally stated “this is going to be a poster case study in MBA schools for what not to do.”

Well.

That is not only silly but crazy.

The CEO had a clear vision to delight Penney customers. Nothing wrong about that.

But delighting customers is tricky.

And it gets even trickier when:

-          The organization is not aligned

-          And the organization <and outside financial world> panics.

 

We will never be able to judge this CEO nor the event.

Someone at JC Penney will bastardize the vision. People will be quick to point out the failure … but WE WILL NEVER KNOW if it was a failure or not.

How can we?

17 months for a massive organization like JC Penney? It would be crazy to think you could make the tanker sized business shift almost 180degrees in 17 months.

 

Me?

I love the vision he had.

I love the fact he actually was going back to the heritage of JC Penney. What it originally stood for.

I love the fact he recognized that brand is not a brand if it is simply promotion <or what some people may call ‘bargain’>.

Would I have implemented it differently than he did? Maybe. I don’t know. It is the infamous debate of gradual change versus quick change.

All I know is that change is painful.

Oh. I also know that dramatic results are dependent upon dramatic measures.

In the end … who knows what the ‘new JC Penney’ could have achieved after they had survived the change bloodbath.

Yeah.

Someone is gonna send me a note about “you have to survive.’ Well. Let me remind everyone of my ‘how far will you go’ post: http://brucemctague.com/how-far-would-you-go-to-solve-a-problem.impatient patience

 

Sometimes organizations need to make dramatic changes to turn themselves around. The longer you permit your organization to go down the slippery slope of irrelevance the more dramatic the change has to be. And sometimes you find a leader with a good vision and the balls to implement the dramatic change.

Unfortunately … in today’s business world … no one seems to have the balls to do it.

What I will tell you is that JC Penney will now go the way of Woolworths & Wanamakers.  Or maybe the Dollar Store will buy them.

 

instinct

April 6th, 2013

 

“Ideas pull the trigger, but instinct loads the gun.” – Don Marquisinstinct collective_unconsciouness

 

This quote is taken from Marquis’ “The Almost Perfect State” which was written in 1927 as a series of sharp criticisms of the Progressive Era.

Ok.

I imagine a lot of people read this quote and wonder if the quote would work better … “ideas load the gun, but instinct pulls the trigger.”

But I believe that misses Don’s point <albeit I have not spoken with him on this topic … he died in 1937>.

The point?

Knowledge and experience can only take you so far.

It is the difference between being solely analytical and incorporating the intangible <the instinctual>.

What he is suggesting is that all the bright big ideas in the world don’t mean shit if they cannot be brought into being without a person who can originate the intellectual movement of action. This person requires a special character.

Ah.

Special character.

Instinct is one of those things people hate.

Because it is not tangible … and it always assumes some level of risk.

It is research of one <which scares the shit out of people these days>.

That means …

Collaboration? Well. Nope.

Consensus? Geez. Nope.

Extrapolation through the hypotenuse of multiple data points discussed ad nausea and plotted on some nifty white board? Sounds like fun … but … nope.

Instinct is gut … albeit typically great instincts have been honed by experience and knowledge.

But in the end … it is not tangible nor proven.

It is … well … just what it is.

Sure.

It can be cultivated.

And it can even be honed.

But I do not believe it can be taught.

Well. Let me take that back and try this.

Good instincts cannot be taught.

Good instinct is first and foremost an internal aptitude. We all have instincts … but some just have gooder instincts. Beyond that natural foundation it is probably a combination of experience and knowledge and ultimately a mindset.

I say a mindset because instinct is a feeling and not anything visible or tangible. You sense what to do and where to go and what to say.

And it often isn’t because your instincts are proven good … but just rather that you know what feels wrong.

 

“Every time I’ve done something that doesn’t feel right, it’s ended up not being right.” – Mario M. Cuomo

 

That said.

I know one of the most frustrating things I have heard in business decision meetings is “I am not sure what the right thing to do is … but … what we are discussing doing sounds wrong.”

And while frustrating … it also feels right.

We sometimes get so rushed to make a decision we grab one … anyone will do. And, yet, it feels wrong … okay … maybe not wrong … just not right.

That is instinct.

Not only knowing the path to success … but also recognizing paths to failure & disappointment <before you even take one step on that path>.

It is a true joy to be near someone with good, if not great, instincts.

They seem to be in an effective zone and not in a comfort zone. What I mean is that they have a habit of disregarding distractions … discerning the important from the unimportant  … and have a focus. That focus may not be the destination <it can be> but oftentimes their instincts are reflective of the journey to the destination.

They have a humble confidence … and sometimes are even slightly insecure <I imagine because their strength is in the intangible>.

 

“Trust instinct to the end, even though you can give no reason.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

And they are rarely emotional in decision making.

instinct good or badNow.

Conversely, it is absolutely miserable to be near someone who has crappy instincts <but thinks they have good instincts>.

It is not only miserable because you end up going down lots of fruitless paths and waste a lot of energy but also because instincts are intangible.

There are no numbers or research or facts that can counter instincts and intuition. Therefore someone in a leadership position who has crappy instincts is unmovable. They are literally an elephant in the room.

That is misery.

Regardless.

Instinct is a natural aptitude.

Kind of like a knack.

An innate tendency or response to act in ways that, at its most base description, is essential to development, preservation or survival.

As Hayakawa suggests … instinct implies innate disposition rather than having a talent. It is not a gift, nor a talent or even an aptitude. It is more an inborn intangible. It could be called a ‘Knack’ but that has almost always been associated with social rather than intellectual causes & situations.

It is tough in today’s world for people with good instincts.

While intellectual in its strength it is not proven with any reason.

In an over thinking, over analyzing, over safe world .. ‘without reason’ doesn’t often gain a place at the table.

Instinctual decision making often requires having people follow with some blind faith. And in a world of consensus and collaboration … well … that ain’t happening much these days.

attitude & the impossible

March 21st, 2013

 

“They say Rome wasn’t built in a day but I wasn’t on that particular job.” – Brian Cloughimpossible mad hatter

 

So.

I am not one of those people that believes nothing is impossible. Because some things are simply impossible. No ifs and or buts.

In addition … some things may actually be possible … but they take impossible amount of effort that doesn’t bear a viable return on that effort.

However. All that said.

More things are possible than most people believe. And sometimes being unreasonable in your expectations … and in intent … can lead to some amazingly reasonable outcomes.

Now.

The outcomes may not be the exact things you were aiming for … but they are pretty darn good … amazing in fact. And with this initial unreasonableness you began with … you end up attaining some aspect of what some people may have suggested was impossible.

Here is where I struggle with some results based performance assessment.

If your objective was 100 yards further than what anyone conceived as possible … and you attained somewhere maybe 50 yards short of your objective <but 50 yards farther than what was deemed possible> … how are you judged?

 

-          On your unreasonableness? <someone suggests you should set a more reasonable goal next time>

-          On the fact you didn’t achieve the objective? <someone suggests you were not successful because you didn’t get to where you aimed for … and told people what you would achieve … maybe they even suggest you promised it and therefore did not fulfill what was promised>

-          On the belief you only were 50% successful? <someone suggests you only got half way toward your ultimate objective>

Or.

Does someone point out you did the impossible?

That maybe by being a little unreasonable in your expectations you were able to do something that no one else was willing to attempt and actually go do.

 

Any and all are a possible outcome.

 

A Life truth?

Being an unreasonable person is difficult.

 

Now.

I am not suggesting this is about blindly setting impossible goal after impossible goal assuming at some point the odds are with you that you will attain one of them. Those people are, frankly, dangerous to have around. They waste time & energy and expend volumes of false optimism that ultimately burns people out … and breeds pessimism even on the possible <because they begin to make it difficult to discern between the possible and impossible>.

This is about the selectively unreasonable person.

This is about the person who has the attitude of pragmatic cynicism whenever that person hears “that is impossible.” Their unreasonable radar perks up and they focus a little more. You can almost hear their mind flipping through all the ways that the impossible could become possible. It is that attitude of “I wasn’t on that Rome built in a day” job. They seek options to beat what others say cannot be done.

Now. These people don’t always speak up.

Why? Because they are good at assessing the impossible. They are actually reasonably good at assessing the unreasonable. They don’t always get it right <and frankly I do not want them to> but they get it right often enough that you think about reassessing what is construed as impossible.

Well.

I worry in today’s world of milestones and objectives <and worse … ‘attainable objectives’> achieved attitude … that we lose sight of reaching for the impossible. We are becoming quite comfortable, in business and in life, of playing it safe.

Setting reasonable and “attainable” goals.

I admit … I am getting quite tired of hearing “let’s be realistic” in business meetings.

Real success … and I mean big success … typically comes from “I may be unrealistic … but” type discussions.

Please.

Once again … let me state that I am not suggesting careless unrealistic behavior.  I am simply suggesting that the balance in today’s business world <which leaks into the everyday Life world> is out of whack.

There are a variety of reasons why culturally we are becoming a people of “safe, realistic behavior” but rather than type out a diatribe on that I will simply suggest we should embrace the great unreasonable people in our lives. They will shake us up a little. They will shake the Life etch-a-sketch a lot. But they will be the ones who spur us out of the economic and societal doldrums we seem to be facing these days.

trying is first step to failure

“Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people.” – George Bernard Shaw

 

Unreasonable people, when they are good, make life and business interesting.

Interesting is good, isn’t it? <yes>

I agree with George.

All progress depends on unreasonable people.

Just my opinion … but we should encourage more unreasonable thinking these days.

To paraphrase Alice in Wonderland … we could do worse than think 6 impossible things before breakfast at least once a week. Given the right attitude sometimes even Rome can be built in a day.

But you have to try … even if it is sometimes the first step toward some version of failure.

wisdom

March 18th, 2013

The word wisdom is such a lofty word.gg thinker and girl

It is such a broad term. It embraces a rare combination of discretion, maturity, keenness of intellect, broad experience, extensive earning, profound thought and compassionate understanding. It outranks all synonyms. And in its fullest most robust sense it is noble in its morality as well as intellect.

And, yet, wisdom is attainable to any and all. Higher educated people do not have the corner on the wisdom market.

Why?

Because at its core wisdom is about simplicity. Stripping away the theoretical mumbo jumbo and all the high falutin’ philosophical meanderings some people get all trapped up in.

 

“Wisdom is ofttimes nearer when we stoop than when we soar.” – William Wordsworth

 

Wisdom is actually more about the ability to discern what is important from what is unimportant … and making a decision, or conclusion or judgment, based on that which is the simplest and most important.

Does that mean everyone is wise? Nope.

Does that mean anyone is capable of making a wise decision? Yup.

I tend to believe the wisest among us are the happy few who understand ‘it is what it is’ and nothing more … nor anything less. That truth doesn’t reside in the wretched hollow of guessed intentions or ‘what ifs’ but rather in things as they are.

 

“More wisdom is latent in things as they are … than in all the words men use.” – Antoine De Saint-Exupery

 

Look.

I am not suggesting making wise decisions is easy and that everyone is good at making them. Nor am I suggesting wise, or wisdom, shouldn’t be a compliment to the few who deserve it.

Having the ability to understand situations … anticipate consequences … and make sound decisions is a great and honorable <and enviable> aptitude.

But wise isn’t all about fancy words or lofty philosophical platitudes.

Wise is often stooping to simplicity rather than stretching for the complex.

Wise is often simply in what is … not in what it could be.

Wise is often in the guy schlepping in the mail room.

Wise is often in the mother who insures her kids get a square meal every day.

 

Wise people, and wisdom, is often found in the neighborhood park rather than at some podium or in some talking head on TV.

I say this because we all have it within us … we often know what is right … and the best … and we don’t need some supposedly wise people spewing forth supposed wisdom to tell us what to do and what to think.

 

We all have wisdom. And we would be wise to ponder that.

Enlightened Conflict