Enlightened Conflict

I’ve accepted that everyone in life

October 16th, 2017

frustrate suffer people business outcomes destroy

=============

 

“I’ve accepted that everyone in my life is bound to hurt me but now I have to figure out who’s worth suffering for.”

 

—–

Bob Marley (maybe said this)

 

===================

 

Well.

 

When I saw the Marley quote the first time I thought about … well … ideas.

 

Ideas — thoughts about what to do as well as thoughts about oneself.

 

Uhm.

 

I would suggest that ideas … and thoughts about yourself … are inextricably linked together. I say that because behind every good idea, and bad idea, is some relationship between you <the idea creator> and someone else <a possible idea destroyer>.

 

 

intangibe idea yet to be future businessBehind every good idea is a good friend.

 

Behind every bad idea, and thought, is a bad friend.

 

And you know what?

 

It could be exactly the same friend.

 

Friends have an incredible knack for exploiting the cracks & crevasses in ourselves.

 

Why do I think this happens?

 

People, humans, individuals, are much much better at destroying something than they are creating something.

 

It’s not that we enjoy destroying <although there is some inherent satisfaction in taking shit apart> but I just think <know> it is easier.

Why the hell wouldn’t do something that was easier?

 

That’s why in business there are a shitload of people that can destroy ideas, people, thoughts, process, systems & institutions and a significantly smaller group of people who know how to build, create and navigate taking an insight into real action.

 

create to destroy 1

There are derivates of this thought like … “easier to criticize than …” … “easier to edit it than create” … “easier to find reasons to not do than to do” and, of course, “you have to break the pattern to create a new one.”

 

But at the core of all the snazzy little catch phrases is the fact 80% of people <at a minimum> know how to destroy and only 20% <at best> know how to create.

 

People just are better at dividing & destroying rather than effectively combining & creating something that ‘holds’.

 

But.

 

........... Pierre Pauselli ..............

……….. Pierre Pauselli …………..

The biggest thing you have to accept is that some people do it because it is easy and, unfortunately, some people do with a sense of focus, ferocity and frequency that … well … it just isn’t being done because it is easy but rather it is being done because they <a> gain personal satisfaction, <b> derive personal value and/or <c> are one of those people who simply enjoy destroying and dividing because it makes them look smarter (‘bigger’) in their own eyes.

 

Building self-value off of the easy path is kind of like admitting you are willing to be the tallest midget. The easy path, the ‘knee jerk’ path, only can help you reach a certain height.

 

A height? Yes.

 

But let’s say it can only attain a ‘rolling hill’ type height and not a Mount Everest type height.

The hardest paths in Life & business are the ones which offer the highest prizes – the monumental type wins <which offer you the highest self-value prizes also>.

 

Ah.

But my <c> … the ones who simply like destroying.

 

===========

 

I stopped holding on to people. I stopped revolving my world around them. If they stay, great; and if they don’t, others will come along and replace them, just like others would replace me.

 

—-

unknown

 

=============

 

 

 

Look.

 

Everything ends <at some point>.

Everyone is gonna hurt you <at some point>.

Nothing ever goes perfectly <at some point>.

Shit inevitably happens <at some point>.

Even creators are pretty damn good at destroying.

And creators don’t always create what they want to create.

Everyone knows how to destroy.

Not everyone either knows how to create let alone even how to create.

 

 

These are the Life truths no one sits you down and warns you about when you are a kid. In fact … many of these are mostly associated with the foibles of telling-truth-piss-you-offadulthood.

 

I don’t know why we don’t tell kids.

Maybe we want them to keep some of their childhood innocence or some stupid shit reason.

 

Shit.

 

I don’t know why we don’t tell adults.

Maybe we want them to keep some sense of the belief that anyone can create, good can come from destruction and ‘constructive criticism’ is a role of the ‘wise.’

 

Destroying shit is easy and you just should accept the fact that people will be more naturally inclined to do it … and not be disappointed or ‘suffer’ it.

 

Other than the assholes who seem to thrive only in destroying, most people are feeling their way through business and Life ‘becoming & unbecoming’ and part of that is learning what to destroy and how to create.

 

Saying that … well … I would say that you should probably very rarely treat someone as a finished human being.

 

And you should just accept the fact they will disappoint you on occasion and that is just a part of Life <and business> you just … well … suffer. Its aggravating and sometimes painful … but it is what it is.

 

====================

“It is not fair to treat people as if they are finished beings.

Everyone is always becoming and unbecoming.”

 

—-

Kathleen Winter

=================

 

Now.

 

THAT said … well … remember the ones I pointed out who only know how to destroy and actually seem to thrive on it?

 

Those you don’t suffer.

..... intelligence.org Nate Soares ...........

….. intelligence.org Nate Soares ………..

Especially in business.

 

In business you accept that people will hurt you and your ideas but there is absolutely a difference in types of hurt and the ‘destroyers’ should be insufferable.

 

Those who have no clue how to create anything and destroy aren’t worth a shit.

 

And you shouldn’t accept one sliver of suffering them.

 

Yeah.

I know.

 

In business some of these assholes actually make it to some senior position under the guise of ‘needed contrarianism’ and they aren’t really a contrarian … they are just simply someone who has no idea how to create anything.

 

And, yeah, you have to suffer them <at least for a while>.

 

But.

Here’s the good part.

 

You can make them suffer.

 

How?

 

Create something they can’t destroy. That kills them.

 

Anyway.

 

In the end.

 

Everyone is going to disappoint you at some point and a shitload of those same people will also hurt you in some way.

 

The truth is, in business & in Life, managing decisions is all about a thorough understanding of the decision’s hierarchy of needs & understanding the attributes surrounding those needs … and doing so in some finite amount of time … then decide that which generates the most rewarding outcome.

 

Uhm.

“Generates.”

 

Not all people can do this.

And, maybe worse, some people find ‘the most rewarding outcome’ is … well … not an outcome, nor ‘generating’, but rather destruction.

 

Just think about that for one last time.

 

If we all truly seek a rewarding outcome in which ‘rewarding’ is multiple in dimension — a rational reward and an emotional reward – it would seem to me that we would only suffer the people who desire this kind of outcome.  Or at least only suffer those actually interested in generating a rewarding outcome.

 

Destruction is not a rewarding outcome to anyone but the destroyer.

 

We should never choose to suffer destroyers.

create destroy pencil

 

 

Be wary … very wary … of those who you struggle to find any rewarding outcomes associated with them but only find they thrive on destroying things.

 

And remember …

 

 

Behind every good idea is a good friend.

 

Behind every bad idea, and thought, is a bad friend.

 

And 90%+ of the people will attempt to kill your idea and it will be up to you, and how you feel about yourself, to create the possibility your idea will not be destroyed.

 

patriotism & enforcing conformity

October 13th, 2017

constitution american-flag-all-rights-reserved-by-jade-leyva

 

Today I discuss mandating standing for the national anthem <as President Donald J Trump appears to be advocating>.

 

While I will share my views and while I doubt Mr. Trump has ever looked at the Constitution or googled “Supreme Court decisions with regard to enforcing patriotic compulsory routines” I will share what the US Supreme Court HAS said about this:

 

===================

 

“To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous, instead of a compulsory routine, is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds.”

 

——

US Supreme Court 1943

 

==============================

 

To be clear.

 

normalizing america bad behavior values phoenixI stand for the national anthem.

 

I don’t burn flags.

 

I believe people should do the former and the latter.

 

That said.

 

I could give a shit if people stand, place their hand on their heart or sing along. It’s a ridiculous empty faux act of patriotism to simply do something because <a> you have to or <b> you do it because everyone else is doing it.

 

I respect the flag and the country but if you truly want to respect those who served, well, try not acting like an asshole to those who have served.

 

I respect the flag and the country but if you truly want to respect those who served, well, try conducting yourself in ways that make this country look like it’s less full of shitheads and more like a country whose military teaches dignity, honor & integrity.

 

I respect the flag and the country but if you truly want to respect those who served, well, try and act like we are not at war or our freedom is under attack from some outside enemy and recognize that the only attack we are under are from dickheads like Trump who claim to value freedom and independence but espouse conformity & hollow patriotism.

 

Beyond all of that, and whatever constitutional freedom of speech stuff you want to attach to this discussion, there is an additional fairly basic business management aspect – building an organizational culture is never about enforced conformity.

 

===========================

 

“Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth.”america-red-white-and-blue

 

John F. Kennedy

 

=============

 

“The opposite of courage in our society is not cowardice, it’s conformity.”

 

Rollo May

================================

 

Yeah.

 

I admit.

 

I hate codes of conduct <in general>.

 

I have never been a fan of conformity in general … and absolutely hate forced conformity.

 

I hate dress codes.

 

I hate office rules.

 

I hate meeting rules.

 

Yeah.

 

all-of-you-aligned-self-normal-accountableI say that tied to the thought of how some people are discussing creating laws, or establishing rules, for standing for the national anthem.

 

I say that because this entire discussion isn’t just about being patriotic, and being a ‘patriot’… but enforcing conformity or specific behavior.

 

We try and do that shit in business all the time.

 

Well.

 

Leaders who do not understand how to build a strong self-sustaining organizational culture try this shit all the time.

 

To be clear.

90% of the time, enforced behavior, fails miserably.

 

What do I mean>?

 

90% of the time the desired behavior, which you have always forced & enforced, stops when you stop looking and stop enforcing.

 

At the core of ‘enforced’ is that it isn’t something people want to do, or maybe it isn’t something they naturally inherently do, and they do it because they have to do it.

 

At the core of ‘enforced’ is failure. People, in general, don’t like to be told to be honest, do things certain way and how to think. Trying to enforce organizational attitudes & behaviors works just as well as forced changes of behavior in personal Life <diets, quitting smoking, chewing on your fingernails, etc> — it does not work

 

By the way.

Here is the other weird thing about ‘enforced conformity.’

 

Failure even happens with the shit that <a> people really don’t mind doing and <b> people kind of know is the right thing to do.

 

It’s just that people do not like to be forced to do things … even things they kind of want to do anyway.

 

—————————-america fix myself

Seek to impose your will, and more men will kneel (if they’re permitted), and when they rise, it will be with resentment in their hearts.

Embrace liberty, and more men will rise, and they’ll do so with joy.

I want those players to stand.

I want to see their hands over their hearts.

But I want to see that happen out of love, not fear, and so long as the fear remains, a decision to stand means nothing but an empty victory in a culture war that will tear this nation apart.
———————————

 

Look.

 

We would love it in business if everyone did what you wanted them to do.

We would love it if everyone in a society did things the way they were supposed to do.

 

But you cannot enforce conformity and, in fact, just as the Supreme Court suggested with the national anthem in 1943 … you really do not want to force behavior. You want behavior to come from within the individual and not enforced from ‘without.’

 

Oh.

This is where the role of “social norms” can come into play.

Different from enforcement, that promotes top-down direction, administration and monitoring, encouraging social norms can spur, and inspire … uhm … conformity.

 

It is conformity by choice.

It is having the freedom to conform … and choosing to do so.

 

This is a powerful conformity.

 

Anyway.

 

The Supreme Court got it right back in 1943 when a small group of Jehovah’s Witnesses declined to salute the flag. They were patriots but their beliefs wouldn’t allow them to demonstrate reverence for a flag <a symbol>. The Supreme Court rendered its verdict — with words that should be etched into the minds of anyone who truly cares about who and what America is:

 

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.

Those are the most famous words of Supreme Court case West Virginia v. Barnette, but it is these words which any true patriot, or leader, should ponder:

 

—————

Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous, instead of a compulsory routine, is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds.

——————-

 

In other words, the power of the symbolism & patriotism lies with the choice to honor & dignify the symbolism of a fag & an anthem.

 

In other words, compelled patriotism … the effort to force a person to say or do what they do not believe … doesn’t touch upon the true spirit of what the country stands for.

 

In other words, if I have to compel someone to be patriotic, or do acts which imply patriotism, the American Idea isn’t working.

 

In other words, mandatory patriotism isn’t patriotism at all.

 

In other words, the government cannot force someone to violate their conscience and they shouldn’t bully private businesses into doing what a government cannot legally dictate.

 

I will say this over and over and over again until the day I die — the cure for bad speech is better speech, the cure for bad behavior is better behavior and the cure for dealing with any ‘the American ideal (and idea)’ doubts is not bad enforced conformity.

 

We should inform, educate, and recommend policies, ideas & behavior that improve America but allow its citizens their freedom of choice.

 

For the best compliance, don’t just enforce the rules, establish the norms.

 

Yeah.

 

compromise life good want you theyI am sure some NFL owners will attempt some behavior-shaping constraints <fines, suspensions, etc.>. And they have that right as a business owner managing their own business & culture.

 

But I will tell them a secret <and I am hoping President Trump, who has never managed a business which demanded building a culture, is listening in> … that will not shape behavior but it will certainly shape attitudes <unfortunately, most likely not the attitudes truly desired>.

 

Forcing functional behavior is not always the best approach to shaping behavior.

 

Here is what any business leader who has ever run a business knows:

 

It takes your own to govern your own.

Not rules of conduct.

Not enforced conformity.

 

Lastly.

Just to conclude this piece.

 

Trump the asshat.

He has no fucking clue how to build a company culture. To him culture is having all the women wear their hair the same way, everyone wear a certain type of clothes that appeal to him and wear name tags with the Trump brand on it.

 

How do I know he has no clue how to build a culture without ‘enforcing conformity’?

 

The one people skill he has exhibited to date – it seems like Trump has this unique capability of bringing out the worst of people on actually the best of things.

 

Huh?

 

By using patriotism and pride in country <good> he encourages … well … wrong thinking, wrong thoughts and wrong behavior.

 

What he has done is bring out the worst in people who actually believe in a good thing.

 

What an asshat.

 

I would remind President Asshat what every god business leader knows about their employees and their culture … both good and evil lies within the hearts of most men (Alexander Solzhenitsyn) .

Most of us have the capacity to do great and good things … uhm … do very bad and evil things.

good bad person trust reliable

Leaders have a choice.

 

Either bring the best of the good out of people or bring the worst of the bad out of people.

 

You cannot bring out ‘good’ from within through some type of enforcement nor should you be seeking to try to ‘conform’ good.

 

Good has to be encouraged, not enforced <someone should print that off and put it on Trump’s mirror so he can see it every morning>.

have one foot in a fairy tale and the other in the abyss

October 13th, 2017

red shoes_adventure_by_zvaella

 

==========

 

“We all have one foot in a fairytale, and the other in the abyss.”

 

—–

Paulo Coelho

 

==============

 

My anger at the world coils inside of me.

It’s a directionless seething, there’s no name or face to aim at.”

 

————–

Claire Zorn

 

==============

 

Well.

 

color outside the linesLife demands us to draw a lot of lines.

 

And more often than we would like to admit … it demands we place one foot on one side of a line and the other foot on the other side of the line.

 

That may not sound … well … right.

Or maybe the best thing to do.

It may even sound like I am suggesting you ‘straddle the fence.’

 

This isn’t straddling … this is about being grounded or balancing oneself.

 

If you don’t place one foot solidly on either side, you can be quite easily consumed by the extremes of Life which are, more often than not, found on only one side of a line.

 

If you don’t place one foot solidly on either side, you can be quite easily consumed by others who seek to consume what you may think you don’t really care that much about <but you should … and actually do when you care to think about t enough>.

 

If you don’t you can be quite easily … well … consumed.

 

I guess what I am saying is that Life demands you pragmatically be active in drawing some lines so that you have some sense of when you are getting too … well … “too”. So you can have some sense of … well … where to actually place your feet that is meaningful.

 

Maybe what I am saying is that many of us have no problem ‘making a stand’ but if you really aren’t sure where your line is then it is quite possible you aren’t really sure you are taking your stand in the right place.

 

Maybe think of it this way.

 

It’s kind of like making sure you have things in perspective when you take a stand.

 

It’s kind of like demanding realistic hope.

It’s kind of like demanding some hopeful despair.

It’s kind of like demanding you believe in some fairytales and some abyss-like darkness.

 

It’s kind of like demanding lines for yourself so you can deal with the lines Life is going to demand of you.

 

Look.

 

I don’t really believe there are angry people … they just have so much anger within themselves that their line is drawn differently than others.

 

I don’t really believe there are dreamers … they just have so much imagination within themselves that their line is drawn differently than others.

 

But here’s the deal.

 

You have to draw some lines.

 

draw your lines and choose your side moralThere has to be some reality to ground some imagination.

 

There has to be some truth to ground some questioning.

 

There has to be some principles to ground some rebelliousness.

 

There has to be some fairytaleishness <I made up that word> to balance out some of the inevitable abyss.

 

You do have to have one foot somewhere other than where your other foot resides.

 

I know.

I know.

 

That sounds a little of whack from conventional wisdom because far more often you hear “both feet on the ground” and shit like that.

 

But if you have two feet on the line … well … you have chosen to stand on a thin balance beam and will teeter your entire life. That is tiring & dangerous.

But if you have two feet on one side … well … you have chosen a life of fairytales … or a life in the abyss.

 

All that said.

 

Yes.

 

There are times you draw a line and make a choice to shift both feet solidly onto one side. I would suggest this is a situational decision and not a “living Life” type decision.

 

That is right and that is wrong.

That is good and that is bad.

That is normal and that is not normal.

 

Those are most likely the moments in which Life says “now, in this time and place, here is the line … on which side to you choose to stand?”

I would suggest sometimes we fuck this up by confusing a ‘Life one foot here & one foot there’ decision and a contextual situational decision. What I mean is that in that time and place you may try and keep your fairy tale foot in place and your abyss foot in place … and mistakenly take on a different type of decision demanding a different type of line.

 

That would be a bad decision.empty shoes

 

In that time. in that place. In that moment.

 

You shift your feet.

 

Sigh.

 

I never suggested lines were easy. Just that Life demands we draw a lot of lines. I would suggest that if you do not draw some lines you will find yourself lost in anger coiled within, or maybe constantly living a less than fairy tale life dreaming it all away, or stuck in some dark abyss seeing no way out.

 

Yeah … lines come in pretty handy at times. Pretty handy in managing Life. I can tell you <for sure> that lines can be pretty handy at helping you decide when something should end … and something should start.

In the battlefield of ideas (gerrymandering version)

October 10th, 2017

 maze-sledge-hammer-idea-thinking-business-light-bulb-breaking-thru-eos

======

 

Richard Lugar <Indiana senator for 35 years>

 

It takes courage to declare dozens or even hundreds of positions and stand for office, knowing that with each position, you are displeasing some group of voters. But we do our country a disservice if we mistake the act of taking positions for governance.

They are not the same thing. Governance requires adaptation to shifting circumstances. It often requires finding common ground with Americans who have a different vision than your own.

 

======

 

So.

 

This is a followup to my battlefield of ideas society version — on gerrymandering.

 

Gerrymandering is being discussed at the Supreme Court level in the United States.

 

Here is the one thing I have not heard discussed, yet, when debating gerrymandering – a desire to create battlefields of ideas.

 

Let me explain.

 

Inherent to gerrymandering is a lack of conflicting ideas to debate. When there is no ideology to compete against the one which will … well … win … then the only ideas which are discussed are the ones that people already deem to be worthy already <this is an ideology discussion and not a battle of ideas>.ideas trapped trapped politics life change business

 

This creates an environment in which a citizenry gets trapped in the same doom loop of existing ideas and ideology never to be freed to view new ideas <or unearn the ones they currently have>.

 

Gerrymandering is driven by politics in America which is an eat or be eaten world.  I could, and will, suggest this is not only not healthy for democracy it is also unhelpful to progress.

 

====

 

“The difference between a politician and a statesman is that a politician thinks about the next election while the statesman think about the next generation.”

 

James Freeman Clarke

 

====

 

I would be arguing to the Supreme Court <and most likely would be laughed out of the court> that democracy is about progress and gerrymandering is not about progress. My rationale for that argument is that lacking any real battle of any ideas there is no progress.

 

But, maybe more concerning, is that if you do not battle over ideas the people, the citizenry, become intellectually hollow. I am not suggesting everyone needs to be an intellectual but I do believe people should be more invested in a better understanding of facts, ideas & pragmatic realities versus ideological opinions & perceptions of truth.

 

Look.

Simplistically … I think this is what people want in a candidate from an economic & success standpoint:

 

  1. Correct identification of the actual, major problems.

 

  1. Plausible, workable solutions <ideas>.

 

best worst people think idea do live lifeI am not sure we want Politicians who deal in the pragmatic reality of governing and how it matters to the everyday business & person … but that is what we need.

 

Without a battlefield of ideas, which gerrymandering eliminates, we don’t discuss what we need … we end up discussing what we want.

 

That is bad.

 

I listen to the rantings of politicians who seem far more caught up in ideology and party positioning than they do in honestly meeting the deep challenges of our economy, the needs of our people, and caring for an environment which is capable of sustain our children’s children.

 

I listen to the rantings of politicians discussing what is right and what is wrong <with regard to citizen assistance> and then witness hurricanes, wildfires and poverty destroying lives and property and then begin to question our priorities when we are unable to respond adequately.

 

Gerrymandering should be discussed not as a structural democratic decision but rather a societal “idea debating structure” discussion. We should be discussing that we want a voting construct which actually FORCES a battle of ideas so that we, the people, can be sure we actually GET the best ideas.

 

I want to listen to the rantings of politicians who are caught up in ideas and the battle to articulate their ideas so that … well … we are here because we have a better idea.

 

What would I do?

Back on February 1st 2016 I offered this thought:

 

  • Stop districting voting blocks.

 

Having republican voting blocks <districts> and democrat voting districts is reckless thinker doer idea workcrazy.

Make a politician win the popular vote in the area they will be representing is in that district. All the people.

I don’t want a republican county or a democrat county … I want a ‘people county’ selecting by popular vote a person to represent their county interests.

Oh.

If you do this, it permits you to choose ALL politicians by popular vote <President included>.

In almost every Gallup poll since 1944 only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state <about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided>.

Regardless.

Politicians designed redistricting so that politicians could benefit. This is political reengineering at its crudest and worst.

What bullshit.

If we are truly a Republic <which USA is> than the people should design district policies and idea <so that they encapsulate their needs and wants – schools, taxes, infrastructure, etc.> and then by popular vote select a representative who wins the battlefield of ideas.

Remove districting as a variable.

I don’t want a district predestined to select a specific party.

I want voting districts to become battlefields of ideas not partisanship.

 

—————————

outside the box realism idealism think ideasThat was just a thought.

 

I also believe we should have mandatory voting.

 

If I truly believe I have a societal problem in that people are not invested enough intellectually in the ideas that matter to them and to the country then maybe I should enforce some involvement.

 

Do I believe everyone will be an engaged spectator in the battle field of ideas?

No. Of course not.

 

Do I believe MORE people will be an engaged spectator in the battlefield of ideas?

Yes. I surely do.

 

In the end.

 

What I would like is someone who doesn’t insult me with superficial promises and silly diatribes that stoke fear.

 

What I would like is someone who doesn’t insult the intelligence of any and all people and a political system which not only does NOT encourage this but actually penalizes politicians who pander.

 

What I would like is for political campaigns to become battlefields of ideas.

 

I would also like a leader to … well … lead in this discussion.

And … well … Trump is not that leader. He continues to not want to battle on ideas but rather try and win battles by process & procedure <and pandering and superficial promises>.

Frankly, this does nothing to improve society or true understanding of what is right or wrong.

 

And … well … Obama was that kind of leader. He continued to battle on ideas. He didn’t always win but he battled on ideas. Just as a reminder <because there is some untrue criticism of Obama with regard to Fox News> this is what he said in an interview with Bill O’ Reilly:

 

What Obama actually said about Fox:

 

Asked if he was unfair to Obama, the president responded to O’Reilly: “Of course you are, Bill. But I like you anyway.”

“This list of issues you asked about – they’re defined by you guys in a certain way,” Obama continued. “But this is OK. If you want to be president of the United States, then you know you’re going to be subject to criticism.”

 

 

I bring up the Obama/Trump comparison to state that while I wish we had a ideas break the mold new think conformpresident who would encourage a battlefield of ideas … we do not.

 

Therefore I think the entire gerrymandering discussion takes on a completely different hue. It shouldn’t be about who wins from a political party perspective but rather who wins on the battlefield of ideas.

 

The only way I know to do that is to drive debates in a geography which demands some aspects of centrist-type ideas and , inevitably, to a more centrist position where people begin to understand compromise, the trade offs of ideas and neighbor’s wants & needs and wh0 & what represents a greater good rather than “what I think.”

 

And the only way I know to do that is to eliminate gerrymandering and use whatever basic districting which creates a mish  mash of … well … parties, races, incomes, whatever … and force a battlefield of ideas.

 

in the battlefield of ideas (society version)

October 10th, 2017

 thunder lightning ideas storm dark business

=======

 

 “The appropriate response for horrible language and horrible ideas — the appropriate response is a better idea.

 

We are here because we have a better idea.”

 

—–

Lt. Gen. Jay Silveria

 

===================

 

“It’s no longer the case that technologies of communication merely accelerate the public discourse, they now ensure that every possible public discourse happens simultaneously. It’s not one damned thing after another. It’s every damned thing all the time.

And so in place of a deliberative democracy, in which we as a people could acknowledge, and even tolerate, our differences while working through complex tensions at a pace consistent with social cohesion, we get a no-holds-barred battle royale in which all things are always at stake — in which we’re fighting every culture battle, past, present, and future, right the hell now.”

 

—–

Daniel Foster

 

===============

 

Ok.

 

Hugh's Missing the Point

 

I tend to believe everyone knows that we are in a world in which ideas are getting the shit kicked out of them.  For the majority of people ideas float on the superficial surface of our awareness waiting for us to pick one out when it catches our eye.

What that means is rarely do we do any deeper dive to see what else may lie under the surface.

 

This is happening for a variety of reasons … but the one that bothers me the most is the overall lack of interest in ‘deliberative discussion.’

 

It seems like in the battlefield of ideas it is a kill or be killed world in which we instantaneously shoot one death ray, attempt to deflect the one which was launched at us, and assumes, in this assault, only one walks away alive.

 

Ideas do not fare well in battles like this.

 

The battles in which ideas thrive are the grind it out battles. The ones in which there is an ebb & flow with strategy and strategic maneuvering and there are … well … strategic compromises made in order to win or achieve the objective.

 

As I have said before … to truly win on the battlefield of ideas you actually need ideas communicate media training shrinkingto suffocate bad ideas, suffocate objections and suffocate ignorance not by shouting <which just adds oxygen to a room and an idea> but rather by squeezing the air out of the idea.

 

But in order to do that you need to engage in deliberative discussion and … well … not be a coward.

Battles are for neither the lazy nor the cowardly.

 

 

Deliberative discussion means you just cannot randomly pick up an idea off the superficial surface and walk away.

 

You need to engage … well … deliberately. You need to step onto the battlefield of ideas <either as an engaged spectator or a deliberate contestant>.

 

And maybe this is where I get most grumpy with ‘we the people.’ While we may have a shitload of good excuses it almost seems like the majority of people deliberately resist the invasion of ideas.  This almost takes as much effort & energy as actually deliberately participating in the invasion of ideas.

 

This grumpiness on my part made me revisit something I wrote back in 2016:

 

The conflict of ideas does not have to reside in any open debate. You don’t even need another person. Ideas invade in any number of ways. They plant themselves in boxes you have forgotten you even had. They grow to a point where you cannot ignore them anymore and begin to battle existing ideas you have. It becomes … well … a war between learning and unlearning … new and old … what you knew and what you know.

 

I imagine my point is that we are on the battlefield of ideas whether we choose to deliberately be there or not.

 

In general, I this means we are failing society if we do not deliberately participate in some way.

 

In general, this means we are failing society <and ourselves> if we deliberately  curb the ‘art of the idea battle’ by deliberately deciding to  curb the art of critique & criticism <which is at the core of the deliberate discussion>.

 

This is almost societal malpractice on our part because criticism has a role in an effective battlefield of ideas in that it tends to hone the point of attack and … well … sharp edges break through ignorance & well-formed opinions.

 

Some would call this “the ability to unlearn.”

 

But ,maybe more importantly, by avoiding this battlefield of ideas we have ceded the ground to not only the cowards but also the assholes. The ones who do not seek to battle over real ideas but rather simply to win an opinion <note: opinions CAN be ideas but real ideas are rarely just opinions>.

 

Look.

 

business i have come to do battle legacy defineI have nothing against my idea winning <in fact … I like it a lot> but I imagine my point is that the bar for acceptable good behavior to win has dropped significantly.

 

Studies show it.

 

Shit.

 

Just watch the people around you or watch some tv and you will actually see it.

 

And this lack of acceptable behavior affects how we battle. And, well, that matters because a battle poorly fought means ideas lose or suffer and opinions <and assholes> increase their odds of winning.

 

Anyway.

 

I think we all know that Life isn’t just solely about winning and losing … and this is even more relevant on the battlefield of ideas.

 

I think we all know that some basic good behavior isn’t something that needs to be dictated but rather it is simply something good for common humanity within a population with a desire to have better things and do better things than we are doing today … and this includes better ideas.

 

I think we all know that behaving well, at least relatively speaking the majority of the time, has a reward that may not always show up in pride, power & pay but rather almost always in dignity, honor & … well … certainty … and this is important in the actual battle of ideas.

 

I would argue that the three things I just outlined matter a shitload because if we do this then we will … uhm … treat ideas more fairly and less divisively … even as we battle over them.

If we do these things,it tends to lead people to an overall belief, and understanding,  that the idea is fairer for the greater good & society, that the institutions <and the people battling the ideas in the institutions> will treat them more fairly and the world, in general, will end up treating them more fairly <because the ideas are fairer and better understood>.

 

Ah.debate feel facts stories battle of ideas

 

Better ideas better understood –that is the outcome of not only behaving better on the battlefield but permitting a real battlefield of ideas.

 

I do believe we are behaving more badly.

Suffice it to say that if everyone took one step back and viewed the battlefield of ideas and the behavior on the battlefield and viewed the wide spectrum of current behavior from good to heinous, well, it just doesn’t paint a pretty picture.

 

Not only are there not a shitload of pretty ideas out there being battled over but how we are battling ain’t so pretty either.

 

Frankly, we are acting more like assholes every day.

 

Even the people who are trying to stand up against the assholes.

 

And in doing so while societal discourse suffers the largest loser in all of this assholishness are the ideas.

 

==================

 

“Only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation, in a way that would make them proud.”

 

———-

Barak Obama

 

===========

 

Lastly.

 

With all of this assholishness behavior floating around and ideas suffer … you have to hunker down and understand it’s not personal … it’s about ideas.

 

I know. I know.

Conceptually this is a tasty high road we like to offer everyone who sits at the idea table.

Realistically … well … this one is difficult to swallow.

 

On the battlefield of ideas while the ideas can often do some mighty hand to hand combat far too often the messenger gets personally attacked.

 

But.

 

Here’s the deal.

 

I could care less if I turned on the TV and saw Bruce McTague sucks on every channel I went to. Sure. It would sting but, well, at least in the good ole USofA I have the right to speak my ideas and have the opportunity to rationalize my ideas … and others have the right to criticize … me & my ideas.

 

It’s not personal.

 

At least it’s not if you believe it is a battlefield of ideas and not a battlefield of people ideas think light business‘messengers’ or personalities.

 

We need a battlefield of ideas. And we need this battle to be fought every week, every day, every hour and possibly every minute.

 

Why?

 

The appropriate response for horrible language and horrible ideas — the appropriate response is a better idea. We are here because we have a better idea.

 

We deserve not only better ideas but the best ideas. And the only way I know to get the best ideas is … well … to have a battlefield of ideas. The world, and society, would be a much better place if we actually stopped battling over meaningless things and battled more over the truly meaningful things — ideas.

 

a pragmatic primer for leading a business

October 6th, 2017

 

ideas thinking group community enjoy the tactic business

===============

 

“In general, people are not drawn to perfection in others. People are drawn to shared interests, shared problems, and an individual’s life energy. Humans connect with humans.

 

Hiding one’s humanity and trying to project an image of perfection makes a person vague, slippery, lifeless, and uninteresting.”

 

Robert Glover

==================

 

“Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.

 

—–

Saul D. Alinsky

===================

 

So.

 

I was fishing around for some new ways to talk about leading a business <I get old habits new habits forward back progress life choice secretsbored with using the same words and thoughts over and over again> and I came across the Saul Alinsky quote … the second one I used upfront.

 

It resonated with me because I cannot tell you how many times I have sat in some company “forward thinking strategy” meeting discussing how we would expand the business … stretching not only beyond the existing functional strength of the business but also stepping beyond the existing expertise of the employees.

 

This is usually cloaked in the infamous “oh, if we can do this, we can certainly do this” statement … or the even more dangerous “we have always figured it out” mantra.

 

To be clear … progress is always tricky. And leading progress almost even trickier.

 

But, if you want it to be less trickier, ‘feeling secure’ is almost always a great step toward increasing the odds of success.

Now.

You can secure the … well … security … in a number of ways – some reality based and some emotionally charged ways.

 

And that is where Saul Alinsky comes back into the leadership discussion. He big plans ruler universewrote a book called Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals in 1971.   He wrote it as a guide to community organization <uniting “Have-Nots”, in order for them to gain social, political, legal, and economic power>.

 

What I loved about the Rules, beyond the rules themselves, was that Alinsky believed, when organized and directed well, the community can determine & achieve its purpose & goal. That thought, to me, is exactly the attitude a leader attempts to create <supporting a vision offered by the leader> within an organization.

 

What I loved about the Rules is the rules themselves are actually signposts for how to have a company compete in the marketplace.

 

That said.

 

Let me share the rules and some brief thoughts with the rules. The Rules:

 

 

  • “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.

 

Far too often … despite the fact 99% of businesses unequivocally state “our difference is our people” … a business forgets to actually build their power off of flesh & blood.

watch people behavior what they say and doMoney comes and goes.

Machines and infrastructure does what it does.

 

But people, flesh & blood, is the true power. It pays, as a leader, to never forget that.

 

 

  • “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.

 

Every business I have been involved with has had an expertise. Uhm. The difficulty is that far too many leaders & managers wish the organization had a different expertise or they aspire to some other expertise.

I, personally, love the thought of isolating a company expertise, consolidating the inside expertise and using it like a battering ram in terms of progress.

People love doing things well and being appreciated for the expertise they have <and not diminished by suggesting they should have another expertise>.

 

 

  • “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.

 

When I saw this one I almost chuckled. It is so good, so solidly strategically right … and I would guess 95% of businesses never think this way. Oh. They may be happy  identifying a “this is what we are better at than they are” and competing with that in their hip pocket … but I struggle to think of any business I have ever been involved with who has sat down and said “let’s go outside their expertise <and consciously accepting they have an expertise.”

 

Crushing a competitor is always fun but ignoring an opportunity to outflank them is stupid.

 

 

  • “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.

 

rule book leading a company behaviorOk.

 

Here is why I loved this one.

I loved it because bullshit & hollow rhetoric and promises/claims are strewn throughout the business world. I can guarantee, with 95% certainty, I could pick up any business’s vision & strategy & ‘rules of the road’ binder and find a significant amount of hollow shit. What would happen if I consciously attacked one of my competitor’s hollow shit? Make them live up to their own book of rules?

I am chuckling.

 

You would crush them.

You would crush them in two ways:

 

  • External perceptions: everyone knows almost all businesses make hollow promises but get aggravated when it becomes too obvious that the promise really is hollow

 

  • Internal perceptions: almost every employee simply accepts that some of the company rhetoric is bullshit but they accept it because it doesn’t really affect them. But if the hollow rhetoric becomes obvious AND a pain in the ass … discontent grows. Bitching at the water cooler increases.

 

This is an awesome leadership thought.

 

 

  • “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

 

I admit. Ridiculing your competition is fraught with peril. However … having i was not made to be subtle me Brucesome swagger and vocalizing your swagger is … well … infuriating to some competition. It puts pressure on them.

Ridiculing, specifically, what a competitor believes is their most potent weapon will … well … infuriate them.

 

Pick your path wisely … but there is absolutely nothing wrong with swagger, infuriating your competition and putting some pressure on them.

 

 

  • “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.

 

Far too often some strategic guru envisions some tactic that will be smashingly successful and then attempt to imbue some excitement within the people who will actually do it. I think the best strategic thinkers find tactics that people enjoy AND can be smashingly successful. Unfortunately this is harder than you would think. But nothing really good is easy.

 

 

  • “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.

 

Amen.

A lesson we forget every day <and should not>.

 

 

  • “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.

 

work value replaced effort smarts businessTactical adaptation is possibly one of the most underrated strategic decisions a business can make. While we talk a good game on this in today’s ‘digital world’ the truth is that most of us chase numbers more than we think about outflanking and expertise advantages. That is kind of the bane of the ‘big data’ world.

 

Numbers are good in judging things but, in the end, people & behavior are not numbers and no matter how good a tactic may appear in a number it can always be replaced.

 

 

  • “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.

 

I am not an empty threat guy, however, ‘power is what the competition thinks you have.’ My point here is not to make shit up and offer empty threats but rather the more you can make a competitor think, and worry, about the wrongs things the better off you are.

 

Stoke their imagination.over thinking mess

Make them have high falutin’ meetings pondering “what if” scenarios.

 

I wouldn’t do this to replace any of the other rules … but in combination?

 

Whew. This is good stuff.

 

 

  • “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.” It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.

 

Sometimes in today’s business world we treat tactics like spaghetti we throw against the wall and hope something sticks. I am not suggesting a business should invest gobs of energy developing operations to maintain constant pressure in INDIVIDUAL tactics but I am suggesting that strategic tactics tend to coalesce and operations can be developed to support them.

I imagine the real point here is hollow tactics may generate some numbers for you but they don’t really make any dent into the competition <which, inevitably, is the key to leading an industry>.

 

 

  • “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.

 

I love this thought because, let’s be honest, we have become a mamby pamby business world. What I mean by that is at the first glimpse of any significant negativity we tend to retreat or retrench. Pushing through a negative is not standard operating procedure in a business today.

 

Let me be clear on this one.

If you do Rule #5 well, you will infuriate your competition. An infuriated competitor reacts <usually with some desire to inflict some negative pain> — they will violently react. If you stay the course, maintain your expertise, well … you can push through and own a positive.

More businesses need to remember this.

 

 

  • “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.

 

the end game overI call this “consolidating a win.”

I cannot tell you how many times <but far too many> I have seen a business “lose after winning.” It is maddening, depressing & demoralizing … and completely avoidable.

Far too many businesses chase the success assuming they will be able to take a breath and take advantage of the success in a relatively timely fashion.

This is where ideas die.

 

In the take-a-breath moment.

 

This happens for a bunch of well-intended reasons … the most likely one is everyone invests their energy on the attack and a successful attack rather than diverting any energy & time to “what do we do when we are successful” other than maybe a framework of ‘what will happen.’

 

Unfortunately … frameworks do not consolidate.

The solution to this is so obvious I scratch my head as to why more businesses do not do it. Businesses always have two basic levels … the outside structure and the inside structure. The outside is the face of the organization and most typically is the one that pushes through and creates the ‘wins.’ The inside operations gets shit done … I have always had an ‘inside operations team’ well briefed and ready to go and insert them into the breach as soon as the win has occurred and have the ‘fresh team’ consolidate.

I could write an entire ‘consolidation strategy’ piece but suffice it to say your business gains value in a number of dimensions by doing it this way.

 

The larger point with this Rule is ‘don’t lose a win by not having a plan for when you win.’

 

 

  • “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

 

Well. Let me share the thought that first hit me on this … “a brand is a promise delivered in the store everyday” <this was The Limited’s phrase>. The point is that a business doesn’t exist if it doesn’t deliver upon what it promises.

 

That said … this is an important rule. As in a REALLY important rule that I bet crushed by objectives short term bludgeon99% of companies do not even think about let alone adhere to. Most businesses target another competitor’s users & customers and go about trying to steal them <persuade them to switch>.

 

Well.

 

What about instead we attacked the company, the support network … the “promise” as it were … and make the people who actually deliver the promise start doubting, or start feeling less than secure, or just “less good about their brand & promise”?

If we did this, we create a gap, isolate as it were, between what the customer thought they wanted and what they perceive they are getting or would get.

 

I love this rule.

 

I admit I had never thought about t this way before … but from here on out it is part of my leadership toolkit.

 

———

 

 

Okay.

 

control goal is to create something that will live together vision Life business

Those are some good rules for business.

 

But you know what?

 

It all comes back to the first Rule and my first quote.

 

Flesh & blood is the real power in any business and … people are drawn to shared interests, shared problems, and an individual’s life energy. Humans connect with humans.

 

Honestly … I don’t think most leaders ignore the fact the people in their organizations are important but I think we don’t elevate them to ‘flesh & blood is the power’ status.

And that is where the Rules come in.

Inherent to each rule, and the success therein, resides with … well … the flesh & blood. That is a pragmatic reminder for leading a business.

 

 

Enlightened Conflict