Posts tagged consistency
lie and truth
Mar 27th
This is the natural partner to my optimistically cynical of truth post.
Or.
Maybe let’s think of this as the adult version follow up to the wonderful teen version of Beauty is Truth I posted.
I won’t do that teen’s thought justice. But I may take a more serious note.
Maybe this is the ‘ugly is truth’ version.
“A lie can fly halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on.” Winston Churchill.
I am sure we have all heard versions of this quote before.
And chuckle.
But have you ever wondered why we actually take this kind of sad and sobering thought at face value – kind of as a … well … truth? A teen wrote this on their site:
Sobering.
Sad.
And true?
Even we adults looking at this take a moment and a part of us, maybe even a large part of us, agrees.
We believe somewhere inside us that all people lie.
And what may be worse?
Even when we hear ‘the truth’? We doubt.
And even more worse?
The more emphatic on their belief in the truth (as they state it)?
The more we disbelieve.
It’s kind of crazy if you think about it.
It seems often the “absolute truth” leads to some confusion on our part.
Confused on ‘how can they be so sure’?
And the conclusion of confusion is “someone has lied.”
What a downward spiral we have encountered in discussing truth.
I’m not upset that you lied to me, I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you. “
— ~ Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
Truth is tricky.
The beauty in truth is that it creates boundaries. Or maybe more playfully … fences within you can find comfort to play with others and be free to say and do without thought.
And discuss ‘truth.’
But within those boundaries are shades of gray.
Truth is complex.
And there is an ugly enemy to truth.
The ugly enemy is doubt.
It is because of doubt in truth that a lie can sweep its way around the world while good ole truth is stuck behind dealing with doubt.
A lie is unhindered by the burden of proof. It flies free of such weight.
While truth carries the burden of debate, discussion and understanding.
Now. Let’s be clear. Debate is good. It clarifies. It communicates. It clears the mind of clutter.
But, oddly, nowadays truth’s slowness (in debate and discussion) only enhances an implication of ‘non-true’ and slows down even more with the weight of added burden.
Do we ever wonder why truth takes eons to get around the world while a lie circles endlessly?
Not when you think about it this way.
Sadly, if I am actually right about something for once, I guess the way you can tell a lie from a truth now is that the first is always the lie and the last is always the truth.
In the end the turtle wins I guess.
optimistically cynical of truth
Feb 6th
“Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.”
André Gide
(warning: I get to talk about conflict & truth in one post … something I love)
I am always wary of those who come out blazing by claiming to speak “the truth.”
Mostly because I believe rarely are things black & white.
In fact I have been called optimistically cynical.
I imagine I am a contrarian (up to a point).
I would also imagine it’s because in today’s world I see too much lazy thinking (or possibly lazy sloppy communication) … or maybe it’s just people are quick to select the facts they want to use and ignore others and then pontificate on “the truth.”
Anyway.
I question everything upfront (or maybe one would hope as I have become older I can judge what to question and what to accept upfront) but always believe great things can come of it (rather than use the cynicism to drag things down).
In old times (like really really old) this questioning would be a version of Socratic questioning (because I am not as smart as good ole Socrates).
Socratic questioning focuses on the importance of questioning in learning (Socrates actually thought that questioning was the only real form of teaching). Simplistically Socratic questioning highlights the difference between systematic and fragmented thinking. It teaches us to dig beneath the surface of ideas. It teaches us the value of developing questioning minds in cultivating deep learning.
(now. In my global generation 9 ‘about critical thinking’ I will actually use this in discussing elements of teaching in the global education initiative)
So.
I guess the point is that questioning (a version of conflict) actually helps us get closer to the truth.
The art of Socratic questioning is tightly aligned to the idea of critical thinking. Mostly because it ties the art of questioning to excellence of thought. To summarize this thought … “Socratic” means a systematic approach in the interest in assessing truth or plausibility of things.
Both critical thinking and Socratic questioning share a common end.
Seeking meaning and truth.
Critical thinking provides the conceptual tools for understanding how the mind functions in its pursuit of meaning and truth.
Socratic questioning employs those tools in framing questions essential to the pursuit of meaning and truth.
The beauty of critical thinking skills is that it establishes an additional level of thinking to our thinking, an inner voice of reason, that monitors, assesses, and reforms our idea/opinions/thoughts (in a more rational direction) and affects our feelings and actions. Socratic discussion cultivates that inner voice through an explicit focus on using the “outer voice” with directed, disciplined questioning.
So.
As for those who adamantly state ‘the truth’ (and we seem to hear a lot of these people on radio shows and talk shows and “advocates” of some special interest) I would suggest they are lying.
(ouch. big claim there).
Ok. that lying thought.
Maybe better said is that they aren’t stating truth but rather opinion under the guise of truth (and duping a significant amount of people along the way).
Some of the people we have to listen to (claiming to say the truth) have made a choice … a choice to state truth when it is simply opinion (and shame on them for that … particularly if they do it under the ‘freedom of speech’ heading as well as if they have some ability to impact people).
The truth behind the truth is that it does come with choice.
Try this on for size.
With awareness of some truths comes choice, and with choice freedom or chaos or crisis.
This comes from a 19th Century philosopher – a guy called G. W. F. Hegel.
Discarding an absolute notion of truth, he saw today’s “truth” merely as a passing “bloom” in an evolving process of new “blooms”.
(let’s just call these stupid blooms ‘ideas’)
Ideas and truth advance, he believed, only as ideas come into conflict.
This occurs when a counter idea (the antithesis) arises to challenge the status quo (the thesis). It was this “conflict” or “crisis” which brought about the “higher idea” (the synthesis).
Now.
Be clear. The Hegelian Dialectic is more of an observation of the way thought systems evolve than it is a call to direct action in creating such an evolution (so crisis is not an action but part of thought … think of it as maybe a Plato would … someone states a belief or ‘perceived truth’ and the debate is the ‘crisis’ – or when an antithesis point of view is articulated- of which synthesis occurs and, hopefully, truth emerges).
I make that point so we don’t start running around being crazy trying to drive “crisis” into every frickin’ conversation we have.
But. Marx and Darwin applied this notion to the social and biological realm.
Marx and Communism stood on a pillar of crisis (just called revolution). The higher social order could only arise from the “crisis” of conflict—the proletariat arising to battle the bourgeoisie.
Darwin and Neo-Darwinian theory see the higher biological order arising only from a life and death struggle—survival of the fittest.
So.
What this suggests is that truth can only arise from crisis (or in a dialectic world) through debate and discussion. And I don’t know that I dislike this thought.
As long as we don’t start thinking there is something “magical” in the crisis. While theoretically it is a critical piece to achieve the “synthesis” hat shouldn’t mean we should begin to create a crisis if it doesn’t exist. Or even misjudge “crisis” when it really is just a natural down slope of the curve.
Anyway.
Crisis is a big word. And easily misunderstood (at least by someone with a pea like brain like me)
I don’t believe we need crisis to create change.
Simply some conflict. Simply some debate for god’s sake.
Maybe some questioning of people who state “the truth.”
(then that debate within conflicting point of views could be construed as a ‘crisis’ and Hegel can sleep at night)
Anyway.
I guess the other fear in this questioning construct is the concept of never ending debate.
Or how about “unresolved conflict” because diametrically opposed opinions are locked in “absolute truths” and are unwilling to accept anything otherwise.
In other words … we never leave “crisis” mode.
That is bad.
And useless.
And dangerous.
But.
The entire idea of “thought” to ‘crisis in debate’ to ‘clearer truth’ is a viable thought.
So when someone states “absolute truth’ without debate or discussion I think its kinda nuts.
Oh.
And one last important thought ( a REALLY important one in this entire discussion).
We are as much at fault as the “liar” if we remain silent.
Silence is the death of debate. The death of the search for truth. No questioning = no truth.
Think about that the next time you hear something that’s sounds … well … wrong. And you remain silent.
Anyway.
I would like to believe I am one of those people who are constantly seeking truth.
I may not be but it is certainly a good objective to try to attain. I do know that I believe as long as you are ‘seeking’ you are being persistently curious and there are worse things to be.
But, yes, I am cynical of those espousing truth all the time.
But maybe Dill said it best:
“I ain’t cynical, Miss Alexandra. Tellin’ the truth’s not cynical, is it?” ~Dill, To Kill a Mockingbird
So.
I will not remain silent in my search as an optimistically cynical view of truth
doing what you say you will
Sep 13th
Whew.
Doing what you said you would do.
I guess I could have called this keeping your word.
This is all about tying intentions to actions. Words to actually ‘doing.’
And this is an important discussion because it affects outcomes …. NOT just perceptions.
And it gets tricky.
Of course you can never give your word unless you are sure you can keep it. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm …. Didn’t I just write about perfection? Geez.
Or you can have an attitude that says give your word, but that “life happens” and sometimes you can’t keep it, and this is fine.
Ok.
Here is my opinion.
Timing and situation matters.
And your track record matters.
So.
Upfront?
Perfection, baby, perfection.
If you give my word you are beholden to keep it. You have put an intention out there and must hold up your end of the bargain. Tough shit if life gets in the way.
No excuses. You either follow through on promises or you:
1. Don’t earn trust from others
2. Give permission to others to not follow through (or give permission for excuses)
First time through the chute (and by first time I am suggesting “enough time to establish a behavior pattern and belief system) you are setting expectations.
Anything “less than” erodes both faith and integrity.
Done once you have made it exponentially tougher to prove otherwise.
Done more (or enough) and no credibility is earned and, at its worst, you appear dishonest.
This is a simple equation. Words = Intent. Intent = Actions. Therefore … Words = Actions.
I guess I am writing about this because I perceive (I don’t have any huge research study to back me up on this) that we in the business world are struggling with this concept. And I cannot figure out why.
Yes.
I do understand that an issue is often “here is what I think I said (the leader) and here is what I heard (the people).” And, yes, that is a huge issue.
But in general I find people are becoming quite flippant with promises or “words associated with doing” and just not following through.
And it seems that it really shouldn’t take a lot of thought.
And to me (who writes a lot about leadership and guiding and aligning organizations) this whole idea is a massive building block for creating unity behind leadership, really strong partnerships and great affinity in relationships of all types.
So.
Why do I have this perception?
Well. Maybe if we all note how often that the exception (someone who actually always does what they say they will) actually draws attention that is certainly an indication.
Yup. It’s true.
When someone says “I’ll get it done” and they do, people notice, especially if they deliver consistently. For some reason people seem to be trying to gain respect or perceptions of commitment in other ways when it seems (at least to me) that putting action behind your words is the simplest way to show commitment.
“Commitment is what transforms a promise into reality. It is the words that speak boldly of your intentions. And the actions which speak louder than the words. It is making the time when there is none. Coming through time after time after time, year after year after year. Commitment is the stuff character is made of; the power to change the face of things. It is the daily triumph of integrity over skepticism.”
commonly attributed to Abraham Lincoln or Shearson Lehman
And I wonder why is doing what you say you would do slipping away from us?
Simplistically the excuse is time. Sure it’s tougher right now to ‘match words and actions’ with fewer people doing more.
But (and this is a HUGE but).
This concept needs to be addressed (or assume higher priority) maybe because of these thoughts:
1. Because organizations today cannot afford to be ‘not aligned’ behind leadership. Streamlined organizational actions are essential to maximize organizational energy.
2. Because executing well is essential when resources are low. There is no time or money for do-over’s or extended schedules.
3. Because partners are being thinned and stretched themselves and this value stands out as the type of person/partner you want to keep on your team.
So.
All that said let me say something pretty simple (and probably sounds stupidly silly). This whole issue needs to be thought of from the top down. Because the organization starts with its leader.
“I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts.”
John Locke
Yup. That sounds basic but I believe we are investing so much energy (at the top) on insuring that those at the bottom are ‘doing what they say they will do’ that the top is forgetting that they need to meet the same (if not higher) stands.
And this whole top down thing benefits all. It helps create a culture of ‘evidence’ (proof we say what we do) without slowing the organization down. And that means people are empowered to “do” within an outlined system. But doing starts at the top. There has to be a commitment to doing. Delivering on what words are used (which means that of course you should be careful what words you use but that is a different article).
This whole ‘words-to-action’ concept extends to outside partners (vendors) also.
Anyway.
Let me take a minute to look beyond the business application aspect of this and focus on organizational leadership and alignment.
This whole thing is really about trust.
What is a person if you cannot trust what they say? Words unfulfilled with some action become empty promises to people. “I will call the client” (and never does). “I will share a plan of action by next week (and doesn’t).” “I will be at that meeting (and misses it).”
Yeah.
Many leaders often have great intentions and also often fall into the trap of “I have too many things to do” philosophy (“and people will understand I am a busy person and just couldn’t get to it”).
We judge ourselves by our intentions, but others judge us by our actions.
Lee J. Colan
Actions are where intentions hit the road. Actions behind words show integrity.
And, ultimately, leadership is about integrity. The integrity to stand by your word. If you elect to not do what you said you would do people start questioning your integrity. While intentions express a desire to do, actions express commitment. People don’t follow intentions (over time).
In order to be a leader a man must have followers. And to have followers, a man must have their confidence. Hence, the supreme quality for a leader is unquestionably integrity. Without it, no real success is possible, no matter whether it is on a section gang, a football field, in an army, or in an office. If a man’s associates find him guilty of being phony, if they find that he lacks forthright integrity, he will fail. His teachings and actions must square with each other. The first great need therefore is integrity and high purpose.
Dwight D Eisenhower
Without trust leaders cannot meet the largest challenge of any leader – connecting the real to the possible.
Without trust you cannot get people to do what you asking them to do to fulfill this vision you have outlined.
Without trust people will become cynical.
I do find it humorous (in a sad way).
We blame today’s youth for a “what have you done for me lately” attitude but the reality is that attitude has always existed in the establishment of leadership. And their whole attitude is often driven by our (at the top) inability to follow through. Or setting odd expectations in our own heads on what those actions will mean to people.
Never, rarely or inconsistent follow through on words leads to an organization lack of trust in leadership. Only consistent follow through of words with actions symbolizes the great led organizations. And often in those same organizations you find a strong self empowerment to “do” culturally. And even more often you will find that “what have you done for me lately” group not being so vocal and actually assuming some responsibilities of their own.
Anyway.
I babbled a lot but remember this if nothing else:
“Remember, people will judge you by your actions, not your intentions. You may have a heart of gold — but so does a hard-boiled egg.”
Anonymous
Bottom line.
When you have verbalized intentions and aligned them with consistent actions people will follow. The other people in the company, people who report to you, people within the organization and your outside partners will all listen when you have something to say and come to “count on you.”
Yeah. Doing what you say you will do certainly comes with a burden. But. That burden is the price of leadership.
Oh.
One last thing on the whole “words to action” idea.
Let’s call this “the time warp” issue.
Or the “time and space star trek continuum”.
The other side of this equation resides in the doee (the one asking to have something done … oh, ‘sooooooooooo-eeEEEE!’ is what they yell at Arkansas games).
So.
Someone asks for something.
Uh oh.
Sometimes in the mind of the doee there is a star trek episode in their head where time stands still and a shitload of things happen and then the clock starts again and all that shit has been done.
The time continuum hits and the doer didn’t even know it happened.
They asked the question (with the intent of trying to make sure they could actually meet what they promised).
Doer: “Do you need it right away or can we have some time?
Doee: “oh, no rush, I can have it later. Even tomorrow is fine.”
Doer: okay. (the promise to do has been made)
Uh oh (part 2).
The difference between I can have it now and I am okay with having it later translates to hours in their head (if not minutes).
Doee: you didn’t do what you promised.
Doer: you said today (which is now tomorrow) was okay.
Doee: yes. But it almost lunch and I don’t have it.
Doer: uhm. I can have it today.
Doee: but I have to leave for lunch soon.
Doer: (thought bubble) gosh. If you hadn’t called I was half out the door myself.
I say all of this simply to say that Time is tricky in this whole math words = action equation.
The space between those two words is perceived differently by the leader (the person who generates the words) and the receiver of words (the one who heard the intentions).
And someone is gonna come rockin’ into my comments section and say “well, you need to be clear and be specific!” (and say it like there is an exclamation point at the end).
Well.
Yeah.
Sure.
I call bullshit on that.
No matter how specific or articulate you are a certain percentage of listeners will not hear exactly what you said. And that percentage grows exponentially as time slides down the slope.
What that means is the faster you tie an action to a word the more likely you are to earn trust.
That’s it.
Is that always doable? Shit no.
Just be aware.
And always remember the equation.
Words = intent. Intent = actions. Therefore words = actions. And all that = trust.
to do or not to do
Aug 26th
“most agencies are in the same boat — from big ones to two man shops. They’re in it for the money and they’re scared. Scared the client’s going to walk. And because they are afraid they compromise their principles. They are so scared of losing the business they give the customer what they think they want rather than what they know he needs. And sometimes it works — for a while. But in the end it always backfires. You lose the business anyway and you wake up one day to find you’re a prostitute. So, in the end, stick to your principles. ‘to thine ownself be true.’ 0ver 200 years old but still good advice.”
- Stephen Hawley Martin (founder of The Martin Agency)
Anyone in the service industry will read this and understand exactly what Mr. Martin is saying.
When in service business you are always trapped by “doing whatever it takes to make the customer happy” (which seems to be an insane mantra seeping through business these days) versus “what is going to make me happy” (as a business, business person, business owner).
This is not an easy answer.
I am not suggesting ignoring customers (although I do believe the tired “customer is king/queen” mantra is going a little bit too far) but at some point you draw a line.
You need to draw a line or you will go nuts.
Or just become a prostitute.
Look. Sure sometimes lines can fence you in but sometimes lines can neaten life.
Someone who draws a great line yet is focused on the customer?
Ritz Carlton.
“Ladies and gentlemen serving ladies and gentleman.” You see that everywhere in the back rooms and over back-to-front entryways at Ritz Carltons. It is their culture and their attitude and their mantra.
So.
What is the line? The moment a Ritz guest no longer acts like a ‘ladies or gentleman.’ That is their line.
Anyway.
I imagine drawing a line is about making boundaries.
And it is probably one of the hardest things in the world to do. With anything I may add.
In business? Yikes. I have been in those meetings. Especially now with the internet where one ‘declined’ customer (they don’t even have to be mistreated in any way) can reach out and impact hundreds because they weren’t allowed to join the club. How to grow your business? Whew. Of course in a recession passing on a dollar in hand is tough (heck. even in good times it is) but do you really want them as a customer?.
Think about government. Regardless of whether it is government policy on dealing with terrorists or rules of warfare. What is acceptable and what isn’t? Tough tough questions.
Personal? Personal time off in a business. Your kids and their activities. Job searches and type of job you want. Time commitments. Personal behavior.
Anyway.
Where do you draw the line?
I know I struggle with people who want it all spelled out upfront (or maybe people who live only by ‘rules’). Mostly because you invest a lot of energy and time thinking about every possibility (which could be time doing more productive things) and then lo and behold something you couldn’t have foreseen pops up. And you start discussing ‘exceptions’ (which really aren’t exceptions other than the fact someone demanded you draw a line … or a boundary).
And where does it fall on the line you have drawn. Some things are black and white but they seem to be far and few between.
The one thing that remains black & white?
Being true to thineself.
Draw the line somewhere where you can sleep well at night.
That’s the line.
when certainty becomes uncertainty
Jul 9th
“One of the worst feelings in the world is having to doubt something that you once thought was unquestionable.” - unknown teen blogger
I am a contradiction guy. Meaning that I believe the strongest emotions and interest and attention are applied when two contradictory ‘things’ stand side by side as truth.
Doubt. Doubt resides squarely between certainty and uncertainty. In the quote above the teen blogger is talking about a person. So, typical of our own teen years, someone who they were unequivocally certain was one thing (lets suggest a BFF … gosh .. who would have ever thought i would type that in something I wrote) and then something happens, say that person does something that firmly places them on the uncertainty pedestal, and all of a sudden doubt, who has been standing in the background idly watching, steps forward front and center.
Oh. And once doubt has stepped into this space it almost always takes on geometric proportions. That is what happens when you start questioning the unquestionable.
I personally believe consistency is underrated. And I say that clearly being a ‘change is my constant companion and friend’ kind of guy. So. Let’s call this consistency of character. Consistency of values (or ethics).
Well. Let me take that back. It is simply consistency.
Anyway. When something happens that makes you question what was once unquestionable it isn’t just one of the worst feelings. It’s like getting kicked in the gut.
Not because you are disappointed in them or what happened. You are disappointed in yourself. And, as noted earlier, if you aren’t really really careful that disappointment (which lead to uncertainty of yourself) can take on geometric proportions.
And that may be the worst feeling in the world.
But.
The best feeling in the world (to try and end on a positive note).
“Piglet sidled up to Pooh from behind.
“Pooh!” he whispered.
“Yes, Piglet?”
“Nothing”, said Piglet, taking Pooh’s paw.
“I just wanted to be sure of you.”







