Enlightened Conflict

construction, deconstruction & reconstruction (part 1 future business thinking)

October 7th, 2015
change speed market

Hugh McLeod

 

 

———-

“The only certain thing about the future is that it will surprise even those who have seen furthest into it.”

=

Eric Hobsbawm

———

“Too many people spend too much time trying to perfect something before they actually do it.

Instead of waiting for perfection, run with what you’ve got, and fix it along the way. “

=

Paul Arden

———

“Chance favors the connected mind.”

Steven Johnson

====

So.

beginning to change

 

Let me state the obvious.

The business world is changing.

 

How we think, what we think, the business models to implement the new thinking and all the while … the arduous back & forth conflict between the way it was done versus the way it will be.

 

 

Overall … one of the biggest challenges the business world is facing is that the entire approach to thinking about how to conduct business is changing which ultimately means the biggest challenge is not the new model itself … it is the fact that the current leadership management thinks one way and emerging management generation thinks another.

 

This creates issues not only in how the generations interact in the workplace but also impacts the effectiveness, or ineffectiveness, in actually training the emerging management employees to be successful.

 

 

Regardless.

 

 

I call the change … ‘construction thinking’ to ‘deconstruction thinking’ <or “reconstruction thinking”>.

 

 

Here is where we are today.

 

 

– The existing business world view

 

 

The traditional business world <and existing management way of thinking> is based on a construction thinking model.

 

 

Think of this as Lego blocks.

 

business deconstruction

You were given <taught> all the Lego building blocks one by one and taught <trained> the different ways to use them and build something solid from the ground up. Doesn’t really take into consideration what TopModels suggest are the black boxes of thinking <see later in ‘Deconstruction Thinking’> … or the Lego blocks you need to insert based on faith <or intuition> … which invariably we always use <but don’t – can’t – train for>.

 

 

Now.

 

Business thinking is always about balancing real knowledge, faith knowledge and intuition.

 

 

But in traditional thinking we tend to make the formula weighted toward real knowledge … and construct solutions aiming toward a cause an effect <stimulus response> relationship.
Business training still seems to continue to serve up this linear cause-and-effect thinking as if, by doing so, we’ll understand the person, predict behavior and results … and be able to make sense of everything we do.

 

 

An unfortunate truth?

 

 

Causing effect is not linear.

 

 

Never was … never will be.

 

directional unidirectional link deconstruction

And this is true even more so in today’s more fragmented stimulus world.

 

 

What you share as an initial stimulus is so often re-purposed in ways you cannot even envision it inevitably creates multiple effects … sometimes derivatives of the desired effect and more often an unenvisioned effect.

 

 

The reality is that the future success of a strategy is so hard to predict. This also means that … well … Big Ideas <in general> is useless <and not worth the effort to try and construct>. In today’s consumer business world it simply pays to do more things, try more things and … well … simply give yourself more chances that at least one idea takes off now … and you have other ideas which could take off ‘then.’

 

 

Note:

I’ve been saying for a long time the big idea is crap … in 2010: http://brucemctague.com/the-myth-of-the-big-idea-big-ideas-are-crap >

 

 

Suffice it to say big ideas will largely be replaced by ideas many of which will take on a life of their own. Or maybe the business seeks an initial idea that sparks interaction and thought and action/behavior and a business adapts to the resulting behavior.

 

The business, and the idea, is ultimately defined by what happens next.

 

But it isn’t just ideas … while the world isn’t stagnant or linear … thinking is exactly the same.

 

 

It’s constantly evolving and alive and fragmented into beautifully imperfect shapes and sizes.

 

 

The problem with a static brand proposition and a static strategy – or anything static other than a vision or character statement – is that the business landscape, brands and their competition, are anything but static. Business, like people, are evolving entities that live and die by the success of their actions.

 

 

Basically, construction is based on predicting behavior before implementation.

 

 

– The new business landscape

 

 

Simplistically the old way is to methodically construct solutions and ideas and then commit.

 

retrain thought building deconstructThe new way is more about committing <smartly> and then deconstructing as information is received and adapting until it reaches a shape that could be sustainable.

 

Oddly … it is actually an older leader who embraced the new way.

 

 

<Napoleon>: “On s’engage, et puis – on voit.” <you commit yourself, and then – you see.>

 

 

The traditional business cycle has always been one of “study, act, study.”

 

 

Information precedes decisions … then the impact of decisions is assessed before the next decisions are made. Each step of the way information, or earning, is the gate through which decisions must pass.

 

That much has not changed.

 

 

Well.

 

 

How about … with the rise of digital technologies & the internet the cycle times between the ‘act’ and the ‘study’ has been compressed. The old starting point of “study” has become a luxury few marketers can indulge. The new digital cycle is one of “act and react.”

“Act” not “study” is now the point on which everything else pivots. It becomes ‘learning on the go.’

 

 

The new landscape is based on answers needed in real time. that also means getting into market is not based on ‘perfecting before going’ but rather … well … “good enough” is, well, good enough. Businesses learn on the go, testing alternatives by doing not by asking, in the marketplace. The core of how a business operates is now more on how consumers behave than on what they think.

 

 

But.

 

 

This new landscape is only empowered by technology … it is the people, the compete connect smartemerging management generation, who are really driving the new business thinking model. This new generation of management has some specific features which benefit the new business landscape:

 

 

 

– Knowledge <or information about shit> is available to anyone with access to a computer

 

 

– There are an increasing amount of things which are ‘black boxes’ of inner workings <they work … but the majority of us have no clue how they work>which compress thinking & doing time

 

 

– Great decision making in today’s business world is more often defined by on how good you are at assessing what aspects should be accepted on ‘faith’ <the black box designated aspects> and what aspects need real knowledge & understanding

 

 

– It has never been possible to know everything … but in today’s world it is mind numbingly <and humbling so> obvious … and it has become more accepted to learn on the go

 

 

– Curiosity is not just a business characteristic but also a management tool <an openly curious leader embraces team dialogue & discussion – without relinquishing decision responsibilities>.

 

 

 

All these things tend to make me believe we are within a great transformation in business thinking.

 

 

Unfortunately, to the existing business world & existing senior management, this transformation is one led by the next generation thought-wise. A generation also characterized by:

 

 

– One more comfortable utilizing what is called ‘black box knowledge’ and driven by instinct <but willing to adapt from learnings if instinct proven wrong>.

 

 

– One where no part of a business, or department, is out of bounds.

 

 

– One where creativity in thinking and intuition are used to imagine the future.

 

 

– One where value is in information and not things.

 

 

– One where value is found in experiences <real knowledge not speculated knowledge>.

 

 

– One where value is found more in unfolding discovery and new opportunities rather than researched discovery.

 

 

– One where expectations are in the back seat and possibilities are in the front seat.

 

 

– One where every company is actually in the information business first and foremost.

 

 

– One where value has migrated from tangible to intangibles.

 deconstruction unlearn culture

 

The clashing of generational business thinking can almost be summed up by Douglas Adams:

 

—————-

Douglas Adams’ rules about technology:

1) Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.

2) Anything that’s invented between when you’re 15 and 35 is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.

3) Anything invented after you’re 35 is against the natural order of things.

===

 

 

 

And while I believe this is the new business thinking world model, the ‘deconstruction business world,’ it inherently contains an aspect which makes the younger generation thinking engine go.

 

 

Instincts & black boxes.

 

 

– Deconstruction thinking theory<the black boxes in business>

 

1940's faith

Which leads me deconstruction <or black box> thinking.

 

 

This is how I believe the next generation of business leaders … those who grew up in a more digital age <albeit it began with hand held computers> … will think and manage and make decisions.

 

 

We are increasingly surrounded by ‘black boxes.’ These are complex constructs that we do not understand even if they are explained to us. We cannot comprehend the inner processes of a ‘black box’, but none the less we integrate their inputs and outputs into our decision-making <just think of your computer as the everyday black box we trust>.

 

 

Oh.

 

Black box thinking … I cannot take credit for it … TopModels refer to it as “why faith is replacing knowledge.”

 

 

“… our world is getting more complicated all the time. Black and white, good and bad, right and wrong have been replaced with complicated constructs that leave most people in the dark.

As the world around us becomes increasingly fast paced and complex, the amount we REALLY know – what we can really grasp and understands – decreases all the time. Today it is more or less taken for granted that we do not understand many of the things that surround us, such as mobile phones and ipads. And even if somebody tried to explain the DNA code to us, we would probably be out of our depth.

We are increasingly surrounded by ‘black boxes’ … complex constructs that we do not understand even if they are explained to us. We cannot comprehend the inner processes of a black box but nonetheless we integrate their inputs and outputs into our decision making.

The amount that we simply HAVE to believe, without understanding it, is increasing all the time. As a result we are tending to assign more importance to those who can explain something than to their actual explanation.”

The Decision book: 50 models for strategic thinking

<Krogerus & Tschappeler>

=======

 

 

 

The new decision making world, one driven by technology and that ‘black box’ of knowledge computers offer in terms of knowledge, is ultimately a deconstructive thinking world. A world in which it is understood that a stimulus can create desired, and sometimes undesired, responses and success is often more based on reacting & adapting to an initial stimulus than perfecting the initial stimulus.

 

 

Going back to the Legos analogy … deconstruction identifies the tangible Legos as well as the intangible ‘black box’ Legos.

 

 

– Were they used appropriately?

 

– The appropriate mix?

 

– The appropriate place?

 

– Could a real Lego have been put in place of a black box Lego and I would have been better?

 

 

 

And over time the black box thinking <the intangible and vague ‘knowing’> becomes more tangible as well as we gain more faith in certain black box thinking application.

 

 

Now.

 

 

Some people may call deconstruction thinking/solutioning <because they say the deconstruction term is too negative> is simply a more contextual approach to thinking <and learning>.

 

 

At its core they would be correct … a contextual approach recognizes that learning is a complex and multifaceted process that goes far beyond drill-oriented, stimulus and response methodologies.

 

 

 

According to contextual learning theory learning occurs best when people process new information or knowledge in such a way that it makes sense to them in their own frames of reference <their own inner worlds of memory, experience, and response>. This theory assumes that the mind naturally seeks meaning in context that is in relation to the person’s current environment and that it does so by searching for relationships that make sense and appear useful.

 

 

I may suggest this is adaptive thinking <a term I made up>.

 

 

Stanford calls it “adaptive strategy.”

 

 

Adaptive strategy. We create a roadmap of the terrain that lies before an organization and develop a set of navigational tools, realizing that there will be many different options for reaching the destination. If necessary, the destination itself may shift based on what we learn along the way.

Creating strategies that are truly adaptive requires that we give up on many long-held assumptions. As the complexity of our physical and social systems make the world more unpredictable, we have to abandon our focus on predictions and shift into rapid prototyping and experimentation so that we learn quickly about what actually works. With data now ubiquitous, we have to give up our claim to expertise in data collection and move into pattern recognition so that we know what data is worth our attention. We also know that simple directives from the top are frequently neither necessary nor helpful. We instead find ways to delegate authority, get information directly from the front lines, and make decisions based on a real-time understanding of what’s happening on the ground. Instead of the old approach of “making a plan and sticking to it,” which led to centralized strategic planning around fixed time horizons, we believe in “setting a direction and testing to it,” treating the whole organization as a team that is experimenting its way to success.

 

 

And that is what the new digitally driven generation of business people will inevitably do.

 

They will confidently use black boxes more faithfully as well as seek relationships that make sense and appear useful … and adapt.

 

 

They will be driven more by looking at solutions and not saying “why does this make sense?” logic understanding but rather ‘this doesn’t look right <or it looks right>’ logic understanding.

 

 

This will translate into an adapting mentality on everything. And, yes, I mean everything. Not just tactics and execution but strategy … and sometimes some things which in the past have been considered inviolate with regard to change <like the archaic 5-year plan>.

 

 

Hey.

 

 

Black box thinking is not a new thing <but has ALWAYS made us feel uncomfortable>.

 

 

Albert Einstein received a Nobel Prize for recognizing that models and ‘logical’ systems are ultimately a matter of faith. And, yet, it is often difficult to let go of the tangible or ‘proof prior to acting’ model.

 

 

retrain deconstructIt is basic human nature to often believe so strongly in models that they take on the status of reality. But reality, in terms of business thinking and models, is … well … often not reality … and unimaginable can become reality.

 

 

Unimaginable is difficult in today’s business world because nowadays almost everything we do leaves behind some trace therefore companies can monitor how their business is running, where customers are, what they are doing and how they are doing it. And in knowing these things they know the nuances of what makes <or breaks> a business.
Practically speaking future decision makers will tend to work with prognosis tools rather than with predictive models. That doesn’t mean the formulas & models will all be thrown away … instead the formulas and models that try and predictively define iterative behavior are in ‘black boxes’ understood by only a few experts. Therefore, the typical decision maker needs to trust, or have faith, in the system without actually understanding it. Yet, even without understanding the black box <or boxes> understanding, or the ultimate proof, occurs in test and measure and watch behavior and assess attitudes and refine with real data <reactive actions>.

 

 

That, my friends, is black box thinking in a nutshell.

 

 

To be clear.

 

Models will not be discarded.

 

In an increasingly confusing and chaotic and black box world the models provide some order and assist in providing focus on what is important and to believe in what we see.

 

However … the ‘building models’ will be relegated to a lower priority <therefore we can invest less time and rigor> and instead we will more often assess by understanding what doesn’t look right rather than developing something with the intent of building it to look right.

 

 

I believe this is the new operating business thinking model.

 

 

I also believe, as stated initially, this will be a painful arduous transition

 

 

Companies with managers who manage and think like this <mostly the younger emerging managers> will look like frickin’ aliens to many of the existing companies with older ‘model first thinkers.’

 

 

I imagine my real point here is that there are companies with young employees who embrace black box thinking who can help those companies be better and do better … but those companies are still solidly stuck in old school logical ‘rationalize before its done’ attitude.

 

 

The future

 

 

Here’s the good news for black box companies … the business is coming to them.

 

Not today … but tomorrow.

 

 

And while we may try and make the transition move faster … we cannot. Most good companies will knock themselves out trying to deconstruct a black box into some logical explained system or thing. But a black box … is … well … a black box. It isn’t meant, and it really cannot, be explained in any way that an older manager who doesn’t trust or like black boxes can ever be explained.

 

Trying to do so defeats the real value of the black box.

 

 

This is like discussing business apples and oranges.

 

 

There is an entire tier of existing business leaders and managers that are baffled by black boxes.

 

 

Maybe worse?

 

 

They don’t trust black boxes.

 

 

Maybe even worse?
They don’t embrace deconstruction business thinking. Every bone in their body is driven toward constructing optimal solutions from day one.

 

 

Here is the interesting dilemma.

 

 

Older existing management would actually be quite capable … and most likely … quite good at deconstruction thinking.

 

 

It just makes them uncomfortable.

 

 

Uncomfortable in that it wasn’t the way they were taught & trained and therefore a younger generation shouldn’t make the ‘leap’ to deconstructive thinking without having learned the constructive principle.

 

 

What a bunch of bullhockey.

 

hugh 50 something same old thinking

Training needs to adapt to the thinking and thinking capabilities <some would call that technology> rather than adapt the new business thinking models to archaic training/thinking models <see my site for a number of articles on how older 50somethings should adapt their organizations and thinking to be effective in the future>.

 

 

The gap between construction and deconstruction is so far apart philosophically it is crazy to try and bridge it.

 

Of course business thinking is always about balancing real knowledge, black box knowledge and intuition. It has always. The ‘formula’ is simply different now.

 

We need to adapt training to accommodate the new formula.

 

 

Lastly.

 

The people.

 

 

– The emerging managers <next generation of managers>

 

 

Emerging managers in a company will go nuts <for a while>.

 

 

Emerging managers instinctually think about deconstruction thinking methodology and get excited and think … “let’s go … let’s do it” only to have their more methodical front loading leaders say “whoa … slow down … lets be sure we get it right from the beginning.”

 

Look.

 

 

I’m <and I imagine any good deconstruction thinking type company> not opposed to getting it right straight out of the box … having things as perfect and researched and nuanced as possible when you introduce it. But if you invest too much time trying to get it right the market has passed you by.

 

I’d rather be ‘close to being right’ in the beginning and adapt quickly as it enters the market.

 

 

Well.

 

That last sentence will send older leaders into convulsions.

 

 

Conclusion:

meeting the construction versus deconstruction gap

 

 

Let me be clear about ‘black boxes.’

 

 

We still need people. For all the black boxes, the stealing of sound, sight, smell through data, and all the satellites and technological garners of intelligence gathering … it still boils down to humans in the end.

 

 

No matter how advanced the technology … it is people who have to make the final assessments. People who can give access to the minds and ‘future thinking’ of thinking could bethose who we are trying to gain insight into.

 

 

Black box intelligence still needs people.

 

 

Past experience, benchmarking, good to great skill management and construction thinking isn’t enough to be successful in the new business landscape.

 

 

Deconstruction thinking is a complex combination of effectively using quickly assembled solid building blocks and implementing only to deconstruct <and reassemble> on the move. The military would suggest it is adapting the battle as you engage.

 

 

I suggest that in order to weave your way through business issues, organizational issues, people issues and real knowledge issues takes a daunting combination of strength of character, curiosity, strength of self and real leadership <of which confidence … not arrogance is embraced>.

 

 

Deconstruction is not for the faint of heart. Nor is this type of thinking conducive, nor easily compatible, to the existing style of traditional management thinking.

 

 

But.

 

It is the future model of business thinking and operating.

everyone needs a place

April 25th, 2015

==

created my world place

“Everyone needs a place.

It shouldn’t be inside of someone else. “

Richard Siken

==

“It’s the one thing we never quite get over: that we contain our own future.”

Barbara Kingsolver

 

====

 

 

Well.

 

 

This opens with a line from a poem … not a quote.

 

 

I love the line and I love this thought.

lost but better place

 

Far too often we seek definition from the outside … the outside world and people.

 

Metaphorically it means we far too often find our ‘place’ inside the outside.

 

 

It makes you wonder a little why we think someone else can build this space better than ourselves.

 

I mean … c’mon … who can build it BUT yourself?

 

<sigh … and yet we let others build it again and again>

 

 

We are born to build our own place because, frankly, there is nobody who can know you more than you.

 

 

You should not be molded by the eyes or thoughts of others.

 

You should build a place in which “you” is safe <I imagine the corollary thought is ‘do you really trust someone, anyone other than you, to build a place that will withstand the worst storms of Life?’>.

 

 

And while this may seem philosophical … it seems like nobody else CAN build it for you because … well … it is and always will be who you were and who you will be.

 

 

You are not only the architect of your fate but the architect of your space.

 

I am fairly sure you would not choose to build a home inside another home.

 

Why would you do so with yourself?

 

 

Sadly this conversation of ‘building your own space’ seems to almost always focus on what kind of person one is … in relation to other people or societal norms/expectations.

 

I am not going to suggest your relationship with other people or the outside world is irrelevant … just that you shouldn’t permit it to define your space.

 

 

I think it is important to define oneself as an individual … and avoid comparisons as much as possible … or at least with minimal comparisons.

 

 

We certainly have the power, the intellect & the knowledge to define ourselves.

 

 

 

Some people call his ‘find your own voice’ I kind of think it is find your own space.

 

You find your own home within you in which you sleep, eat, think, invite, kick out, party, cry and live.

life place and time

==

“When they opened the cadaver, they found a house.

A couple argued inside.

There was a rhythm to their words, like the beating of a heart.”

Barry Napier

==

 

 

By the way. While this thought sounds sensible and practical and … well… good … it is really hard.

 

Essentially this means the only promise you are making is to yourself and not to anyone else. You are not a metaphor, nor an excuse nor an example to others. But this also means you have to create on your own … and many people don’t think they are creative enough to build something strong or ‘right’ or beautiful <using traditional sense as the judge>.

 

It is difficult because you are judged first & foremost by yourself … and then you can decide whether you want to see if you meet the ‘promise’ that others & society feel like you should have made to them.

 

 

All my bullshit philosophical ramblings aside … I love the thought that no one should build their space inside someone else.

 

 

I love the thought this makes most people uncomfortable. It makes people feel uncomfortable because they know they are part of something bigger … and that ‘bigger’ MUST be smarter than … well … me. I mean c’mon … wouldn’t they know better than I whether I was good enough or fulfilling the promise of who and what I should be?

 

 

I also think it makes people feel uncomfortable because pretty much everyone <at least anyone I have ever met> has a storm inside them. A storm of who and what they will be. The lightning inside us scares us. The electricity energizes us at the same time. And we don’t know whether we are good enough, big enough, strong enough … for the storm inside us.

 

“We just have too much lightning crammed into our hearts.

Just want someone to put her ear to our chest and tell us how far away the storm is.”

==

Lauren Zuniga

————

love place in mind

 

Aw shit … I don’t know.

 

 

Lightning & storms are alternatively scary and exciting.

 

 

All I really know is that it is my storm … and I want my space for it to rage.

oops

April 17th, 2015

clumsy embarrass

“Are you referring to the fact that you can’t walk across a flat, stable surface without finding something to trip over?”

Stephenie Meyer

==

 

So.

 

 

This morning I cruised thru the sports news to see my undergraduate alma mater, USC, had just won the conference women’s tennis championship beating the ever hated UCLA <fight on!>.

 

 

And they broke the trophy.

 

 

Oops.

 

oops trophy

Yup.

 

 

They dropped the trophy … and it shattered.

 

 

This made me think about all those wacky trophy ceremonies at the end of the championship games & events where they ask someone to pick up some huge incredibly unwieldy trophy and why they are not dropped more often.

 

 

Well.

 

 

It happens.

 

 

In fact … it reminded me of my “Oops. Clumsy me. Uh oh. That was a $50 million stumble. Do I tell mom?” post: http://brucemctague.com/oops-clumsy-me-uh-oh-that-was-a-50-million-stumble-do-i-tell-mom

 

 

And while the USC women’s tennis team is kind of funny … this one is hilarious.

 

 

In soccer … Real Madrid won the Spanish Cup but the celebrations went awry when Sergio Ramos dropped the trophy <oops part 1> from the roof of an open topped bus … and then the bus frickin’ ran it over <oops part 2>.

 

 

Bus running over trophy:

 


Ok.

 

 

This one may be even better.

 

 

While on a recruiting trip at University of Florida the recruit knocked Florida’s 2006 national championship crystal football from its pedestal.

 

<oops>

 

 

By the way … the recruit did not go to Florida.
By the way … the Waterford Crystal trophy is worth something like $30,000.

 

 

And in 2012 Alabama’s crystal national title trophy was shattered … oops … when the father of an Alabama player accidentally knocked the trophy over when he stumbled on a rug that was under the trophy display.

 

 

<oops … bring out the broom and dust pan>

 

 

I love this shit.

 

I wish it would happen more often.

 

 

I am sure trophies & awards are of value in some way but in general they seem inordinately exorbitant and useless.

 

clumsy trip

All I know is that after watching the Stays in Las Vegas commercial maybe it does have some use:

Las Vegas:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLEm8XvAFb4

Enlightened Conflict