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.

 

disconnected and decision making

August 8th, 2017

think courage work ideas question curious

 

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

“Developing our abilities to think more clearly, richly, fully — individually and collectively — is absolutely crucial [to solving world problems].”

 

——–

Adrian West, research director at the Edward de Bono Foundation U.K.

 

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

 

So.

 

I was asked the other day about what I believed the internet, and connectivity’s, brain connection peoplegreatest impact on business was.

 

After chuckling that there was no one thing and we didn’t have enough time to talk about all the aspects that have impacted us … I did suggest one thing we don’t talk about which has a larger ripple effect on the future of business – connectivity’s impact on decision making and how we teach decision making.

 

Simplistically, technological connectivity has killed maybe 90% of the delegation of critical thinking & decision making.

 

Yeah.

 

There are a couple of other sociological insidious things seeping into organizational culture – discouragement of risk taking, particularly among younger employees, ‘flat’ organizations which tend to only put the senior decision makers closer to actual tactical decisions and things like that.

But what connectivity has done is make the most experienced decision makers more available 24/7 and younger people more likely to “send them a quick text asking them what to do” or an email with the question at hand … so that the younger person doesn’t have to make the decision. This translates into less decision making experience, less real ‘outcome of decision experience’ as well as all the critical thinking that gets crammed into one’s head when forced to make some decision <which always takes on some extraordinary size & significance when younger and less experienced>.

 

I believe this is a real issue.

 

In fact … I believed it was so important I googled it to do some research for this post.

 

  • ‘how connectivity has killed decision making’0 results.

 

 

zero none zilch

  • how the internet has killed decision making’ … 0 results on the topic … most on ‘overthinking’ or ‘Information overload is killing our ability to make decisions’

 

 

I even tried ‘how the smartphone has killed decision making’ and got zilch other than some crap about how ‘smartphones are destroying a generation’ and shit like that.

 

Lets be clear.

 

This isn’t about ‘distractions’ or ‘short attention span’ this is about circumventing critical decision making skills through easy connectivity to someone who can make the decision <instead of you>.

 

And I found it extremely odd that there is nothing obvious in terms of the discussion online because society views technology through an extremely critical eye on perceptions of how it forms, or doesn’t form, critical thinking skills. And nowhere is the conflict more apparent than in the business world where in a seemingly non-stop 24/7 world where we deem “speed” as having some absurd value above anything else we force more and more decisions ‘up’ in an organization.

 

Let me tell you how it worked in a disconnected world.

 

As an old guy we had no smartphones and computers weren’t chugging out hundreds of emails between employees all the time.

 

My bosses sat with other bosses in some high falutin’ section of the office space <most often with doors and big desks> and I didn’t have easy access to my bosses because … well … they were not within shouting distance and they had their own shit to do.

 

I had team members, clients and other departments who always needed answers so they could do shit and make some progress <to meet deadlines that I had inevitably placed on them> and, when they needed a decision, 90+% of the time they didn’t want me hanging up the phone saying “I will get back to you after I speak to ‘x’ person.”

And many times I was out of town in meetings and … well … decisions had to be made.

 

In this disconnected world 25 year old Bruce had to make some decisions … the fuck question fucking stupidhopefully some good ones.

 

 

This didn’t mean that afterwards I didn’t sit there going … “fuck me, was that the right thing to do?” … because I did.

 

 

So in that disconnected world I would have to get up when I had a free minute and track down my boss and walk them through what was going to happen because I had made some decision.

 

I could go to Pat, who would sometimes be laying on his back under his desk looking at a world map he had taped under his desk thinking <claiming it gave him a different view of the world>, who would 99% of the time asking me why I thought it was the right decision, what other things we could have considered and start tearing apart the decision to better understand it.manager good

 

I could go to Charlie who would 99% of the time go ‘okay’ … and then in a burst of energy start talking about what we could do now, a kind of “what’s next attitude” now that the decision had been made.

 

I could go to Beth who would always, always, just listen … and then start talking about how we could follow up with some research, or data, or support so that <in her words> “the decision doesn’t get killed by someone else’s opinions.”

 

I could go to any number of other bosses throughout my younger years and discuss a decision that I had made after the fact.

 

In a disconnected world a less experienced person was demanded to assume some responsibility.

 

The bottom line it was my decision and I had to live with it. I didn’t have a shitload of bosses who tried to kill the decision but rather seemed to accept it, warts & all, and figure out how to move forward from it.

 

Now.

 

A shitload of people may argue that in a connected world better decisions are made <slightly> faster <assuming you can reach the decision maker in some timely fashion> therefore business has benefited.

 

They may be partially right.

 

But I would argue 3 things:

 

pivot-mistake-awkward-learn-manage<1> Most decisions made at a lower more tactical, or less strategically influential, level are not really business killers nor are they even ‘not fixable’,

 

<2> by delegating responsibility for a decision ‘upwards’ … someone never learns the critical thinking necessary, sometimes under time duress, nor the burden of responsibility,

 

<3> and ability to bear burden of responsibility is actually an indicator of future leadership skills.

 

I have gone on ad nausea over the years with regard to our short term paranoia within the business world and how it is killing us … and this ‘delegate decisions upwards because connectivity permits it’ is just one additional example.

 

Look.

 

The people who have the most confidence in their decision making skills, unless they are narcissistic asshats, are the ones with most experience in making decisions. And examining decisions made by someone else <which is what a younger person does if a more senior person makes a decision> is not even close to the actual experience of running the mental gauntlet of making the decision yourself … and understanding he burden of responsibility you assume by doing so.

 

By outsourcing our decisions to more experienced people, or even the false ‘certainty’ in data, we cheat ourselves.

We are left responding rather than thinking creatively, critically and autonomously.

And maybe worse we don’t give ourselves the opportunity to unlearn what we believe we have learned <which truly can only happen through trial & error>.

 

Gut feelings, and instincts, or even data … are not the best tools for an ignorance unlearn untrueuncertain world … they only offer the illusion of certainty.  The business world is a complex world with thousands of decisions and a relentless onslaught of uncertainty.

 

About the only thing to maneuver your way through all of this complexity & uncertainty is by using the skill of critical thinking.

 

When we deny people the challenge of thinking critically, evaluating situations, making your own decisions and bearing the burden of responsibility we are heading towards a future where future manager will lack the cognitive ability, and critical thinking skills, to effectively think and make good decisions.

 

While I have several worries with regard to what technology and connectivity is doing to our business world … this is one we do not discuss enough if we are truly interested in the next generation of business people to be better than us.

the false comparison trap

May 30th, 2017

compare-iridescent-person-colorful-special

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

 

“As with events, so it is with thoughts. When I watch that flowing river pours for a season its streams into me, I see that I am a pensioner; not a cause, but a surprised spectator of this ethereal water.”

 

—–

Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

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

 

“The sphinx must solve her own riddle.

If the whole of history is in one man, it is all explained from individual experience.”

 

——

Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

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

 

“Comparisons are a shit way of evaluating things.”

 

—-

Bruce McTague

 

===========

 

So.

 

life explained tat awkward moment birth deathWe LOVE using the past to try and explain shit. Past people, past events, past words and past … well … everything.

When we are faced with something new, or someone new, we immediately start sifting through the scrap heap of the past to start creating some semblance of a jig saw puzzle to explain what we are facing.

 

There are a number of problems with doing this.

 

The biggest is that scraps are scraps. Oh. And the scraps used to reside in a completely different context <which is impossible to recreate>.

 

And, yet, we continue to try.

The problem is that in doing so we elect to not judge the present on the merits of the present. We decline to judge a person as they are, the circumstances as they are and the decisions on the merits of what it is. We do this with everyone and everything … how money is spent, decisions we need to make, new people we have met and even leaders. We do it all partially well intended <we want to make sure we make a fair assessment of hat we are seeing & hearing> and partially because simply examining something and stating “this is good” or “this is bad” <or acceptable or unacceptable> seems … well … flimsy.

 

Comparisons tend to make things look more solid.  And, yet, we tend to absolutely suck at creating the proper comparisons.

 

And, that happens for a variety of reasons – also some well-intended and some not so well intended.

 

I will start with the well intended.

 

As Emerson once wrote: “our being is descending into us from know not whence.” And we struggle with that truth. It makes us uncomfortable … uhm … no … REALLY uncomfortable.

If we don’t know where things descend from then we begin to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to find comparisons to do so. this all comes at the expense of judging what is, the beings and such, on the merits of what exists. And this is where the shit hits the fan. We either dip into our own memories or a slew of people start telling us what memories to take a look at <the latter is part of the not so well intended>.

 

Well.

 

Here is an unfortunate fact … our memories, which is how we tend to judge and create mental comparisons, are constructive and reconstructive

 

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

 

“Many people believe that memory works like a recording device.

pico memory key thumb drive

…….. our memory chip ……..

You just record the information, then you call it up and play it back when you want to answer questions or identify images. But decades of work in psychology has shown that this just isn’t true.

Our memories are constructive.

They’re reconstructive.

Memory works a little bit more like a Wikipedia page: You can go in there and change it, but so can other people. “

 

Elizabeth Loftus

 

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

 

“You can ask the universe for all the signs you want, but ultimately, we see what we want to see when we’re ready to see it.”

 

——

(via 1112pm)

 

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

 

We desperately want to define things through comparison and continuously ask the universe for signs to show us what we want.

 

We desperately do so because in the absence of some comparison we would then have to judge what is on the merits of what exists — the good, the bad and the indifferent .

 

That doesn’t mean a shitload of people around you aren’t gonna try and affect how you will build your comparisons and encourage you to compare in some fairly creative <sometimes absurd> ways.

 

What do I mean?

 

I go back to the psychologist Ebbinghaus who studied memory construction <his published essay Über das Gedächtness in 1885> where he realized that memory and recall of continuous passages of prose or verse would be affected differentially by people’s experiences and prior knowledge.

Memory is a snare, pure and simple; it alters, it subtly rearranges the past to fit the present.

 

Mario Vargas Llosa

 

 

What that actually means is that the memory you tap into to create the my-worst-enemy-is-my-memory-projectcomparisons you seek are slightly mangled by yourself <in how you remember it> and can be manipulated by devious not so well intended people around you.

 

The Constructive and reconstructive nature of memory:

 

  • Memories are distributed; not unitary

 

  • “remembering” involves retrieving and reassembling

 

  • memories can be revised over time

 

  • Reconstruction is filling in “missing details” on the basis of logic, assumptions, what “must have been the case”

 

  • More common reasons for forgetting: Lack appropriate retrieval cue = something you attach to a memory, can use to recover it>

 

  • Reliable retrieval cues are key to access <and multiple retrieval cues are best>

 

  • Existence of older memories blocks access to newer ones

 

Ah.

If only we could pull out our brain and use only our own eyes.

But, not surprisingly, this is the exact same issue new ideas, “white space” theories, fresh thinking, true <not made up> disruptive people & things face.

 

All tat said. I will point out that something doesn’t have to be truly new to face false comparison challenges … it can simply be a new person in an existing role or a common problem or question just in a different time.

 

Suffice it to say anything new, or any change, is being asked to be defined by the past. And there will never be a lack of people stepping up and suggesting they can define something through a variety of comparisons <many of which you spend more time trying to fend off than is worth the time>.

explain with rational mind

This is a mistake. This is a fundamental error we make. It assumes what is can somehow be extrapolated by something by what was <the past>. In reality, as I have noted numerous times, I cannot exactly extrapolate the past because I cannot exactly replicate the past … which means <in harsh terms> there is nothing there and nothing from nothing is … uhm … nothing.

Yeah.

Most comparisons end up meaning nothing <although they look like something>.

Yeah.

This means most comparisons we create are just plain and simple false comparisons.

 

Without trying to be flippant with regard to what I believe is a fairly standard operating procedure for people … we need to stop. Stop false comparisons.

It is a trap.

And a dangerous trap.

 

Comparisons normalize that which should not be normalized … just as comparisons can de-normalize that which should be normalized.

False comparisons wielded by the devious can construct almost any “normal” you could desire <even if it is hollow & not really normal>.

 

Anyway.

 

In today’s world there does seem like there is a lot of crazy shit happening. And in our desire to veer away from the “crazy shit” feeling we seek some comparisons to normalize the situation <thereby calming the ‘crazy shit feeling>.

 

Just a couple of notes of warning on that.

 

<a> Finding comparisons, if done well, you can actually be convinced there really isn’t crazy shit happening even though there is truly some crazy shit easter crazy kidshappening.

 

As a corollary to <a>,

 

<b> if there is truly some crazy shit happening there will be no shortage of people ponying up false comparisons trying to convince you that there is no crazy shit happening <and some of them will be quite effective>.

 

The only reason I point out the warning is that there really is some crazy shit happening and we need to stop finding comparisons to make today, and some people, look a little less crazy than it really is.

 

There you go.

 

I will end where I began … “Comparisons are a shit way of evaluating things <and people>.”

We should invest the energy judging what is, people, ideas and things, based on their present merits not some false comparisons from the past.

 

not being owned

April 17th, 2016

world of my own

 

=======

 

“I am the sea and nobody owns me.”

 

 

Pippi Longstocking

 

======

 

i would fight myself if i could

(letthechipsfallwheretheymay)

========

 

So.

 

Not being owned sounds like a simple thing.

 

Yet.

 

Over and over <and over> again we permit something … or someones … to own void swallows self strength own you lifea part of you.

It can be direct or it can be indirect.

It can be consciously or subconsciously.

 

 

To be clear.

 

This is not a society thing <albeit society is a nasty twit on occasion> … this is a self thing.

 

And this is not a corruption thing <albeit money is a nasty twit on occasion> … this is a self thing.

 

So what do I mean by a self thing?

 

One of the very very few things you can actually control in life is “self ownership.”

 

Owning who you are as a person. Owning your integrity. Owning your character, dignity and moral compass. And, I imagine, owning your behavior & attitudes.

 

 

Now.

 

This ownership isn’t easy. It isn’t because … well … what you own a shitload of people and things are constantly seeking ways to steal it.

 

And owning a good security system will not do shit for you.

You need to learn self-defense.

 

And by self defense I actually mean defending against your self <and not someone or something else>.

 

You have to choose to fight yourself.

 

Fight against some nasty instincts <which more often than not head you in the wrong direction>.

Fight against temptation <of which the world has an endless array it constantly parades in front of you>.

Fight against some internal mind games <think doubt, fear, acceptance, etc.>.

 

 

Regardless.

 

Many of us flippantly state “I am my own person and nothing owns me” and, yet, under the glaring spotlight of truth & reality we will find that more of us is owned by someone or something than we would like.

 

Many of us shrug our shoulders when faced with this harsh truth and say “those are not the important things” or “that’s just Life.”

created my own world

Well.

 

It is not ‘just Life’ and they are not just ‘little unimportant things.’

 

More of us should stop, take a moment, and think about whether we want to react to external ownership efforts or proactively “fight myself” over the right to own myself.

 

Each of us is the sea and no one owns a sea.

 

Do not be owned.

 

 

yes

December 2nd, 2015

———-

yes yes yes yes

Why is the word yes so brief?

 

it should be

 

the longest,

 

the hardest,

 

so that you could not decide in an instant to say it,

 

so that upon reflection you could stop

 

in the middle of saying it. “

 

 

Vera Pavlova

==========

I am a self-admitted lover of “no” in the workplace. I am because I learned at a very early age in business the power of saying a clear cut ‘no.’ In addition I have an inherent distaste for ‘yes people’ and have built a healthy fear of yeses that create a false sense of positiveness in suggesting the impossible is possible.

 

stop

No has the power of stopping therefore it can afford to be concise.

In fact … in its conciseness it actually can often represent the sharp cleaver which cuts the cord to wasted energy and wasted actions.

 

 

And while ‘no’ in and of itself is incredibly powerful … ‘yes’ in its abruptness seems … well … too abrupt.

 

Too short.

 

Too simple for a word that does anything but encourage stopping … it more often is the initial push to movement <not necessarily forward but in doing something>.

 

 

Yes. <unstated … we should do something.yes type

 

Yes. <what?>

 

Yes. <as a statement … as an agreement>

 

 

Let’s face it … yes, just like thinking in general, is a quagmire.

 

 

It is a quagmire because far too often the majority of yeses are asked without either party <or one of them> truly understanding the problem therefore they have no right to be asking for a solution.

 
Business is all about choices – making them or agreeing to them or shutting choices off.

 

 

Simplistically every yes is a no to something else.

 

 

Saying yes as a ‘can do’ person or organization or simply because it is “the mantra” simply means you will continually fail to recognize limits.

 

Mostly the limits you fail to recognize are the “truth” ones you blast through as you blindly commit to something believing “you will figure it out as you do it.”

 

 

Well.

 

Sometimes you can figure it out.

 

But most of the time you do not … or at least not the way it should be done.

 

Of course the ‘yes sayers’ hold up completion at the end to justify the ‘yes’ ignoring the clumsy process on the path to completion or even the compromised solution which is represented in the completed action.

 

yes no hands

I tend to believe at the core of the quagmire is that there is actually more positive thinking & attitude in a ‘no’ then there is in the typical ‘yes’ … yet on the surface a ‘no’ appears negative and a ‘yes’ appears positive.

 

 

No’s … and I mean ‘non-lazy’ or ‘non irascible contrarian’ no’s are positive in their ability to sharpen whatever else is about to happen.

 

Yes’s are more about … well … the energy of obligation. An obligation or a commitment to a larger thing than a simple ‘yes’ often communicates.

 

 

And maybe that is where I think Yes fails us the most.

 

It should be longer, more complicated and less brief in its utterance. It should be reflective of the obligation, the responsibility and the choice of the moment.

 

It should be larger in its reflection of its overall impact not just on the moment of its utterance but also in the ripples of its effect as it reverberates almost infinitely through a business decision.

 

 

I do not have research on this but my guess, based on years of experience, is that more businesses fail and more businesses have lost money, people and wasted energy based on ‘yes’ more than ‘no.’

 

 

I am not suggesting we never say yes.

 

For god’s sake … the fundamental bedrock of a business is based on a ‘yes.’

 

Yes. Let’s go do it.

 

Yes. We will implement that idea.

 

Yes. We will hire that person.

 

 

But I am suggesting, even as you ponder the flippant three examples I just gave you that yeses echo in eternity. yes common area work

 

And while yeses embrace possibilities & opportunities & hope … they also are wrapped in cloaks of vulnerabilities.

 

 

Well.

 

After reading those last two sentences … kind of makes you think that yes “should be the longest, the hardest, so that you could not decide in an instant to say it, so that upon reflection you could stop in the middle of saying it. “

lesser of two evils

August 9th, 2015

———–opinions fight myself

“… but there is a certain point where trying to choose between the lesser of two evils is just an exercise in futility.

It doesn’t matter what you choose … both are so bad you struggle to discern which would be worse.

Therefore, I refuse to choose.”

=

Alex Verus

———–

 

 

 

So.

 

 

I just finished reading a book where this character says the quote above.

 

 

We have all been in a situation where all the choices look bad, or not so good … but definitely not good.

 

 

This is the choice of the lesser of two evils:

 

choice plans doors question

The lesser of two evils principle (or lesser evil principle) is the principle that when faced with selecting from two unpleasant options, the one which is least harmful should be chosen.

 
Let’s just say … well … it sucks.

 

 

And it sucks even worse when we stop and fruitlessly seek some silver lining in what is , frankly, no good choice.

This is not one of those choices where someone says “sometimes the wrong choice puts you in the right place.” The only place this choice puts you is in a bad place … maybe less bad than somewhere else … but bad.

 

 

 

In game theory it is typically known as the no-win situation – an unavoidable decision with unavoidable an outcome which encompasses the losses of whatever value resides within the choice.

 

 

And, yet, the character decided to not choose.

 

At some point it becomes an exercise in futility.

 

 

 

If there was ever an example of ‘no choice actually being a choice’ this may be it.

 

 

But in this case it may actually be ‘the win’ choice.

 

 

Huh?

 

 

It seems like when faced with a lesser of two evils far too often we look at harm associated with the choice itself … and not the harm to ourselves.character dignity glory worth

 

 

 

This may sound crazy … but … survival is not always the desired outcome.

 

 

Huh?

 

 

Well … if survival means sacrificing all that you find valuable & important to your self … well … you better be damn sure it is worth the evil you are choosing.

 

 

And that is what the character in the book is saying.

 

 

“I choose neither of the evils because if I did … I live … but I may not be able to live with myself.”

 

 

Well.

 

 

I probably think about this ‘live with myself’ with regard to my decisions more than most people … and possibly more than is productive or healthy for me.

 

 

But.

 

 

I have seen success … and I have seen failure.

 

I have had rewards … and suffered penalties.

 

I have risen toward the top … and scrambled to get free of the bottom.

 

 

Through it all the only one, the only thing consistent, is me.

 

 

Just saying ‘I survived’ <and this can be in business, life or situational> is not enough for me. Possibly because I have seen the wounds inflicted upon character, esteem and integrity with basic ‘I survived’ choices.

 

 

Personally, I don’t want to survive if I have to sacrifice … well … me <the character portion … not the physical portion>.

 

 

This personal decision comes with a cost. But it is a cost I am willing to bear because it only costs me material rewards & society-based successes. It doesn’t cost me any of what resides within me.

 

 

 

Look.lovers quarrel choice

 

 

Choosing between the lesser of two evils is almost always actually choosing between three evils … the two choices and what evil it inflicts upon yourself.

 

 

I cannot tell anyone what to do when faced with a ‘no win’ scenario. That is for each person to face on their own and decide what is best for them.

 
But I can tell everyone you should think about it.

 

 

It can be a ‘no win’ choice just make sure you, yourself, also doesn’t win.

 

 

Because losing yourself in addition to having to choose between a lesser of two evils means … well … evil has won.

contextual contextual contextual

May 10th, 2015

——

we are mosaics

“Most men are individuals no longer so far as their business, its activities, or its moralities are concerned.

They are not units but fractions.”

=

Woodrow Wilson

——

 

 

Well.

 

 

In business and in Life …  people like consistency.

 

We actually like rules.

 

 

And we really <really> like some guidelines for how to do things, what to say and when things should be done.

 

Oh.

 

 

And … we love, yes, LOVE to look to the past for answers or the ‘formula for what to do or how to act.”

 

 

Ah.

 

 

That sneaky ‘learn from the past or be doomed to repeat mistakes’ advice.

 

 

True … but not true.

 

 

What makes it not true?true not true

 

 

 

Context.

 

 

 

Future truths, or solutions, only partially reside in the past. The other part lives in the present … and what is swirling around that moment.

 

 

Which brings me back to the opening quote.

 

 

We like to see things as units and yet they are simply fractions.

 

 

Some people stand on fractions and act like they are whole solid foundations.

 

Be wary of those people.

 

 

 

They are not really seeking truth … just answers … okay … well … maybe just an answer.

 

 

——-

 

 

“Fear not the path of Truth for the lack of People walking on it.”

 

 

=

 

Robert F. Kennedy

——-

 

 

 

I admit … the trouble we constantly run into is … well … context.

 

We are always contextual … mosaics of the moment … and this is troubling for those seeking simple answers.

 

And, frankly, most of us would love a simple answer now & then <if not all the time>.

 

But some people thrive on simplicity and black & white.

 

 

Please do not read into what I just wrote that these people live a colorless life.

 

Everyone has color and everyone certainly has pieces of light within and without.

 

 

==

 

“We are mosaics.

 

 

Pieces of light, love, history, stars … glued together with magic and music and words. “

 

Anita Krizzan

 

==

 

 

 

All I am suggesting is that magic, or the contextual aspects, in Life creates a certain intangible aspect to everyday situations. And while this intangible thing is a nagging aspect in common everyday life & business … at critical points, let’s call them ‘semi-critical moments or junctures’, the contextual intangible aspect is nerve wracking.

 

Nerve wracking because we want a simple solution in semi-critical moments.

 

And context demands some complexity. It demands looking at fractions and not the whole.

 

 

This means we constantly struggle with the fact <the Truth as it were> we, as individuals, businesses, countries and societies, are simply fractions and not the unit.

 

 

I would also suggest decisions, business & in life, are simply fractions and not a self-sustaining unit.

 

 

And, yet, we try and make most of our decisions as if everything is aligned and unmoving … kind of like taking a snapshot and taking action.

 

 

Uh oh.

 

 

wide open spaces far to goThis means, contextually, whatever action or decision you take or make will be relevant to what was … not what is.

 

———-

 

 

“Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around.

 

That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.”

 

 

Milton Friedman

 

————-

 

 

In closing out this thought I would like to point out that this thought, while it seems like a stronger Life thought, is maybe even more importantly a business thought.

 

 

Far far too often in business we ignore the fact each decision is contextual seeking comfort in “let’s look to the past for the answer.”

 

 

I admit I find it slightly odd because in today’s business world every single mistake or hiccup/interruption in the status quo is labeled a crisis … and crises tend to produce real change.

 

 

On the other hand … maybe that is my explanation to the oddity.

 

 

Because they really aren’t true crisis we tend to depend on the ideas lying around.

 

 

And the most typical ideas lying around are “what can we learn from the past.”

 

 

If you ever wonder why great decision makers should be paid some inordinate amount of money … reread this. Great decision makers see the past, the present & the future and envision the mosaic better than most of us <certainly I>.

 

 

They understand the situation is simply a fraction of what is.

 

 

see what we look for

 

This should also help explain why so many people make incredibly bad decisions.

 

 

 

Every moment, every situation, every success and every failure … is contextual.

 

 

In fact … contextual exists in almost every situation in such a wide vivid mosaic perspective that … well … ‘learning from the past’ almost seems like an inordinate waste of time.

strength is never solid

September 1st, 2014

struggle and virtue

—–

“I am a strong person. But every once in a while I would like someone to hold my hand and tell me things are going to be OK. “

=

Unknown

——–

 

Well.

 

 

We so often talk about ‘strong people’ as being these pillars of granite … solid and seamless in moments of need or challenge … unflinching in the face of whatever it is they face.

 

 

But more often strength is not a solid piece of granite.

 

 

It may be a shield or a shell … or it may be that the person has the ability to put stop handa strong hand forward … and stop what needs to be stopped.

 

But in all these cases … strength is neither a complete solid wall nor does it not have some weakness … or maybe some fragile aspects in which to balance everything.

 

———

“It is one thing to be brave in front of others, perhaps for fear of being branded a coward and becoming diminished in their eyes, but another entirely to be brave when there is nobody to witness your courage.

The latter is an elemental bravery, a strength of spirit and character.”

=

John Connolly

———-

 

 

 

 

Oddly … strength is … well … a paradox <or in some sense a contradiction>.

 

 

 

 

It is about setting unequivocal limits … and yet having no limits.

 

 

 

 

It’s about adapting yet unwavering.

 

 

 

So.

 

 

Let me discuss this limit thing for a moment.

 

 

 

Emotionally strong people do not really need constant action and excitement … or even a crisis … to define themselves and their lives.

 

 

This suggests they put some limits on things.

 

 

This is not to suggest that they don’t enjoy excitement in their lives … but they aren’t ‘doing’ junkies.

 

 

 

Strength is usually defined by some self awareness.

 

 

Awareness with regard to some character type things <which are embodied in actions and behavior decisions>.

 

 

 

Let’s call these our ‘limits’:

 

 

 

–           just don’t do some things

ignorance tiger sheep

Well.

 

 

 

Suffice it to say we all do things that we don’t enjoy doing … but we should never do things that we don’t want to do.

 

 

There is a nuance in that … but an important nuance.

 

 

 

The strong self aware understand that nuance … and almost always manage to figure out what they need to do … not at the expense of ‘what they don’t want to do.’

 

 

This translates into that when it comes to character defining decisions there is always a line.

 

 

The line isn’t about what you enjoy doing or what you like or dislike … it is about … well … character.

 

 

 

And being able to live with yourself and look in the mirror.

 

 

 

–        saying “no”

 

No complete sentence

 

Suffice it to say … if you can’t say “no,” you will get taken advantage of.
I will not suggest you won’t be taken seriously but I will suggest that if you cannot say no you will forever live on the slippery slope of credibility and trust.

 

 

 

 

Saying “no” reminds people that they cannot control you … only you control you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

–             it’s really about plateaus … not limits

 

 

 

 

Face it.

 

 

 

There are only plateaus, and they are not meant for you to stay there, but only resting places for someplace beyond.

 

plans patterns

 

Please note I did not say ‘someplace higher.’

 

 

 

“Up” is overrated.

 

 

 

It is more important to move anywhere <mentally, physically, career, Life> than it is to move ‘upwards.’

 

 

 

I’ve always believed in pushing yourself further and taking on new challenges.

 

 

 

 

I believe this because I tend to believe there is no such thing as that infamous trite cliché ‘being the best you can be.’

 

 

 

“Best” is a relevant thing … at least to the moment. Maybe it is better said that ‘best’ is contextual.

 

 

 

There is always room for growth and change and new possibilities of being the best you can be.

 

 

 

 

Anyway.

 

 

 

 

Strength is tricky.

 

 

 

It is partially inbred as an attitude … but it is also forged thru the furnace of Life.

 

 

—–

“Sometimes you don’t realise your own strength until you come face to face with your greatest weakness”

=

we are mosaics

Susan Gale

——-

And maybe that is why strength is never solid.

 

 

 

Because strength is often about weakness.

 

 

The chinks in your armor define your strength … uhm … not your theoretically solid seamless armor.

 

 

 

Which leads me to my final thoughts.

 

 

 

Strength is nothing more than doing what it takes … with character.

 

 

 

 

In order to be strong we will inevitably embrace some different variations of our self. This naturally happens as we encounter knew things and new ‘weaknesses’ we never knew we had.
Within those variations are some aspects of solidness … but other aspects are adaptable and resilient in their ability to morph to the situation.

 

 

 

And, in the end, I imagine strength in a person can be defined one way:

limitations perfection

 

———

“I endure.”

=

E. Lockhart

 

————

 

 

no mas (or how you win matters)

November 28th, 2012

“No mas, no mas …no more box.” – Roberto Duran 1980

 

 

 

So.

 

 

 

This is about winning … and deciding how important … ‘how you win’ is to you … versus ‘the win’ itself.

 

 

 

 

Well.

 

 

The quote.

 

Nothing much was happening in the eighth round of the Roberto Duran – Sugar Ray Leonard boxing match on November 25th in 1980 when Roberto Duran turned away from Sugar Ray Leonard and waved a glove at the referee in a signal he wanted to stop.

 

 

 

Interestingly … Leonard, only aware that the current champ wasn’t defending himself, hit Duran … and Duran did not respond.

 

 

“No mas, no mas,” Roberto told the referee.

 

 

“No more box.”

 

 

And he walked to his corner.

 

 

 

Now.

 

 

As a boxer Roberto Duran was known as the most dedicated, intense warrior in the ring. His nickname was Hands of Stone <Manos de Piedra>. He was the lightweight champ and had lost only one decision in 72 bouts <or something close to that>.

 

 

 

It was said that he never thought he could ever lose.

 

 

And, yet, he walked away … and in the win/loss column he lost.

 

 

But.

 

 

 

Here is the deal.

 

 

No mas” didn’t mean ‘I quit.’ It just meant ‘fuck this.’

 

 

 

It was purely a comment made in disgust.

 

 

Yup.

 

 

 

Duran wasn’t hurt … he was just disgusted.

 

 

Once Duran realized Leonard wouldn’t play ‘quien es mas macho’ he just walked away.

 

 

Winning … if he couldn’t fight the way he thought a fight should be fought … well … it just wasn’t a fight to him.

 

 

 

Was he right or wrong?

Shit. I do not know.

 

In his head … right.

 

 

In may other people’s heads? Wrong decision … it made him a quitter in their eyes.

 

 

But this is all about winning the way you want to win.

 

 

His way of fighting? …

—–

“Getting hit motivates me. It makes me punish the guy more. A fighter takes a punch, hits back with three punches.”

Roberto Duran

—–

 

Duran was the champ. He probably was smart enough to figure out a way to win the way Sugar Ray was fighting the fight <which wasn’t fighting it was avoiding> but that wasn’t the win he wanted.

 

He wanted to know who the best fighter was.

 

He wanted to be hit and see if he could take it.

 

He wanted to see if Sugar Ray could take his best hits.

 

 

 

When Sugar Ray decided he wasn’t going to allow that to happen Duran just said … not only do I not want to play this game but I don’t want to win this way … “no mas.”

 

 

 

Now.

 

 

To us <because most of us are not world class boxers> we will all at some point have to make this same type of decision … in sports, in Life, in relationships, in business. We all have to decide how important how we win is to us.

 

 

Look.

 

How you win, or play the game, is a very personal decision.

 

 

 

It really ends up being your choice with regard to your attitude <which ultimately influences your own behavior … even when that behavior is within a group or business organization>.

 

 

Oh.

 

And when it isn’t your choice how to play <i.e., someone else is dictating how you play> … and you really do not want to play that way … well … there is trouble <in River City my friends>.

 

 

Ok.

 

 

Please note I am going to make some generalizations soon to make some points and I fully understand there are degrees within each generalization.

 

 

Regardless.

 

 

Let’s say there are three types of wins and winners:

 

 

–          A ‘whatever it takes to win’ win

–          An intellectual win

–          An ability win

 

 

And while this is probably relevant to Life, in general, as well as sports <obviously> and personal … I am going to discuss this idea in a business environment.

 

 

 

Why?

 

 

 

 

Because I tend to believe this is one of the most difficult attitude & behavior decisions someone has to make in business.

 

 

Organizations ask, and demand, many things of you … and you have to reconcile all of it with your own attitude … and inevitably your actions <behavior>.

 

As a junior person this is very difficult to manage but my suggestion is that you get things set <with the best knowledge you have> in your own head … and then look to the leaders behavior. Watch the senior people and how they treat going after a win, the process in win decision making and then how they define & evaluate the win.

 

Make sure it matches up with what you have decided attitudinally.

 

If you do not, you run the risk of being constantly put in positions where you do not like what you are not only being asked to do … but what you are doing.

 

 

Senior business people have no excuses.

 

No if, ands or buts.

character stood up best

 

How they win defines them as a business person.

 

 

All I can say to them is … well … accept it <whichever type you are>. I know what I like in my head but that doesn’t make it the only right.

 

 

The only point I have to really make to leaders is that once you accept how you go after a win … then begin recruiting people who think as you do. If you do not then you will be forcing your attitudes & behavior upon others who probably do not want to, let alone like to, do it that way. And I can also promise you when it comes to evaluation time , as a leader, you will be continuously disappointed in their performance.

 

 

 

Anyway.

 

 

The three wins <my perspective> and how they are different aspects of ‘adept, adapt & adopt.”

 

A whatever it takes to win.

 

 

I actually refer to this as an empty win.

 

 

 

This is typically the type of win done by someone who says afterwards … “all that matters is the result” … or … “it’s not the journey it is the destination” … or “winning is everything.”

 

 

 

It is empty because the person runs a very large risk that how you actually got to the win is ignored and everything gets measured <in their personal character measurement> on a scorecard.

 

 

 

I admit.

 

I don’t like these types of wins.

 

 

 

 

But there is a personality type out there, and some very successful people, who take pride in how many checks are in the win column and could care less how they got to them.

To these people … all wins are quality wins because … well … it is a win.

 

 

 

Typically really competitive people fall into this group.

 

 

 

I call this “adept” winning. You compete because you are adept at reading what it takes to win … and doing it.

 

 

 

This person isn’t adapting because they understand winning is about lining up the necessary variables … each time. So they aren’t adapting but rather simply building each time to win.

 

 

 

And they aren’t adopting anything because while some things can be reused it is mostly one time usage winning.

 

 

 

These types of winners are very difficult to replicate through training.

And these types of winners have to be very careful in how far they will go to win.

 

They have bigger boundaries of accepted behavior because of the adept attitude … and because of that they can stray to the boundary margins of character.

 

 

 

 

But it is the win numbers in this group that is most satisfying.

 

Out of all three groups I have listed this one probably will chalk up the most quantity of wins in the end.

 

Next.

 

 

There is an intellectual win.smart kid point

 

 

You truly outsmart someone <or outsmart the problem>.

 

 

You out think or tear apart the challenge in such an innovative way that your competition can just look afterwards and say … “wow … that was smart.”

 

 

This is as good as a physical <ability> win … but unfortunately many people do not evaluate it that way.

In fact many of the intellectual winners kind of wish they had some other tangible contribution because thinking is … well … intangible.

 

 

This type of winning is ‘adapt & adopt” winning.

 

 

You compete by adapting your thinking to the situation and adopting new ideas/thinking <its a contextual win>.

 

 

 

These types of winners I tend to believe are just born this way. Yes. Some aspects can be trained but these types of winners just seem to have an innate ability to see things … assess what matters versus what doesn’t matter … and assimilate the “what matters” information into either unique, or refreshingly different, ideas and thoughts.

 

 

This is a very satisfying win because you out thought someone.

 

 

Next.

 

 

An ability win.

 

 

 

This is ‘mano y mano.’

You bring your best and I will bring my best and let the best win.

 

 

Here is the deal.

 

Sometimes your best isn’t the better. And you lose.

Oh.

But what a loss.

 

 

 

This one is near & dear to my heart.

 

 

 

And I admit that I got really really lucky early in my career in that I was encouraged to go for this kind of ‘no frills’ winning and use losses to make my best better … so that each consecutive ‘game’ I was able to stay true to what I was good at … and it got better and better. Maybe it was partially I was stubborn on my definition of best or maybe I figured out what I was good at <even if it wasn’t the best of the best … just good while still being my personal best> early on and figured that if this was what I was good at … well … then I would only rise as high as my ‘best’ would take me.

 

 

 

 

This type of continuous winning is “adopt & adapt” winning. You compete … learn … adopt some new skills <skill level or new skill> and then adapt within your existing skill set to the next challenge. This means your muscle group gets stronger and stronger <albeit it is just one muscle group>.

 

 

 

This type of win is extremely satisfying. I also envision this group has the lowest actual total wins. They are the highest quality wins just not a shitload of them.

 

 

 

Well.

 

 

 

That is, of course, unless you are as good a fighter as Roberto Duran.

 

 

And that is the real differentiator in quality wins … how good you really are.

 

 

And I guess that is going to be my point having used one of the best boxers of all time.

 

 

He was one of the best.

 

 

 

“Manos de Piedra”, is true, Hands of Stone. Every punch, and I’m not exaggerating, every punch that he hit me with, from the body to the head, felt like bricks, stone, rocks”.

– Sugar Ray Leonard

 

 

And not all of us are of that level of ‘best.’ In fact … not many people are.

 

 

So you have to figure what is most important to you in the win. The numbers?

 

 

The intellectual win? The ability win? And embrace that is what makes you … well … you … in the business world.

 

 

 

And know when to say “no mas.”

 

 

Know when to say ‘fuck this.’

 

 

 

 

Look.

 

 

Do I give Sugar Ray credit for figuring out how to win by avoiding the Hands of Stone?

 

 

 

Sure.

 

 

Would I have done it that way?

 

 

 

 

Nope <and I probably would have lost>.

 

 

Do I give Duran credit for just saying ‘no mas’ after 8 frustrating rounds?

 

 

 

Yup.

 

 

 

He was the champ. He cared more about how he won the championship than the championship itself.

 

 

 

Now that, my friends, is a lesson that many of us should take to heart in business.

 

 

 

Figure out what you want … and how you want to do it … and find your place in the business world doing it.

 

big fred (and saying no)

July 25th, 2010

CSC 3

 

Ok.

 

 

Back to the security company job I had in college.

 

This one is about Big Fred.

 

 

That is what everyone called him (I wonder if his last name was really Fred. hmmmmmmmmmmmm).

Big Fred was a mountain of a man.

 

I am sure there was a lot of muscle hidden in there somewhere but he was Jabba the Hut before there was Jabba. I am not sure he ever had to actually take any action because he was so intimidating.

 

 

Anyway.

 

Big Fred’s job was always the same job at every event.

He managed the artist/players entry area backstage. He was the last line of defense to the performers. He said who got in, what got in and in general provided oversight for their well being. So when I was a backstage supervisor I was kind of de facto under Big Fred’s supervision.

 

 

I would say that everyone I talked to believed Big Fred had the sweetest job in the company.

 

 

And … well … he may have. But. As with most things … everything in life is a trade off and the grass always looks a helluva lot greener if you aren’t the one mowing it.

 

 

Regardless.

 

After a couple of months watching Big Fred in action I was pretty confident if I paid attention I could learn a lot and very confident you couldn’t pay me enough to do his job.

 

<by the way, while I didn’t follow closely I do believe he was recognized for ability beyond being big because I believe a number of bands hired him to manage their backstage tour>.

 

Big Fred had a big job that was easy to miss how big it was … because of all the glitz and glamor surrounding everything taking place.

 

Big Fred had a huge pain in the ass job with massive benefits.

 

Big Fred was constantly squeezed.

 

By those within <the performers> and those without <those who wanted to be near the performers>.

 

He had to balance all that and make it all seem like it was under control. I am pretty sure I never once saw Big Fred freak out <even as the oiled up dancers came racing out of the Van Halen dressing room>.

 

Let’s see.

 

 

So.

I have Neil Young at the back entrance wanting to be let in. I don’t have his name on the list <and you learn VERY quickly it doesn’t matter who it is if you don’t have them on the okayed list they don’t come in>.

 

So, me, capable of making many decisions, frankly ain’t gonna make this call.

 

 

“Hold on a second, will you Mr. Young.”

 

Back to Big Fred.

 

Explain situation.

 

 

Now Big Fred was a master of this crap.

He knew if he should ask someone, put someone on the list or just say no <all while he has one eye on caterers wandering in, random special guests and keeping riff raff out of the way>.

 

Here is where he shared an even bigger lesson to me (the kid).

 

Big Fred:“Nope. He can’t come in.” (‘Oh shit’ bubble over my head) … but he then says “Hold on. Let me come with you and we can tell him together.”

 

 

Look.

 

This may sound stupid, but to a 19 year old kid telling Neil Young “nope” was a big thing.

 

And Big Fred kinda had a great sense for how to defuse things as well as delegate and empower.

 

 

I know I say in my bio I have always been a collector of moments and Big Fred gave me some of the most thoughtful formative management moments.

 

I will tell you the biggest lesson he taught me.

 

 

To say “no.”

 

oh no 2

And to be fearless with regard to whom you said ‘no’ to.

 

You quickly realized in this position that it wasn’t a “power thing” but rather a clear decisions made that met the needs of the situation.

 

So.

19.

Maybe 20.

Into my 21 year.

 

 

I became comfortable saying ‘no’ to Sting, Stevie Nicks, Nick Nolte, a slew of people I don’t have time to list during Eagles shows because they never let anyone backstage, a governor, a senator and others who you would know but may not know because it was the decision of someone else.

 

 

This was not abusing power.

 

 

This was simply becoming comfortable saying “in this situation at this time I am going to have to say no to what you want.” And, frankly, I moved up in the organization because I wasn’t star struck and just dealt with it.

 

 

And, frankly, I probably moved up in my career because afterward I was rarely star struck and made decisions at had to be made.

 

And Big Fred gave me my first lesson on this.

 

I am unclear whether others saw the same thing but I hope Big Fred is still doing well.

 

He taught me some basics I still utilize today.

 

Do not be afraid to say no, to anyone <regardless of their title or stature or fame> if you are in the right.

 

That is the lesson for the day.

Enlightened Conflict