Enlightened Conflict

how do ads like Pepsi get approved?

April 10th, 2017

 

pepsi kendall jenner commercial

==========

 

“You aren’t advertising to a standing army; you are advertising to a moving parade.”

 

—-

David Ogilvy

 

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

 

“You cannot use someone else’s fire; you can only use your own.

And in order to do that, you must first be willing to believe you have it.”

 

 

==

 

Audre Lorde

 

————

 

“There is always an easy solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.”

 

==

 

H. L. Mencken

 

———–

 

frankenstein pepsiOk.

 

This is about the Pepsi fake revolution, fake protest , fake celebrity, misguided brand image advertisement  <which I will inevitably call “the Frankenstein social issue” ad>.

 

While I had been shaking my head over the ad when I saw it I wasn’t going to write anything until there was a really nice article in The Atlantic, “how does an ad like this get approved?”   which does a fairly nice job of walking everyone through some of the backroom pretzel logic steps an advertisement like this goes through to actually end up on air.

 

But.

After reading the article I felt I needed to paint on a coat of some advertising development wacky reality because it neglected to share some of the more obscure things which most likely happened.

 

To be clear.

I could write a 10,000 word diatribe on how this Pepsi ad was a misguided use of a celebrity, a misguided  hijacking of a social event, a misguided use of casting and a misguided tone overall for trying to tie image advertising for a brand with a social revolution <tied to a political issue> … but I will not. Suffice it to say that the ad itself is certainly a mashup of bad ideas … a Frankenstein … but making an ad pepsi mash up commercialseven Frankensteins need to be built <they are not just born> and … believe it or not … there will be some specific things that will happen along the development path which can appear as ‘good business protocol’ but in reality is simply bad laboratory technique.

 

Now.

 

Before I skewer Pepsi and their in-house creative group let me suggest a shitload more of the larger companies are going to be faced with this possibility <of developing a misguided socially issue driven ad> sooner rather than later.

 

I have always believed a company, if it has a strong mission centered on some societal moral compass construct, should be sharing it in some form or fashion <it doesn’t have to be in-your-face> in its external marketing & advertising.

 

I now believe, in the age of Trumpism, it is almost a societal imperative for companies & brands to take a stand publicly. And I say that not suggesting they i will be defined stand up speak outstop selling shit but rather they sell shit through a societal view lens. I do believe more than ever companies who stand for something should publicly stand up for that something.

 

And I don’t really care whether it is a liberal or conservative lens … a business should just elegantly articulate their view in the construct of what you sell and who you are. Society is almost demanding the debate & discussion and no one is better to have it publicly, in a civil discourse versus the coarseness found within Trumpology, than businesses.

 

Saying that … I give Pepsi points for at least making the attempt. I take points away because … well … a brand & company as large as Pepsi with access to so much creative & strategic talent should have made a better attempt.

 

But you know what?

 

Even in their bad they did some good … we talked about standing up for shit and how you should, or should not, stand up for shit.

Rather than beat the shit out of Pepsi for this attempt I will hold my fire until we see the next attempt and see if they learned something.

I would suggest everyone try and do that.

 

Now.

 

As for how and why ads like this get approved.

 

The article suggested this:

 

“How do these ads get approved?

By brand managers who are not doing their cultural homework—relying upon surface-level understandings of the cultural phenomenon they are featuring in their marketing communications and not understanding the deep well of emotions, identity politics, and ideologies that their ads will trigger.”

 

Jill Avery, a senior lecturer at Harvard Business School

 

Oh.

 

If it were only this black & white, I could solve this.

It is much more absurdly complicated in order to actually approve and produce something this so brutally off target.

 

Suffice it to say that the issue will encompass a spectrum of things … there will be a spectrum of misguided ‘execution strategy’ combined with some thoughts people stand up i will be definedabsurd “brand imperatives” all wrapped up in a nice snug outfit made up of stubborn edgy creative people, old white executives out of touch with their target audience, brand managers adverse to risk but an unhealthy desire to be cooler than they are and company visionaries who view cultural trends through what is cool rather than what is truly trendworthy.

 

This is a Frankenstein social issue “brand” ad created by a brand built on … well … no real social issues … but rather it is representative of a vapid brand which has convinced itself <at least some time in the past> it was more like a ‘fashion brand.’

 

Of course I should take a minute and discuss the research which “must have been done” to create this ad.

 

First.

 

If there really was any research done we need to remind ourselves this is a ‘fashion brand’ <or someone has convinced them they should think of themselves as  fashion brand … which is stupid> created on some vapid imagey type attributes therefore their research is mostly based on some vapid feel-good “cool” cultural benchmarks.

Sure.

I could have set them up with some research company who could have measured what needed to be measured but <a> they don’t want that kind of truth and <b> someone smarter than I was yelling “how could we measure new information … we need to see results which can be compared to what we have so we can also see some ‘post’ numbers.”

 

Well. That yeller was yelling some well-intended truth but misguided in this case.

 

good and bad research pepsiIn larger companies it is always <always> gobs of “pre” information which you pour over and then setting up a ‘post analysis’ against the pre-stuff. This assumes the “pre” is meaningful and on target and that the ‘post’ is really what matters.

 

Uh oh.

 

Assume makes an ass out of you and me.

 

Status quo is a sonuvabitch.

 

That is mostly research they would have used to inform the development.

 

To be clear.

I don’t think they did any ‘pre’ research. I think they “saw” a cultural movement within their supposed target audience and decided “I want to connect with them <so someone go do an ad to do that>.”

 

If any of this past ‘pre’ research was used it was simply to highlight the aspects that supported the idea they wanted to do <I feel comfortable saying that because I have done just that … cherry picking the “pre” information to highlight the reason why an idea is something worth pursuing and even highlighting some of the first components you may want to start building your Frankenstein with … uhm … any advertising person with half a brain has done this>.

 

Second.

 

Ok.

 

Let’s assume they did some research on the ad itself <which is different than research informing the development of the ad>.

 

Someone probably set up some high falutin’ research methodology tracking trying and researching knowledgewatcher response second by second and checked scores against industry norms <or their own imagey crappy stuff they have done in the past> and the final power point was 30 pages long <with maybe 12 pages of backup graphs> and the printed binder they handed out to a select few to bludgeon themselves with at a later date was probably 80 pages <with nice colored tabs>.

 

Here is the net of all that stuff.

 

The celebrity drove up ‘breakthrough’, recall and ‘brand interest’ <albeit they hid the numbers that said the celebrity did not build credibility or authenticity>.

 

And, yeah, I would also bet someone probably dug up a nice score on “unique from competition.”

 

And I also bet they figured out a way to get a score worth showing <you never show bad numbers unless you can convince everyone that the bad number is actually a good number … yeah … we do that> to suggest the overall message was topical and that their audience related to the importance of “standing up and speaking out.”

 

And I would also bet that they didn’t have a particularly good, nor bad, likeability score … just something that didn’t deter them from this path.

 

And, lastly, I would bet they rummaged through any research they had to seal the deal on what I believe is possibly the worst part of the ad <having the celebrity leave being a celebrity and join the ‘common folk’>. They found a number that suggested “this shows that this issue is SO important that everyone, celebrities and fantastic looking poor folk included, shed their exterior Life and gather together to stand up an speak out.”

I added this last thought and call it out because … well … this is about the only thing that could have been said in the final presentation to the old white men, out of touch with their everyday customer, to gain final approval.

 

And let me say about the test scores I just highlighted … this is where testing fails people. It’s just numbers. And it’s just not real world.

 

The numbers don’t match the eye/sniff test.

 

And in a real world <on tv> environment the ad is annoying to anyone who actually wanted to participate in the movement or did participate … and the ad is generally unmemorable <and doesn’t even come close to capturing any aspect of ‘soul’ of Pepsi … assuming they have one>.

In testing it may seem fun and hip and upbeat but on tv it is annoying and bland and soulless.

 

By the way … I tossed in the word “soul” in that discussion.

 

I bring it up to make a point to any and all vapid brands out there thinking about actually taking on a social issue & message.

 

“Cool” doesn’t hack it if you want to be a fabric of society <which is different than a fabric of culture>. Weaving your way into the fabric of society demands you share a little bit of your soul … your heart … so that people can connect.

 

Yeah.

I know.

That’s not vapid. That’s some solid unforgiving truth telling about yourself.

 

Sorry.

That’s the price <and Pepsi was not willing to pay it>.

 

advertising talk to people hughNext.

 

How does this get approved?

 

Well. Let me spend a minute on image advertising and creative people.

 

Vapid fashion brands far too often forget they are selling shit to people. Most times they will just say “that’s the job of promotions” or “that is point of sale efforts and we are supposed to drive people to the point of sale” or “our job is to be cool so that people want us so badly they will drive through … well … neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.” Uhm. On rare occasions, maybe a new i-phone, you can inspire that kind of ‘urgent desire to buy’ but in most cases it is just a 6-pack of Pepsi.

 

Creative people are stubborn people in their everyday work life. The non-hacks … the good talented smart creative people, mostly in good ways, stubbornly & aggressively hold on to creative edges <not just to be edgy but rather to insure there is some edge to what is done>. This gets dialed up in image advertising campaigns because for some reason as soon as a creative person hears “image” <or “brand”> they immediately think “vapid” <I don’t have to sell anything, communicate anything specific and the objective is to create an overall sense that what I am saying is good and the brand is some good shit>.

 

Triple the intensity with regard to everything I just said for creative hacks <or almost all non-agency advertising people> and add in they confuse ‘creative edges’ with ‘edgy’.

 

If you are attempting to do an image advertisement you are only partially challenged <fucked> with good creative people and absolutely screwed <fucked> with bad creative people.

 

Lastly.

 

How does something like this get approved?

The “someone.”

 

Ok.

 

With an ad like this, which I assume was polarizing in its final stages, there is always “someone.”

 

someone pepsi speak out convinceSomeone who stands up and says ‘here is why.” Someone to stand up and speak out that bullshit line I just shared with you … “this ad shows that this issue is SO important that everyone, celebrities and fantastic looking poor folk included, shed their exterior Life and gather together to stand up an speak out.”

There is always ‘someone’ in that frickin’ final approval room, usually someone who shouldn’t have that kind of power, who the old white advertising-clueless men will look to in their moment of doubt on whether it is the right thing to do.

In the advertising business you cultivate this ‘someone’ so that they can bring you home <even if you have a bad misguided idea>. Suffice it to say on an ad like this there will be someone at Pepsi right now who is squirming and most likely getting ready to point a finger at some research person for either <a> not giving the right piece of information or <b> not asking the right kind of question.

 

Anyway.

 

I feel sorry for companies who truly do want to start doing image advertising and stay within their brand character and navigate the internal politics and … well … it is nothing they have done before.

 

There are rarely, very rarely, neat & plausible solutions to what a business faces in the here & now on this topic <and if someone tells you there is … they are lying>.

If you are shown a ‘formula for success’ and it looks neat and it seem plausible … it is most likely wrong.

 

That isn’t to say someone like me, or someone with smarts, experience and more talented than I, couldn’t guide a company down a viable path to success … just that there is no formula.

 

What I am now going to say is going to sound painfully inefficient.

 

A business has to create its own way of doing things. It can certainly contain some aspects of things that have been done in the past but those are simply ingredients from which you will build your own formula.

And, to be clear, if you start bolting together different formulas to create a successful business advertising idea … you are simply creating a Frankenstein which the village people are going to end up killing with simple pitchforks & torches <see Pepsi as an example>.

 

Your business formula for success will have to be yours.

 

In the end I would say this.

 

My guess is that Pepsi tried using a formula for something that is most likely really different than things they have tried in the past.

 

And while the difference between brutal and brilliant is a relatively thin line even for the people who do this for a living … you can teeter even more when attempting to enter into the fabric of a societal issue.

 

This ad was horrible.pepsi commercial stupid

Absolutely horrible.

 

But please don’t forget … Pepsi tried. They made the attempt.

 

In a Trumpenstein world in which being silent will only let the monster tear the village apart they spoke out. They stood up.

Misguided? Sure.

The villagers tore them apart.

But maybe, just maybe, the villagers should pick them up, dust them off, and say go try again … because the Trumpenstein is coming … and we can use any voice we can.

 

 

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

 

“You cannot paint the Mona Lisa by assigning one dab each to a thousand painters.”

William Buckley

 

where Obama administration never got enough credit (a business perspective)

March 29th, 2017

 

balance strategy results business

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

 

“It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.”

 

Harry Potter Chamber of Secrets

 

======

 

“Little by little, a little becomes a lot.”

 

Tanzanian proverb

 

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

 

Ok.

 

product of my decisions circumstancesBusiness is always about choices.

Mostly hard and difficult choices.

 

Of course … a business leader can make some easy choices and avoid the more difficult ones.

Simplistically, the novice business leaders see a prize and set about attempting to attain that prize.

Let’s call that ‘tunnel vision objectives’.

 

Frankly, if that represented the best of the best in terms of leadership … running a business would be fairly easy and almost anyone could run & manage a business.

 

But. That’s not reality. That’s not really the way it works. Rarely are things as simple as they appear and even more rarely is something a simple cause & affect, do this and get that, without any unintended consequences.

 

I thought about this as I watch the Trump administration take some fairly extreme steps to <as Ted Cruz seems to have patented> “take the boot off the necks of businesses.”

The Trump administration is bringing a sledgehammer to business regulations.

 

I have actually have little doubt that the measures the moral-less Trumplestiltskins will actually make the American economy grow more easily sledge-hammer-maze-business-get-shit-doneand possibly even create some higher growth than we have been enjoying.

 

But, that is easy.

 

That is something a beginner would do because it is obvious and, if your only goal was to show “wins & results” that is what you would do.

 

The more difficult thing is to create a menu of objectives, balance them all out as important, and set about a plan of action to attain them in which you remained positive on almost all fronts and accept the fact you will sacrifice some ‘higher highs’ on some items on the menu for positives on all fronts.

This business management choice is more difficult because anyone with half a brain could pull out one thing on the menu and point out how it could be done better and be doing better.

 

Shit.

I did that crap when I was in my 20’s. It is a cheap way of scoring points and showing you can drive some specific results.

 

And it is on this greater point where I believe the Obama administration doesn’t get enough business credit.

I will not argue they didn’t overreach on some regulations and some initiatives … because I believe they did. And, yet, even with the overreach, which obviously constricted business & economic growth, they still left the reins loose enough for the business & economy to grow at a quasi-healthy rate.

 

Could someone suggest it was an “anemic healthy” rate? Sure. That is if you viewed it by ignoring any restrictions and any other objectives and any other priorities they outlined. And if you did that I would argue you were either lazy or self-serving.

 

The Obama administration demanded business growth and yet demanded a gartner long termlonger term action plan to accommodate the environment, climate, immoral business practices and, in general, a variety of activities which girded the economy and the country for the long term.

 

The economy did grow. Unemployment did decrease. Wages did slowly increase.

And at exactly the same time regulations were put in place to steer desired long term behavior.

 

Basically … from a business perspective … the Obama administration managed to figure out how to meet short and long term objectives at exactly the same time.

Were they perfect? Of course not.

Could they have managed the balance differently? Sure.

Did they balance it well enough? Yeah. the results prove it out.

 

In business we always need to strike a balance between doing what is best for our business and doing what customers want and doing what our customers need … and all within short term needs and long term demands.

 

And, yes, customers are more empowered today than ever before but as a business leader you view what the customer wants through a lens of “what is best for the business itself.”

 

The Obama administration appeared to balance what the customer wanted, and needed, with what the country <the business> needed & wanted.

 

Not to get into business management weeds but this shows an ability to assess the greater opportunity cost for all things considered in attaining all objectives. What this does, when you do it well, is to insure you view the ‘easy’ choice you are sure to assess how fast the ‘costs’ accrue against all objectives <not just on the choice itself>.

A good business person always assesses the overall impact on your business with every choice.

 

Ultimately, it is a balancing act to insure everything you do should produce value for your business and for customers.  This is not easy and it doesn’t beget a shitload of easy decisions. But it does make for balanced strategies and balanced tactical executions.

 

I do not see any of this with the Trump administration.

A good business person wouldn’t bring a sledgehammer to existing rules, regulations and initiatives but rather a scalpel – and surgically assess and slice out specific items which would increase the overall flow of the lifeblood of the economy <without killing the body>.

 

But, apparently there are no good business people in this new administration <despite what Trump says about himself>.

 

Look.

 

You can argue with the objectives the Obama administration prioritized and spock live longyou can argue over any specific priority <or depriotization> but given the objectives & priorities they selected … they attained what almost any business leader would kill for – a win on almost everything.

 

In a world in which we almost demand singular focus the administration said “no” <philosophically I agree with that mentality> and developed multiple objectives and managed them all relatively equally.

 

All I really know is that the Obama administration most likely did not get enough credit business & economy-wise.

 

executive coaching and solving obliviousness

February 24th, 2017

 

either madness or brilliance

==========

“… life coaching is quickly becoming one of the leading tools that successful people use to live extraordinary lives.”

 

some Life coach

 

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

 

“WTF.”

 

Bruce

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

 

Well.

 

Back in 2013 I asked the question ‘what did we do before life coaching’ … used life coachthe quotes above … and basically stated I thought Life coaching was a bullshit profession.

 

And while I received a great comment, which highlighted some good points on what coaching should & should not be, basically scolding me with regard to what I said … any ‘coaching’ isn’t really about telling someone what to do but rather providing an outside perspective attempting to show insights to help someone get to where they want to go.

To me it seems to me that all Life, and Executive, coaching does is to assist in steps to insure … well … accountability … personal & managerial. And it seems to me that all this coaching does is make an attempt to better control one’s destiny <which I imagine is anyone’s real objective not just some executive>.

 

I know I could never be a coach mostly because I don’t think I am that positive nor can I use the words these coaches seem to love “world wants to give you everything you desire” … “your uniqueness is a pleasant gift you can give to the world” ….  “takes courage to follow the path you believe in”“positive energy always attracts positive outcomes”.

I know I could never be a coach because I do believe there are limits to someone’s ability … in other words … everyone has a ceiling. That doesn’t mean you cannot improve sideways or build some depth to improve or fill in some cracks in your ability … just that we do have a reality ‘stop sign’ with regard to our abilities.

 

Regardless.

 

I am just not that motivational.

It just seems like bullshit to me and all I want to do is to “talk about getting shit done the way you want to get it done using a good moral compass to guide it all.”

 

That would be my coaching selling point.

Kinda “blah.”

Kinda no bullshit.

 

And, you know what?

I talk with dozens of CEO’s and business owners on a random basis and they don’t need coaching … they just need some new perspectives to get them out of where they are mentally and step out for a fresh view on a topic, issue or problem. And they mostly don’t need any motivational bullshit, or any bullshit for that matter, or buzzword crap.

 

I still believe Life coaching <and I do toss ‘executive coaching’ in that segment … although most I have crossed paths with are less ‘faux psychologists’ and more ‘pragmatic measuring milestones’ advisors> as mostly bullshit.

 

But.

And this is a big but.

 

If I could ever point to a case in which I believe executive coaching, or Life coaching, may actually be useful … it would be with Donald J. Trump. I am fairly sure I have never seen a business leader with worse organizational leadership instincts and as poor inspirational, vision and communications leader skills.

 

===========

“The crowning fortune of a man is to be born to some pursuit which finds him employment and happiness, whether it be to make baskets, or broadswords, or canals, or statues, or songs.”

 

Ralph Waldo Emerson

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

obvious oblivious confuse blind lead

I am fairly sure we would have less than zero chance of convincing good ole Donald J to accept some coaching because I think he is oblivious to the fact he is not loved by all, he is not respected by all, he is not followed by all <because he attained the title> or that he is not perceived as a great business person by all.

 

He seems oblivious to the fact he actually has to ‘win over’ the skeptics <which every newly promoted leader knows you have to do> and that he actually has to ‘win over’ basic approval <which he is sorely lagging in>.

 

  • Donald J is not only oblivious I would suggest if he read what I just wrote he wouldn’t understand one aspect of it.

 

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

 

“There was no answer, except the general answer life gives to all the most complex and insoluble questions.

That answer is: one must live for the needs of the day, in other words, become oblivious.”

 

Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina

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

 

While people can debate his appropriate approval ratings <most agree it is dismal> a new CBS study broke down the range of President Trump’s potential support by showing people separated, by themselves, into four groups:

 

  • The Believers. the strongest of Trump backers those backing him but waiting for him to deliver. Believers (22%)] are the president’s strongest backers, who like what he’s doing and how he’s doing it; defend him against his critics, and see him as defending the country against threats.

CBS oblivious Trump skeptics view organization

 

  • The Conditionals. Those quai-supporting him for now but waiting to see some results. Conditionals (22%)] will remove their support if he doesn’t ‘fix the economy’ for them. They’re also concerned about safety, but aren’t as all-in with everything Mr. Trump does, especially in terms of style. A quarter don’t like the tweets.

 

 

  • The Curious. The curious (21%) oppose Mr. Trump at the moment but ‘would reconsider’ supporting him if he does a good job. They’re looking for more than just results, though – they want Mr. Trump to reach out to them, and they want respect.

 

 

  • The Resistors. those who seem immovably, firmly opposed: The Resistors (35%). They want the Democrats to oppose Mr. Trump on many more things, rather than try to work with him; demographically, they are much more likely to be either African-American or Hispanic and young.

 

 

I would assume this is the specific type of information a leader, seeking to lead, would love to have. And if he/she <Donald J> chose to be oblivious to it … I would assume this is the specific type of information an Executive coach would love to have.

 

To ignore this type of information would not only be leadership malpractice but poor organizational awareness.

 

I wrote back in January that being aware that ‘converting Skepticals is always the key to organizationally unity‘.  No … it is not breeding excitement among the fewer believers nor is it attempting to placate the non-believers … getting an organization going is almost always about ‘the skeptical.’

 

Skepticals reside in the Promised Land for a leader. One foot in hopeful promise and one foot in practical promise.

I say that because 43% of America <Conditionals & Curious> are the Skepticals to Trump.

 

comfort talk face in the eye

……………… coaching Donald J. …………………

If I were coaching Donald J I would be focusing on that 43% day in and day out because … well … while I could argue it is the potential pathway to alignment … they actually reflect ‘effectiveness.’

 

If I were coaching Donald J I would tell him to be very concerned with the “resistors’ because … well … 35% is a ‘yuge’ number … as in massive. It is the kind of number that would keep any sane CEO awake at night.

 

If I were coaching Donald J I would also point out that if he would solve the Skeptical group they will inevitably drag a good % of the Resistors out of steadfast resistant into a ‘reluctant cooperator’ status <which is okay>.

 

  • Donald J is not only oblivious I would suggest if he read what I just wrote he wouldn’t understand one aspect of it.

 

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

“I wasn’t sure what was worse: being oblivious or living within reality.”

 

Shannon A. Thompson

 

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

 

I admit.

It seems crazy to me to have to be writing this shit.

 

Like I said earlier … I speak with dozens of CEO types and know even more personally.  Not one … zero … would need this type of advice.

And why I can say that is simple.

 

Of the 200 people promoted to their 1st manager position … 200 of them will make rookie mistakes. They will not have ‘coaches’ but they will have mentors & bosses and they will do some shit by trial & error and figure it out.

 

Of the 200 people promoted to their senior level manager position … 200 of them will make some mistake … but only about 20 of them will make a mistake that reflects some obliviousness to what reality is.

 

Of the 200 people promoted to their CEO/business owner position … 198 of them will make some mistakes … but the mistakes they make will not be organizational type crap but rather “what to do first & how to do things” type missteps … and maybe 2 of them will remain oblivious to reality.

 

I am sure Executive Coaches can help out on the “what to do first & how to do things” type missteps and that is why that profession exists … but what the hell do you do with the 2?

<which I am tempted to suggest Donald J fits into>

 

Anyway.

 

Lastly.

 

I would coach Donald J. on the “yuge” difference between confidence & optimism.

Trump oblivious curious organizationI could view the numbers I showed earlier as well as some other attitudinal polls and get a nice sense that a larger group of my organization had a strong thread of optimism for a variety of meaningful things.

If I were the CEO, I would like that.

 

I could also view the numbers I showed earlier as well as some other attitudinal polls and get an uncomfortable sense that a larger group of my organization wasn’t exactly confident — with regard to me & my behavior as well as attaining the desired results.

 

To be honest. The situation could be worse. If I were that CEO I wouldn’t be euphoric but on the other hand I would recognize that, if managed wisely, I could close the gap between optimism & confidence and make it a ‘yuge’ win for the organization.

 

  • Donald J is not only oblivious I would suggest if he read what I just wrote he wouldn’t understand one aspect of it.

 

Sigh.oblivious do not want to hear

 

I honestly do not know what you do with regard to coaching a CEO who is either oblivious to the reality of his or her organization … or worse … believes it is irrelevant.

 

But maybe that is why I am not an Executive Coach. I wouldn’t know what to do to coach him.

 

What I do know is that because of Trump … I am actually rethinking my views on the value of Life coaching and Executive coaching.

 

 

Trump voters deserve some dignity too

February 9th, 2017

pew survey america

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

 

Walt Whitman wouldn’t have forgotten them …

He knew that the fate of each one of us is inextricably linked to the fate of all.

 

The notion that the fate of each one of is tied to the fate of all is the essence of democracy.

 

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

 

“Dignity is as essential to human life as water, food, and oxygen. The stubborn retention of it, even in the face of extreme physical hardship, can hold a man’s soul in his body long past the point at which the body should have surrendered it.”

 

Laura Hillenbrand

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

 

“Every life deserves a certain amount of dignity, no matter how poor or damaged the shell that carries it.”

 

Rick Bragg

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

 

So.

 

american handsI have been unequivocal on this issue from day one … people who vote, and voted, for Trump are no more, and no less, than anyone who didn’t. They are not ‘more stupid’, ‘more ignorant’ or more anything other than more for Trump than many of the other people.

 

Yes.

Trump is an unequivocal asshat.

 

Yes.

Some, and I mean a small sliver, of those who support Trump are asshats <let’s call them Deplorables>.

 

Yes.

As we watch Trump supporters twist themselves into pretzels trying to defend immature lack of leadership and some misguided behavior <with scraps of good ideas being wasted within> some of us want to smirk and say “I told you so” … or say worse.

 

That said.

 

Yes.

Most people who took the time to vote, who took the time to look around and think about their world, the world around them and maybe the world in a bigger sense <be that just America or global> deserve some respect. And they absolutely deserve human dignity … which anyone, regardless of who you voted for, should protect and recognize as one of the things that unites people in a democracy <albeit it oddly divides us at exactly the same time>.

 

Yes.

 

While I think Donald Trump is a moron … I cringe every time I hear someone describe the people showing support for him as ‘uneducated’ or focus the dignity prouddescription on “no college education.”

 

This implies they are stupid.

 

And it also implies everyone with a college education is not stupid.

Trump voters, as with 99% of any country’s population, are not stupid <and, I would note, people with a college education may actually own the market of stupidity>.

 

His supporters are real people with real worries and real lives … and are not stupid.

 

I wrote this in ‘calling of the trumpets’ back in January 2016:

 

In the end he is selling a false ‘us versus them’ narrative and he is selling empty promises by offering past glory which he will somehow craft as a phoenix from the fire.

It all sounds good.

Well.

It sounds safe … and ‘safe’ always sounds good when you view the future and see … well … fog and not a clear horizon.

 

But the future never … let me repeat … never resides in the past.

 

And people, including Trump followers, know that in their heart of hearts but when no one but a bombastic blowhard is offering what appears to be a viable alternative … some people, some smart people, with anger of feeling marginalized and concern for their way of life will follow even an empty promise.

 

But, once again, that doesn’t make them stupid. In fact … as I read what I have written I am surprised more people haven’t flocked to this asshole. Because asshole or not … if someone thinks he can deliver on ‘winning so much you will get tired of it’ and ‘being great again’ being an asshole can be overlooked.

 

We need to recognize Trump followers not as the ‘unwashed uneducated’ but rather as people, listen to them, debate and disagree with respect. And maybe, just maybe, we can convince them that the best version of them resides in the future which most likely will not look an awful lot like the past but be just as good if not better.

 

Trump is a moron but the people who are currently following Trump are anything but morons. They are thirsty and he is offering water. I may personally not want his version of water but I think it is up to me, and us, to show why the water I would offer tastes better than the water he offers.

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

 

Yes.

President Trump deserves the respect of the position … but he also deserves the criticism associated with how he assumes the responsibility of the position.

To date he has only earned the moniker of ‘moron.’

 

 

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

“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people.

On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

 

—–

H.L. Mencken

 

==========

 

But that does not make people who invited their hopes in him as morons. If we were to make such a link then … well … that would be a crowded room because how many of us have invested in some misguided hope at some point in our lives? <answer: 99% of us>

 

Now.

 

Google ‘why Trump won” and you will get about “160 million results in .6 seconds.”

The theories run from insightfully intellectually complex to scary simplistic drivel.

 

I would suggest that everyone take a second and go back to the “One Recession, Two Americas” study PewResearch offered us back in 2010. have have nots 2 americas

 

You would end up seeing that about 55% of America “lost ground”, encountering real difficulties & consequences, and the other 45% of the country “held their own” — the recession was largely free of major difficulties.

 

That 55% not only ‘lost ground’ but they feel marginalized economically, personally <as a citizen>, American-ly <they feel America is being marginalized> and politically.

And because they ‘lost ground’ they became increasingly concerned about their country, their economic state, their families, their jobs and their future as well as the future of their kids

 

For that 55% their world view looks better, and very different, than the world that currently exists.

 

Where you live also is associated with how well you fared during hard times: Easterners are significantly more likely than residents of the South, West or Midwest to have better weathered the economic storm.

I should also note that a college diploma is a strong shield against hard times: nearly six-in-ten college graduates count themselves among the 45% who experienced fewer difficulties during the recession, compared with 38% of those whose educational attainment was a high school diploma or less.

 

Suffice it to say that for about 55% of the country the recession either stopped your progress or ground it to a stuttering progress. And that was in 2010.

 

Which means for a good 6 years those who “lost ground” have had to look around and watch celebrated wins <of which most did not participate in>, watch America social progress happen <of which often didn’t look like the kind of meaningful progress they cared about> and watch a government continue to make promises that only seemed to come to Life for … well … not the Lost Grounds.

And all the while they kept hearing people say “the lost grounders” lives are improving <and they wondered ‘who the hell are those people talking’ and ‘who the hell are the people improving’>.

 

I don’t need to make any high falutin’ intellectually complex argument with regard to why someone voted for Trump … I can go back to this one piece of research and say “here is where the 40some million people who voted for Trump resides.” They are the “lost ground” 55% of America all the way back in 2010.

 

And you know what?

They deserve dignity in Life and, it would seem to me, that ‘losing ground’ in any form or fashion … real or perceived … dents a person’s dignity <among other things> and that is just not that difficult for even my pea-like brain to understand.

 

In the end.

 

I want to be clear that simply because we may learn to understand and empathize with the issues other people, including Trump voters, may have that we shouldn’t maintain a constant vigil for HOW the issues are being addressed … to protect our rights, freedoms and … well soul.

And I mention the soul because debates between two people grounded in ‘here is what I think’ very often grinds its way down into a very practical and pragmatic argument … one in which important things like ‘soul’ get left out.

 

where no hope incumbent on us inventIt is incumbent upon us to maintain steadfast vigil over who and what we want to be “when we grow up” as we grind away over issues in the here & now.

 

It is incumbent upon us to take on divisiveness of ideas, minds and desires with respect.

 

But.

 

It is also incumbent upon us to remain vigilant with regard to the Trump administration and how it addresses ‘de-normalizing’ some of our American ideals that have remained steadfast for centuries.

 

It is incumbent upon us to recognize that the worst of Trump, & the administration, simply plays to the worst that is within some people … and it is incumbent upon us to state, simply & clearly & unequivocally, there is something better than the worst.

 

It is incumbent upon us, all of us, to recognize that Trump is an instrument of awareness.

Good bad, beautiful and ugly … his blunt childish simplistic rhetoric bares some of the truths we all have to deal with. But I would suggest it is incumbent upon all of us to not allow him to be judge & jury, nor should we be judge & jury for each other <Trump voters & non-Trump voters> … but instead we should encourage every individual, whether they voted for Trump or not, to look in the mirror for the judge & jury.

 

Look.

 

I don’t get it.

I struggle to find a real valid reason that anyone took a risk on a choice like Trump for America <present & future America> … regardless of how deep in a shithole you may think we are.

 

But.

As noted in my opening quote … the fate of each one of us is inextricably linked to the fate of all. I am they and they are me … and that is just the way it is. patriotism Trump voter freedom responsibility

 

I will listen and debate and treat them with the dignity they deserve … they are no more, or less, a patriot than I.

 

I cannot judge the Trump voter and I do believe they deserve the dignity of their opinion, their thoughts … and their issues that in some way made them believe  Trump offered some hope in resolving.

 

What I do know is that I can judge Trump, and I will, and I will do so vociferously to Trump voters as well as to the world at large … mostly because I know I don’t want someone like me to be president … I want someone better than me.

 

=======

 

meladoodle:

 

why do trump supporters say they like trump cause he ‘says whats on his mind’… like no shit man, i have people in my tumblr inbox who say whats on their mind all the time. i had a guy send me a message that said “vape on my dick”. thats whats on their mind and they said it. i’m not like “oh man… dude… lead us…”

 

=====

 

Enlightened Conflict