Enlightened Conflict

1855 and 2012 (or … an Open Letter to My Generation)

September 19th, 2012

Dear My Generation <us older folk>,

Ok. I feel like we need to have a talk. Not just a talk but maybe a ‘talk talk.’ You know what I mean. Now. I am going to avoid the “am I better off today” topic but suggest in an open letter to my generation that we may not be in an economic crisis but rather a cultural crossroads. And I may suggest that we need to quit complaining and/or blaming and step up to the plate. Anyway. It seems like we get so caught up in ‘how bad – we feel/perceive – it is today versus yesterday” we overlook this period in time may simply be an example of painful well-needed progress <oh, isn’t all progress painful?>.

“Progress? The history of all times cries loudly against it.” – Immanuel Kant

Note #1: Versions of this thought were recorded in Egyptian hieroglyphics.

Note #2: The idea that we are bad, and getting worse, feels remarkably comfortable across cultures.

Note #3: My generation seems to be crying loudly at this time.

This thought is also true for each generation’s belief, or nonbelief, with regard to our views on human nature and its prospects. Most cultures have a myth of a golden age from which we are in decline, but in the absence of evidence on whether the state of nature was violent or utopian or truly golden or gold plated.

Note #4 <or rather a question>: so … is much of our current angst about the world simply a reflection of the fact attitudinally we change, progress, is painful … as well as difficult to see while within the moment?

Ok.

What made me think about all of this?

I had some beers the other night with a bunch of guys in my generation <old white guys … I am also an old white guy>. Prior to beer I was fairly optimistic with regard to the world and when I left I had a sense of several of the following:

- Armageddon is upon us <at least the old white guys>

- The world is crumbling around us <and it is mostly Obama’s fault>

- America is a pansy in foreign policy <we should be killing, crushing, smothering someone … yet to be identified but it should have already been done>

- The Islam slur video on youtube is simply an expression of freedom of speech

- Cats & dogs are living together <but cannot be married>

- We are doing nothing but complaining, bickering and blaming someone else

Personally I find it difficult to discuss progress when most people I hear think we are headed to hell <in a hand basket> and want to complain someone should do something about it or just blame someone for it.

Regardless. I am gonna try. Because I need to tell some things that are on my mind to my generation <us older folk>.

The truth is that all times are changing times. Times of moral and mental transformation whether we like it, or want it, or not. When what is viewed as simplicity by looking in a rear view mirror looks like chaos when viewing through the front windshield. What everyone knows is true becomes only wht some people used to think.

In the end? It is unsettling. For all our delight in innovations and impermanence we also long for the unalterable. We cherish old stories for their changelessness.

Oh. And media is doing its part to feed this frenzy. As retired General Wesley Clark said on a Sunday interview … “isolated multiple incidents involving the few being highlighted by the media creates perceptions of overall chaos.”

But the media is a different post for another day.

Now, I am not suggesting we shouldn’t look around with concern … albeit I would rather call it a ‘crossroads’ rather than the more popular ‘C’” word … a crisis. Because, yes, things are changing, but, yes, they are always changing.

That said … I am reminded by Rousseau: “let us begin by setting aside all the facts for they do not affect the questions.”

The question is why we are so certain the world is going into a shithole <or into chaos … or … in a crisis … pick your poison>.

Attitudinally I suggest this is partially what Gregg Easterbrook calls “the progress paradox.”

It suggests that frustrations rise with our expectations, and make us feel worse while we are actually getting better. Political interests, and media, deliberately exaggerate bad things. But it doesn’t explain the joy we seem to gain from seeing our glasses as half empty.

It is difficult to explain but I am not writing to do so … only to make the point that while we gnash our teeth about what is going on today … we have this in common with any culture and any generation you would like to query <you may need a medium and a crystal ball to ask some>. Every age produces prognosticators who declare it is worse than what came before. They might turn out to be true but within the moment it is always difficult to say whether one is declining or progressing.

It is a see saw of challenges and new innovations.

Robert Bork suggested <in an otherwise unreadable book of despair>: “every new generation constitutes a wave of savages who must be civilized.”

Despite being poetic he has a point. We learn from history and we ignore history.

Each generation wants to create a unique identity … which means you begrudgingly assume things from past generations /history. All that said the true thought is there to be found … for moral clarity for each generation we need to conserve the bits of decency left. For it is within a sense of decency we can see the progress within the seeming chaos.

Part of the difficulty in doing so in times like these is that we tend to feel better when we assume the worst.

Huh? Yeah, But It would be too easy to suggest optimists may spend their lives being disappointed while pessimists spend theirs being pleasantly surprised <although I do believe there is an element of this>. Plus. If you buy this then it suggests my generation is simply a generation of pessimists … and I refuse to believe that.

Optimists or pessimists, good or evil … frustrated or just simply believe “these are the worst of times” I will take a minute to let my generation read two items from the mid 1800’s. I included these thoughts to show some words that I believe resonate today. In fact, take the dates off and they could appear in NY Times next week:

“The dream that this young land, fresh from the hands of its Creator, unpolluted by the stains of time, should be the home of freedom and the race of men so manly that they would lift the earth by the whole breadth of its orbit nearer heaven … has passed away from the most of us , as nothing but a dream. We yield ourselves, instead, to calculation, money making, and moral indifference.” – 1855 magazine writer

“it is an affair of instincts, we did not know we had them: we valued ourselves as cool calculators, we were very fine with our learning and culture, with our science that was o no country and our religion of peace … and now a sentiment mightier than logic, wide as light, strong as gravity, reaches into the college, the bank, the farmhouse, and the church. It is the day of the populace; they are wiser than their teachers. The interlocutions from quiet looking citizens are of an energy of which I had no knowledge. How long men can keep a secret! i will never speak lightly of a crowd. We are wafted into a revolution which, though at first sight a calamity of the human race, finds all men in good heart, in courage, in a generosity of mutual and patriotic support. . We have been homeless, some of us, for some years past … but now we have a country again. This affronting of the common sense of mankind, this defiance and cursing of friends as well as foes, has hurled us, willing or unwilling, into opposition.” Ralph Waldo Emerson 1861

The late 1850’s into the 60’s was a time when the men and women, an extraordinary cast of characters in leadership & influencer roles, find themselves at a crossroad of new ideas–about medicine, commerce, economics, technology and justice. It was a time in the world where proponents of the old ways fiercely battled those with progressive minds.

A time when the intrigue, the ideas, the questioning and tension raise the level of global change.

Sound familiar?

So.

A couple of points here:

Every generation feels like it is worse than it was before.

Every generation struggles to link past analogies to the present <because we inevitably always err on the side of thinking today is significantly different than yesterday because of ‘progress’ innovations>.

All that said let me share some bigger overarching thoughts relevant to the overall angst I believe my generation is feeling … because our beer conversation reminded me of several things:

- In America, in particular, we constantly struggle in the hollow space that lies between a self-interest mission and an idealism mission. Kissinger suggested America will always be tugged in 2 directions with its foreign policy.

1. Domestic ideals: A strong sense of what is best for America (within its boundaries as primary focus and secondarily its actions outside its border).

2. Mission of ideals: A strong belief that part of our mission is to encourage and support our “freedom of choice” ideals (regardless whether there may not be a direct self-interest reward). How about calling this ‘supporting the progress of our ideals internationally.’

A thought for my generation. These two things are not always aligned and yet our actions may still be right. Regardless. We are a country with a strong set of ideals of which are not defined by dollars and cents. The dollars and cents have always been defined by the ideals. Yes. Let me say that again to my generation … the dollars and cents have always been defined by ideals.

There is good well earned money and then there is … well … money. Notice the people who stretched the rules to make their money defend it as “money is money.” They are wrong. It may all look the same but it doesn’t feel the same. I say that because it is up to my generation to remember the ideals … and the fact we are NOT the world’s peacekeeper … we are the world’s ideal protector. Inside and outside our borders we stand up for the little guy <or gal>, the medium sized guy and the big guy wherever and whoever they are to protect the ideals. And I mean wherever and whoever. We refuse to let ideals be bullied.

I am a business guy. So let me try this on for size. If it isn’t about ideals then aren’t we just a commodity? My generation needs to put their wallets and any bias toward some religion in the drawer for a minute or two and check their ideal pulse. Cause if there is no pulse we are doomed.

- We constantly struggle with the perception reality gap of minority actions and majority truths (and I have a longer post coming up on this). Despite how it sometimes feels we are not driven by the lunatic fringe which is in the minority. The minority…the radicals, the psychopaths, the greedy, the morally inept … is just that … a minority. As a subset of the minority/majority paradox we constantly struggle with discerning the lunatic fringe from the voice of progress in the fringe. And the lunatic fringe is often sneaky making it difficult to discern. Think about Ron Paul or even Jesse Ventura. Or almost any radio talk show host (right or left). One moment lucidly insightful next moment loony crackpots.

Regardless I would suggest to my generation that we get our heads out of our collective asses and realize we are smart enough to not be fooled by some sound bite or inflammatory statement as some foolhardy fact but rather think … yes … think. Progress takes work and thinking. Therefore, the foolish voices of rage within some silly minority faction nor the silent majority of the sheep are relevant to us because in thinking our way through it ultimately we will be able to offer a clear voice of reason.

- We constantly struggle with immediacy and patient thoughtfulness. We burst into a desire for immediacy and decisiveness (which we sometimes confuse with immediacy) to right a wrong or to get something done. And yet we are unforgiving in the retrospective “blame game.”. We seek to blame. We seek the quick response. We seek self-interest. We seek hope. We seek dignity and decisiveness in our actions. We want decisive quick leaders in a complex (sometimes confounding in our attempts to unravel it all to find truth).

I would suggest to my generation we are of an age where we have run the gauntlet of hasty foolish decisions and wasted opportunities dithering over this & that. In our wisdom we should realize that while our leaders may be ‘better’ than we in some form or fashion they are also derivatives of us … having run the same gauntlet. We are smart enough to know that some decisions should be made quickly and some should be made patiently and that typically the person who knows the most <which would not be us by the way … it is them> will make the best decision possible. Will it always be right? Of course not. But the blame game is wasted energy … for us & them.

- We constantly struggle, morally, between how to act on what is versus how we believe it ought to be (I have an upcoming post on this called redefining mortal clarity). I am not really sure it was that much better when we were young but I sense things were fairer … people played by the rules more often and people did the ‘right thing’ more often. Regardless of what I sense, or don’t sense, what I do know is the foundation of a moral clarity is “we” … not I. Because at the heart of moral clarity is some decision of self sacrifice, i.e., what I am I willing to sacrifice <a me thing/benefit> in this situation so that I honor the “we” <either in ideal or actual benefit>.

I could have suggested to my generation that the struggle is between I and we but instead I took it to a higher level and suggested we explore our collective moral navels <please remove lint> and decide what we want to be teaching our future generations.

- We constantly struggle with looking backwards and forward progress. We are at an age where it is sometimes simpler to look back than look forward. We assess all the progress that has been done in our lifetimes (and desire to maximize it in some ways) rather than dream of the unseen progress to come.

I suggest to my generation that no matter how fond you are of some memory or ‘how it was’ or ‘how we did it’ you cannot go back. Ok. You can … but you ain’t gonna get anyone else other than some old folk to join you. Progress is forward. We don’t have to throw out the baby with the bathwater <I just wanted to type that> but we need to stop slowing everyone down looking backwards. It’s done. Move on. Help progress or just get the hell out of the way.

Ok.

Interestingly all of what I typed <aspects of it> may be why every generation believes it is not as good as what was before. In reaction we seek the decisions made and not the process that led to it.

So, my generation, we need to take a step back and quit whining for someone to show up and magically clean our house <assuming you actually own one> for us.

We may prefer clean <and clarity> but the world is a messy place. It always has been.

My dear generation … regardless of how you feel on this topic <we are going to hell or every generation has felt like they were going to hell> we ultimately are forced to focus on progress and moving forward. It is inevitable. And all this blaming and dickering silly backwards gilded age gazing is irrelevant. In fact it is wasting not only energy but also what we actually have to offer to progress. We are the Prophet (Idealism) archetype <Straus/Howe archetype> generation of wisdom to future generations.

the caption is not mine but the future is in the picture

Yup. Future generations. Sorry, my generation … but, no matter how narcissistic we may be, our reward, and the inevitableness of progress, is not self-interest.

It is our Children.

Practically speaking children give us a stake in the future <and a desire to see it doesn’t end up in hell>. Whether we want to believe progress is possible … in the end … you cannot possibly raise, or educate, children if you believe it is not possible.

So, my generation, maybe it is time to grow up.

It is time to battle calculation, money making, and moral indifference.

It is time to remember that which we desire … be the home of freedom and the race of men so manly that they would lift the earth by the whole breadth of its orbit nearer heaven.

It is time to insure we do not regress but rather progress.

Please.

Sincerely,

One of the <older folk> Generation.

libre et independante

August 28th, 2012

“La fixité du milieu intérieur est la condition d’une vie libre et indépendante.” – Claude Bernard

translation: “The constancy of the internal environment is the condition for a free and independent life.”

I didn’t know who good ole Claude was until I found this quote … suffice it to say I love this quote <and thought>.

Claude as a scientist. And while he was talking here about science this says a shitload about life and individuality and the fact people, to be at their best, need to have some core consistency (passion, vision, character, whatever) in order to be free enough in the external life to be successful.

What a great thought.

I tend to believe almost everyone has some core consistency that encapsulates their ‘being’ <soul, character, personal brand … I cannot believe i just typed that last one … whatever is that little flame inside you that is always burning … sometimes faintly … sometimes like a flamethrower …>. I also tend to believe most of all those everyones do not actually think about themselves like Claude suggests.

Ok. Let me explain. There are some life/personal dynamics that occur which drive people into buckets when evaluating themselves <which inevitably drives them away from this inner consistency/outer freedom thought>.

First. Passion or personal mission or something along those lines is a tricky concept. What a person may be passionate about at 18 may be different than what it is at 28. In addition it may be similar at a later age but defined more clearly or differently. Identifying passion is challenging … it is hopeful vision and yet, at its best, is reflective. Time permits reflection and, I would argue, clarity. I say this first one because this suggests a constancy of internal environment is tricky. To be successful with this thought you kind of have to be slightly adaptive.

Which leads me to second point.

Most <many?> of the people who focus on ‘constancy of internal’ are anally stubborn with regard to their decision on what constitutes constancy. In other words … they are not particularly good at being adaptive <with regard to their inner constancy>. They find comfort in a more rigid definition of “what I am passionate about” to a point where it becomes a single lane highway. Translation on what I just typed? They sacrifice ‘free and independent life’ because they are so focused on their passion/vision. Hey. I am not suggesting that is a bad thing … it is just simply a reminder that they have traded off something they may not have realized they have sacrificed. and they may be quite content with such a decision. I would actually argue that most of these people do not even recognize they have made that exchange.

Which leads me to the third. The corollary to the second is the people who focus on ‘free and independent life.’ You could simply replace all the comments on ‘constancy’ in the last paragraph with ‘free and independent’ and it will net out to the same conclusion.These people are just as maddening as the constancy people. Maybe even more maddening. They confuse free & independent for unfocused and undirected ability. At least the constancy people are focusing their abilities <albeit sometimes in a misguided fashion>.

These people tend to waste more of their abilities than they ever realize. There will be occasional flashes of brilliance interspersed with incredible waste of energy <under the guise of ‘independence’>. Now. Once again. Some people are incredibly happy with the occasional flashes. I am simply making an observation using the quote.

Because in the end Claude is right. The leveraging of the freedom and independence from some inner constancy, some solid foundation, is most likely to create the most happiness in a person. This is not a simple formula … like a 50/50 split. The formula of importance will vary by person. All I am saying is that the happiest people have both an inner constancy and some form of ‘freedom & independence’ in their lives. And I am also saying it is a worthwhile effort to sit down on occasion with a beer <or swanky mineral water if that is what you like> and think about this.

Why? Well. I think most people are happier when they (a) fully understand what truly burns inside them … that passionate aspect that warms happiness and (b) then they can truly enjoy the free & independent aspect because it will … well … I am not sure this is the right word but … it will have more value more consistently.

In the end I am once again reminded by someone’s smart use of words in a quote that happiness is a very personal thing despite the fact many people want to shove the happiness responsibility onto someone or something else … like “I am happy when I am doing something for someone” or “happy when I know it is helping the environment” … and … well … that is probably a bunch of happy horseshit. It is nice to do unto others … but happiness is derived from some sort of ‘self.’

An inner constancy & how you utilize, or do not utilize, free & independence.

Claude was a smart guy.

Oh. And as with most things … this personal tidbit/point of view is similarly relevant in the business world. This will be a generalization but the organizations which are too slavish to ‘constantcy’ fail because of their lack of ability, or interest, to adapt to changing environment. And organizations, typically the entrepreneurial ones as examples, which are too fond of free & independence <independent and maverick thinking> fail because they lack a core to provide a sustaining aspect.

That’s it.

best of times

August 11th, 2012

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times,

it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness,

it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity,

it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness,

it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair,

we had everything before us, we had nothing before us ….”

- Charles Dickens (Tale of Two Cities)

This may be the most famous literary opening to a book of all time. Well. At least the first line.

I tend to believe everyone knows … it was the best of times … it was the worst of times.

But I also tend to believe most people don’t know the rest … and they should because the entire opening is incredible.

Especially … “we had everything before us … we had nothing before us …”

My belief?

The thought you can have everything and nothing at the same time is a Life truth.

Your experience of the moment depends on what you choose to focus on.

Dickens has done an amazingly simple job outlining the contradiction, and tension, life gives us.

And I think about how it sums up the contradictory nature of every year, and indeed every day, of our lives.

And how it suggests that good and evil, wisdom and ignorance, and light and darkness stand equally matched in their struggle.

And that while we truly have everything ahead of us at any point in life … life is simply an empty vessel to be filled with whatever that ‘everything’ may be.

It reminds you of the ‘perfect’ day (it was the best of times).

It reminds you of the imperfect day (it was the worst of times).

It reminds you of having dreams and the faith and trust that it will work out and how you envision the outcome with all your heart and soul (it was the epoch of belief).

It reminds you of how fragile dreams as how often they can crumble before your eyes <and how you wonder why it happens to you> (it was the epoch of incredulity).

It reminds you of hope … hope for something good … or better than what is (it was the spring of hope).

It reminds you that sometimes hope is simply that … hope … and not a guarantee of reality or what will be (it was the winter of despair).

It is a reminder that while we may want to always live life ‘in the moment’ and in the ‘now’ in an attempt to maximize what is … lives and experiences and moments are built on duality.

If we don’t experience the moments of sorrow or despair we can’t fully appreciate the moments of hope attained and joy.

I believe people don’t have to revel in the duality but possibly find solace, if not hope, within the duality.

And possibly find joy in the contradiction rather than despair at the unevenness.

Failed dreams can beget new dreams.

New realities can lead to needed life changes.

Even in times of feeling like you have everything you desire <or at least a lot> you can still experience lack of something.

Regardless.

I really love this Charles Dickens quote.

Many people have a view that a happy and fulfilling life should consist only of highs <or maybe better said … a significantly higher % of highs than lows>. , Or that a positive life should consist only of certainty <shelving fear and doubt in order to be successful>. Or should focus on success without failure.

This is flawed thinking in my mind.

Frankly it sets us up for disappointment.

Worse?

It probably sucks the life out of … well … life. It attempts to take the duality, or the importance thereof, out of Life.

No matter how you plan your day, year, or life, it will have times of … the best, the worst, wisdom, foolishness, belief, incredulity, light, darkness, hope, despair, everything and nothing.

If you accept that fact, well, it is awful hard to plan a life if that is the case.

So maybe instead of planning we should just live it … and enjoy the duality and the contradictions.

That said.

“In a word, I was too cowardly to do what I knew to be right, as I had been too cowardly to avoid doing what I knew to be wrong.” ― Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

So.

Maybe being a hero is not living a cowardly life and accepting what is right, and wrong, about Life … oh … and doing the right thing <when you know it is right> and not doing the wrong thing <when you know it is wrong>.

Simple thought … but a difficult thought.

Well. Maybe just a thought.

the eccentric

July 27th, 2012

Oh, no, this is not about electricity. This is about eccentricity. And … well … being eccentric.

And while I will have some fun highlighting some of the truly wackjob eccentrics of all time I will end up making a point about non conformity … and the fact that people exhibiting eccentric behavior are happier, less likely to succumb to vices <drinking & drugs> and live longer than ‘normal’ people <research not opinion>.

Anyway.

Here we go. The word ‘eccentric’ has a really broad spectrum … from wacky “makes me feel uncomfortable” to “quirky interesting.” Regardless of where you are on the spectrum we all have a point when a charming eccentric becomes a creepy weirdo <note: it’s usually around the time they start talking to their imaginary friend beside them while talking to you>.

Regardless.

I will admit … from my own little world … a surprisingly large group of the most delightful insightful people are a little quirky and eccentric.

And, no, those delightful ones are the unpretentious eccentric who I don’t think they mean to be so (unlike people who like to be weird just for weird sake) but rather their particular brilliance or their particular contribution/attitude to the world is tinged with some eccentricity.

It makes them charming without diminishing the oddly insightful perspective they seem to bring to bear.

I guess those people are just eccentric but have not attained “wackjob” status.

Anyway.

Before I get to the insightfully thoughtful part … let me discuss the wackjobs.

I almost have to begin with the Brits because for some reason they seem to have a full museum of the highest grade wackjobs we would call true eccentrics.

Here are some of the wackjob highlights:

- Francis Henry Egerton the 8th Earl of Bridgewater who organized banquets for dogs

- John Mytton an English squire who would ride a bear

- Lord Rokeby who wanted to be amphibious

- William John Cavendish Bentinck-Scott the 5th Duke of Portland, who liked to live underground, and preferred not to be seen … oh … and actually built an entire underground mansion, painted it pink, and filled it with brown wigs packed carefully in cardboard boxes <oh boy>.

Ah.

But I won’t let America off the hook.

Emperor Norton I. His “Reign” was unofficially from 1859-1880.

Yup.

In the 19th century, the United States was unofficially “ruled” by Emperor Norton I, a San Francisco native who declared himself “Emperor of the United States” and “Protector of Mexico.” Emperor Norton’s real name was Joshua Abraham Norton. Apparently he had some financial troubles which supposedly lead to him developing a number of eccentricities and delusions of grandeur, and in 1859 he officially declared himself the ruler of America.

Thankfully local newspapers originally published Norton’s claim as a joke.

Ok.

Here is where I begin easing into eccentricity and the occasional glimpses of brilliance.

For example.

Despite the seeming mental issues Norton often demonstrated remarkable foresight.

He proposed that a “League of Nations” be formed years before the U.S. government considered it.

He also decreed that a bridge be built linking Oakland and San Francisco, which also eventually became a reality.

Anyway.

Then there are the truly quirky semi-brilliant eccentrics. These are the eccentrics who get lost in their own little world in which they see shit we don’t see … and we benefit from it.

Some of the really wackjob people I am listing were also part genius.

I found a list of 4 brilliant examples who <I loved what someone else wrote so I used it> … seemingly over-revved the neurological engine, who watched as the gearbox and chassis of their brains flew off onto the roadside…and kept on accelerating.

Example 1 – Pythagoras The Genius:

This is the guy who came up with the Pythagorean theorem we all learned in school (“The square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the square of the other two sides”).

Apart from this pillar of trigonometry, Pythagoras was the first high-profile academic to insist that natural phenomena could be explained mathematically (paving the way for the study of Physics) and was even a major inspiration for Plato’s theories of democracy.

Basically that means we can thank him for maybe half of the good meaningful things ever invented.

Oh. But Pythagoras the nutjob:

Pythagoras founded his own religion. Pythagoras’ religion had two primary tenets: souls are reincarnated, and beans are evil. Not metaphorical beans, or metaphysical beans, but just plain, edible beans. Awesome.

Example 2 – Lord Byron The Genius:

Widely considered second only to Shakespeare in English poetry, Lord Byron published his first poetic work at 14 <the age when my most profound thought was that girls might possibly be more awesome than the new aerosmith record>. He was renowned for his wit and writing/thinking versatility. In fact, Byron’s Don Juan remains one of the few poems most guys can name when trying to seduce girls in a bar.

Oh. Byron the nutjob:

It began when Byron arrived at Cambridge, where he was ordered to send his dog back home as keeping one was against school rules. Desperate for a pet, Byron scoured college policies for an animal not expressly forbidden. He found no reference to bears.

The bear stayed with Byron in his dorm room. Being a responsible pet owner, Byron took it on regular leashed walks through the university, terrifying fellow students and lecturers. When asked by administration what purpose the bear served on campus, the poet tried in vain to get his beast a fellowship. And where most people mellow out after they leave school, Byron decided to take his crazy to a whole new level. We’ll let this quote from one of his friends tell the story:

“Lord B’s establishment consists, besides servants, of ten horses, eight enormous dogs, three monkeys, five cats, an eagle, a crow, and a falcon; and all of these, except the horses, walk about the house, which every now and then resounds with their unarbitrated quarrels, as if they were the masters of it.”

(later)

“…I find that my enumeration of the animals in this Circean Palace was defective, and that in a material point. I have just met on the grand staircase five peacocks, two guinea hens, and an Egyptian Crane” – Percy Shelley (poet and husband of Frankenstein author Mary Shelley).

Nuff said.

Example 3 – Tesla The Genius:

Nikola Tesla offered an astonishing number of contributions to science. Labeled by Robert Lomas as “the man who invented the 20th century”, Nikola Tesla played a major part in the discovery of:

-Radio

-A/C Electricity

-Computers

-Robotics

-Radar

-Ballistics

-Nuclear Physics

This guy was truly brilliant. And an innovative brilliant guy.

Oh. But. Tesla the nutjob:

Tesla suffered from Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. So, for instance, where Michelangelo’s personal hygiene was appallingly bad, Tesla’s was appallingly good–cripplingly so. Tesla was a severe germophobe and refused to touch anything bearing the slightest hint of dirt.

Oh. In addition.

Tesla also refused to touch anything round, which makes some quite obvious hurdles for an engineer. Apart from dodging germs and round objects, Tesla’s OCD manifested itself in threes. Before entering a building, he would walk three times around the block. When staying in hotels, he insisted on a room number divisible by three. At each meal, he would use 18 napkins: three stacks of six.

<whew>

Example 4 – Empedocles The Genius:

Empedocles may have been among the most renowned geniuses in history if not for the fact that his stunning contributions to science are offset by his even more stunning contributions to eccentric absurdity.

Some 450 years before year one <sometimes called ‘the B.C. years> Empedocles discovered:

-That light travels at a speed

-That Earth is a sphere

-Centrifugal force

-That air is a substance, not an absence of substance.

-An (admittedly very crude) theory of evolution

-The Italian school of medicine

The dude was clearly ahead of his time mentally. Brilliant thinker.

Oh. Empedocles the nutjob:

Empedocles believed he was a god.

Ok. Not in a guitar rock band sense or the guy who can achieve some insane level of Doom in mere minutes sense, but in the literal thunderbolts-from-the-sky and immortality sense. To prove his immortality to his understandably skeptical peers, Empedocles announced that he would jump into a volcano <Mt Etna if you care> and pop back out unscathed.

Note: at least he wasn’t nutty enough to actually do it.

Anyway.

Some genius. Some crazy. All eccentric.

Moving on <although it is fun to write about the wacky stuff>.

Let’s get to the quirkiness and the value some eccentricity offers us (and society).

While I often joke about the fact there have been studies on some relatively absurd topics … there has been astonishingly little research on eccentrics and eccentricity.

In fact.

I could find the only person to have looked into eccentricity … David Weeks, an Edinburgh psychiatrist and co-author of the 1995 book Eccentrics: A Study of Sanity and Strangeness.

What he discovered during a ten-year study of 1,000 peculiar people < including a Chippewa Indian who walked everywhere backwards and two Californians who hypnotized frogs … no … I did not make that up> might surprise you.

While I believe popular wisdom suggests more extreme eccentricity is not far from mental disorder. But, in fact, Weeks’s subjects suffered less from mental illnesses such as depression than the majority of the population. Results information:

Fewer than 30 had ever been drug or alcohol abusers.

He also found that eccentrics visit the doctor 20 times less often than most of us and, on average, live slightly longer.

The study conclusion?

People benefited from non-conformity.

Simply put, those who don’t repress their inner nature in the struggle to conform suffer less stress. Consequently, they are happier and their immune systems work more efficiently.

Overall, Weeks found that eccentrics tend to be optimistic people with a highly developed, mischievous sense of humor, childlike curiosity and a drive to make the world a better place.

Well.

Kind of maybe makes you start thinking about envying eccentric people rather than laughing about them, huh?

Anyway.

Beyond happiness I tend to believe most of us think of eccentrics as also being highly creative.

I already brought up Tesla (an innovative creative) and Oscar Wilde … but how about Prince, who has been known to conduct interviews with a bag on his head, or the delectable fruitcakeyness of Kate Bush.

But I don’t believe eccentricity doesn’t have shit to do with smartness or creativity.

Because while history is chock full of insane geniuses it is more about people who mentally put the pedal to the metal <albeit sometimes through the floor>.

I believe eccentrics are the people who tend to see problems <and life> from new and unexpected angles. Their slightly odd, off kilter, perspective allows them to conjure up innovative solutions.

They are the visionaries, even within smaller individual life moments, who make giant imaginative leaps.

Weeks, in his study write up, suggested maybe that like the occasional mutations that drive evolution, eccentrics may provide the unusual, untried ideas that allow human societies to progress.

Awesome thought for all those folk who are very often dismissed as cranks and crazies and nutjobs.

Oh.

The bad news is that only about one person in every 5-10,000 is a “classic, full-time eccentric” and most are marked out at an early age as ‘off.’

Ok.

That was fun to write about.

But. All that fun stuff said.

Here is what I worry about in today’s business world.

Most large companies have abolished any type of eccentricity <or individuality>.

HR policies, which tend to dictate behaviors, and job expectations/competencies are designed to promote the rise of the ‘accepted’ corporate employee.

Think about that.

One can be fairly sure that you won’t find too many Teslas surfacing in the next few years as they are weeded out early by the application of standardized policies designed to produce standardized human beings.

When I was younger it seemed like businesses had their share of quirky slightly nutjob people … and they added color to the office. They added a dimension to the work, and workplace, which sometimes made a tough day better and a tough assignment less challenging. Not always but at minimum it made the experience more interesting by far.

I worry because it is a terrible time to want to have fun in the office.

And it is always tough, in the office and outside the office, to be ‘different’.

Anyway.

The point.

Look. I am not suggesting more people be eccentric … but maybe possibly less people find conforming as important as they do. That’s it. If for no other reason than a research study suggests you may be happier.

intellectual advance

July 24th, 2012

“Intellectual advance consists of the displacement of one paradigm which has become increasingly incapable of explaining new or newly discovered facts, by a new paradigm that accounts for all those facts in a more satisfactory fashion.”

Ok. That is the first part of the quote. I love the simplicity and its ability to showcase how thinking advances.

But.The second part of the quote. The important part of the quote:

“To be accepted as a paradigm, a theory need not, and in fact never does, explain all the facts with which it can be confronted, it only must seem better than its competition.” – The structure of Scientific Revolutions: Thomas Kuhn

Paradigm is one of those words that implies bigness. All you have to do is to even suggest a paradigm shift and people … well … start shifting in their seats <I almost wrote ‘shitting in their seats’>.

People like it <the idea they could be involved in such a thing>.

And people hate it <the idea they could be associated in such a thing>.

All at exactly the same time.

What that typically means is that everyone gets excited initially by the bigness of the idea and as time goes on the idea gets chewed up by all the ants who are scrambling around hating it <fearing it>.

So.

Before you start killing the next idea that sounds like a really really good idea by slicing it up with a thousand small cuts under the guise of “but what abouts?” and fear of change <or the work t really takes to make it come yo life> remember this:

“When people think seriously, they think abstractly; they conjure up simplified pictures of reality called concepts, theories, models, paradigms.” – Samuel Huntington

Maybe Sam reminds me why I dislike the term ‘big idea.’ I don’t care if it is big, medium or small (or even venti or grande) … all I care is that it is a serious thought.

Not flippant but a well thought out abstract thought.

Simplistically? Serious.

And in that we would need to accept that it is abstract … that not all the facts are explained. Unfortunately, for some reason, the business world seems to struggle with that last thought.

We love the idea.

We kill it in detail.

Its unfortunate.

For paradigm shifts … which are important in terms of shifting behavior and attitudes … are concepts. Therefore when we kill them in detail we miss huge opportunity for shifts in attitudes & behaviors.

Nuff said.

That last sentence alone says it all.

trompe l’oiel

July 23rd, 2012

Trompe l’oiel <translation – Trick of the eye>.

The term is often used to describe a realistic looking painting.

And while I imagine it could also easily be used for magicians I fear it is used far too often in business.

Here is what I mean. Presenters and leaders use a trick of the eye to motivate, to inspire, to entertain, to engage.

Whew.

There is something wrong with that.

I absolutely understand that part of communication is engagement … or creating some bond with whomever you are communicating with to better gain the interest in the audience.

And I am certainly not opposed to the spectacular turn of phrase which captures the imagination of people. Nothing beats that feeling you get when you know people quote something said because that means you have been able to string together a short list of words that get people talking and thinking.

But that is not trompe l’oiel.

That is crafting a message.

But tricks <of any kind … not just of the eye>?

Yikes.

I used to work with someone who always talked about saying whatever you had to say <or do> … whatever <and, yes, I mean pretty much whatever> just so people paid attention. The actual discussion went something along the lines of “it’s just putting the cheese out <as in a mousetrap>.” His point?

Because if they didn’t pay attention than it was all meaningless. So do whatever it takes.

Ok. I could never convince him he was missing the point. Communications shouldn’t be, and really isn’t, about tricks or trickery.

Or even worse … bringing people closer to a ‘mousetrap.’

And while the ‘trick of the eye’ may create a magical moment in art … in business it is no more than bad sorcery. People doing it convince themselves they have ‘engaged’ the audience.

And at its worst ‘trick of the eye’ is simply trapping people with an intent to deceive or influence in some way.

Me?

I say ‘so what’ to tricks.

Because, to me, in business if you have to use tricks then you aren’t earning your money. You are either lazy or … well … just suck. And no trick, of the eye or not, will ever convince anyone you are good.

do your best

July 19th, 2012

(alternative title: making use of what is not)

So.

This one was trickier to write and share thoughts on than I thought it would be.

Why?

Well. Mainly because I wanted to write something hopeful … but I didn’t want to compromise my beliefs on responsibility <and responsibility of actions>.

And the balancing act was trickier than I thought.

Ok. That said.

I imagine most of us probably feel like we are ‘doing’ somewhere between okay and good in most areas of life. We are, in our minds, doing a decent job day to day. Some days better than others but overall decent.

But doing your best?

Whew. I don’t think so.

Maybe at moments … but all the time in life?

Well. Ok. The key point, or issue, comes down to ‘definition of best.’

Because unless maybe ‘best’ is simply another way of saying ‘doing enough’ (or “doing what I can with what I have”) most of us are really not factually doing our best.

See. This is where it got tricky for me.

Does suggesting “doing your best” become just another way of condoning mediocrity?

Is ‘decent job’ the same as ‘doing your best’?

Is it instead simply used to make someone work harder for goals?

Or maybe it only reminds you that you can’t be perfect and to take it easier on yourself.

Anyway.

I began writing this because … well … we <or at least I> seem to hear “just do your best” all the frickin’ time.

Just do your best at work.

Just do your best as parents and your kids should turn out okay.

Just do your best in school.

Just do your best on this project.

‘Do your best’ … bla bla bla.

Me?

Say what? I get confused.
Simplistically … one would think that “do your best” should be … well … our best.

No ifs, and or buts. Bottom line … the absolute best you can do.

Unfortunately it is not that simple.

It seems often <too often in fact> “just do your best” often ends up meaning “just do something” <or maybe, to be kind, ‘I did the best I could given what I had’, what the situation was and/or whatever you want to add here>.

So.

Under the harshest spotlight you would never truly, in your heart of hearts, judge this as really your best.

It is a caveated best.

A derivative of best as it were.

And because ‘best’ has been watered down so much I think people begin using the phrase to mean “don’t overdo everything and exhaust yourself trying to meet everyone’s expectations.”

Wow. Is that what it’s supposed to mean?

Or maybe it is actually “decide for yourself what ‘your best’ is and strive to meet that goal.”

<reprise> Wow. Is that what it’s supposed to mean?

I am not sure which is worse.

Well.

Actually.

Neither is particularly bad … it is just neither really has anything to do with ‘best’ and yet they are both associated in some form or fashion with ‘best.’

Ok.

And this next thought I know I am guilty of …

We are very quick to suggest … “you are doing the best that you can.”

And, in actuality, we are not.

You know you could do more (if the measure is truly our best).

Look. I recognize chasing perfection is exhausting and I truly believe chasing perfection is an endless pursuit. And, frankly, if you try to do this you only put yourself under unbearable pressure aiming to be the perfect version of who you are.

And, inevitably, this quest can only bring disappointment … because not only is being perfect an impossible task but it becomes exponentially more impossible (ok … how can something that is already impossible become exponentially so? … its kind of like getting three death sentences …) if you actually attempt to do “it” all the time.

Someone can waste far too much time and energy trying to be the perfect whatever. Sure. None of us want to be ‘less-than-perfect’ in anything we do but it is a fact of life.

But. Here is some news. Ok. No. Here is the fact.

Doing your best isn’t about perfection … it isn’t always trying to be perfect.

Because doing your best is about … good enough that you can actually do … not perfection.

And realizing that making use of what is not is often doing your best.

“Take advantage of what is there by making use of what is not.” – chapter 11 of Tao te Ching

There is a famous quote that suggests do what you will with you have <usually cited to good ole Teddy Roosevelt>.

I assume Teddy created his quote as sort of the antitheses of the Tao quote above.

This is a great quote.

A greater (deeper) thought).

So often people say “I don’t have what I need” as an excuse for not doing their best.

Stop.

Stop it.

Instead feel good about making use of what is not there.

In doing so it suggests finding an advantage, a freedom in other words, to do something … well … because something isn’t there to impede you. It isn’t a lack of resource but rather a freedom to find that which will make you successful.

You are unencumbered by what may be there and instead free to build upon the little that is there.

In the business word it is “find the empty space.”

In the Bruce world (who doesn’t really buy the fact that there is ever – maybe rarely – really empty space) it is more … in fact it is not actual empty space … it is ‘where do you want to sharpen your elbows and create some elbow room’.

That is all about taking advantage of “what is not.”

I don’t care what is not is made up of … but let me suggest first and foremost … its attitude. Or belief. Or whatever words you want to put to that thought.

Buddhism is infamous for focusing on what is not apparent. Ignoring the obvious and focusing on what is really important (the intangible).

Am I suggesting that Buddhism (or Taoism) should guide your life? Nope.

Am I suggesting their perspective on how to approach things you face in everyday life (or business) may be enlightening? Yup.

It’s quite possible that this is the contrarian in me that makes me believe this way (which I have to assume would send some Tibetan monk through some proverbial roof to hear) but who cares … it’s thoughtful .. its insightful … its stuff that maybe makes you think about things in a different way than maybe other people around you thinks of things … and frankly … in my eyes … that is enlightened thinking.

Ok. In the end.

Don’t think about perfection as ‘your best.” Best is ‘effort + attitude’.

And … just … well … do your best.

Choose the moments and truly do your best <and admit the other times just aren’t your best you are just muddling through>.

Why? Well. I believe every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Therefore if you perform any action the results will come, maybe not today or tomorrow … but at some time.

So if you keep your mind in that place and truly do your best at the right time and mentally unattach yourself from the outcome of the ‘best’ actions <and the concept of perfection> I think more people would be happier … and they may actually do their best more often. And, maybe more importantly, if you do not try and fool yourself into believing you had done “your best” in certain situations you may be able to manage your life expectation-wise a little better.

Regardless.

Doing your best.

“We don’t need to be anything or anyone. We can just be us.”

Be yourself.

Cause I believe we would all like to be the best version of ourselves. Oh. And isn’t that “doing your best”?

unthinking

July 16th, 2012

“Sometimes thinking is a bad idea” – Ian Leslie

Here is the deal.

There is a fragility of mental process when it comes to coming up with ‘the idea.’ Ok. Maybe it’s not a fragility but t is certainly a tenuous mysterious process.

But research has shown <yeah … I found some more research> that it’s not that there is any decline in mental capabilities but rather the mind becomes overwhelmed with self-conscious.

Huh? In other words the mind is thinking when it should be its best by … well … non thinking. Therefore, research suggests, too much thinking can kill inspiration.

How ‘bout that my friends?

Ian Leslie sates “it is a fundamental paradox of human psychology that thinking can be bad for us.”

By following our own thoughts too closely we can lose our bearings as our inner chatter drowns out common sense.

Whew.

When I saw/read this I wish I could have presented I immediately to the leaders in the Fortune 500 companies.

“Thinking drown out common sense.”

Ok. Some proof <for the doubters among you>.

A study of shopping behavior states that the less information people were given about a brand the better choice they made.

Specifically <and this will matter to those marketers who like to give gobs of minutiae to people believing it will help them make a better choice> … when offered full ingredient details the consumer got confused by their options <unable to discern differences and importance> and actually ended up choosing a product they did not like <i.e., people were forcing themselves to select on a criteria that was not really ‘heart preference’ but rather “head <logical> preference.” And they were not happy in the end when they used.

All that said it simply suggests that we can be too clever for our own good trying to figure out patterns and what we are ‘supposed’ to do … rather than what maybe our common sense suggests we should do.

The research also shows that by leaning on our instinct we seem to be able to tap into some kind of compressed wisdom.

A psychologist, Gerd Gigerenzer, argues that much of our behavior is based on some internal sophisticated rule-of-thumb compass (“heuristics”).

He also says “to make good decisions in a complex world you have to be skilled at ignoring information.” Awesome.

Imagine sitting around with a group of management and suggest we teach our people to ignore information <the correlation being just as bad … “maybe we should invest less time creating irrelevant information that will need to be ignored anyway and use the time to make the best decision”>.

Wow.

Either one is likely to get you fired.

Ok.

I am sure in my generalization I have ignored that there is a balance. And people need to not only be skilled at ignoring information but also assessing what information to gather versus gathering unneeded information.

Anyway.

Leslie also found in his research that a portfolio of stocks picked by people in the street did better than those chosen by experts. People on the street selected by ‘recognition’ <companies they had heard of> which actually turned out to be a better criteria than experts analyzing price-earnings ratios.

Anyway. Here is the tricky part.

Study after study states that “those who trust their feelings and make better selections” only did so when they had some prior knowledge. This is the balance thing I mentioned.

Ian Leslie states “unthinking is not the same as ignorance.”

In other words. You cannot unthink if you have not already thought <or learned>.

As he states … the unconscious minds of the most knowledgeable are like “dense rainforests sending up spores of inspiration.”

Ok. Next.

The higher the stakes the more overthinking is a problem.

Suffice it to say we live in an era of overthinking. We are encouraged by an unrelenting issuing of self-help books telling us to self-reflect, we analyze every aspect of our work and life and think about every action we take … or even think about taking.

We comment on every aspect of our lives online and constantly read article after article about what makes us happy … and unhappy.

The truth? The culmination of life may actually be found in the “careless joy.” Yup. All that thinking and planning and listing just may not lead you to happiness. And just may lead you to more … well … thinking.

In other words … in trying to solve problems we may have actually created problems. We overthought where maybe instincts would have been better for us. Interestingly that is not a new thought:

Instincts are a powerful thing.

There is a new book called Imagine: How Creativity Works <by Jonah Lehrer> who asks where good ideas come from.

Many of us think all credit for mysterious creativity went to faith, fortune and some fortunate few.

John Lehrer argues that to assume creativity is some lofty trait enjoyed by the few is both foolish and unproductive.

Drawing from a wide array of scientific and sociological research—and everything from the poetry of W.H. Auden to the films of Pixar—he makes a convincing case that innovation cannot only be studied and measured, but also nurtured and encouraged.

Me? I buy it. Creativity is often found in some fairly random nooks and crannies of different people. Oh. And it may not be ongoing … some people are good for one creative idea in their lifetime … and that is it. And others are just, well, damn good at it.

Now. My caveat thought is that some people are better at it than others. Some people are better at supporting <putting someone in position> the creation of creativity and some people are better at actually generating the creativity.

Regardless. It can be nurtured. We certainly understand that when workers are actually pushed to take regular breaks, i.e., time away from a problem, it can help spark a moment of insight. Research has proven this. Why? This is because interrupting work with a relaxing activity seems to permit the mind to turn inward into the subconscious or maybe better said … places within the mind where information is stored that when thinking, or consciously ‘noodling’, the information is not obviously relevant. And in that down time the brain can subconsciously puzzle over subtle meanings and connections <the brain is incredibly busy unthinking>.

“That’s why so many insights happen when taking showers,” says Joydeep Bhattacharya, a psychologist at University of London.

The reason why this approach works—and why it has been imitated by other companies such as Google—is because many breakthroughs come when people venture beyond their area of expertise. Often it takes an outsider to ask the kind of dumb questions that may yield an unconventional solution.

Note: that is a different version of unthinking.

Oh.

And this is why young people tend to be the most innovative thinkers in nearly any field. It can be technology, engineering, architecture, physics or music. The ignorance of youth creates some real creative advantages.

Note: that is a different version of unthinking.

Ok.

So. I believe we all know imagination, or creativity, is not a totally conscious process. We know this despite the fact there are entire libraries of books written on how to maximize the creative process and ‘build imaginative thinking.’

As an expert suggested: New knowledge may incubate subconsciously when a person has surplus attention to focus on recombining memory and external stimuli into new meanings. Most people tend to spend a great deal of time while they are awake “daydreaming”. This may be enough to activate our default network, a web of autobiographical mental imagery, which may provide new connections and perspectives about a problem we have been concerned with.

Unguided imagination through dreaming and “daydreaming” enables the gathering of information from different parts of our memory, which may not be easy to access consciously. This information may come from a within a narrow domain or a much wider field. The more imagination takes account of the wider field, experience, and prior knowledge, the more likely these ideas created through imagination will have some originality – through complex knowledge restructuring. Creative insight occurs mostly as the result of triggers and slow incubation periods that lead to a revelation.

Ultimately this means a revelation occurs through different forms of unthinking (or a different raveling, rather than unraveling, of the facts). I sometimes call this “the ability to align disparate pieces of information.” Unthinking means just that. The mind stops unraveling all the <what is supposed to be> relevant information and instead ‘re-ravels’ a new string of information.

For example:

- Einstein developed his insight for the theory of relativity through imagining what would happen if he traveled at the speed of light.

- Faraday claimed to have visualized force lines from electric and magnetic fields from a wood fire giving insight into the theory of electromagnetic fields.

- Kekulé reported that he gained insight into the shape of the benzene molecule after he imagined a snake coiled up in a circle.

Regardless. The bottom line.

Sometimes thinking is overrated <who would have ever thunk I would ever write that>.

Some truths:

To think sometimes you have to unthink.

To think sometimes you need less information than more.

And, in the end, I think the people who do not really understand how to think do not understand how to unthink.

And maybe that is the point of this post.

making things happen

July 10th, 2012

“I propose to get into fortunes way.” – Arthur Wellsley (Duke of Wellington)

I just finished reading Wellington: The Years of the Sword (Duke of Wellington’s biography). Written in 1950’s by his grand niece. Fascinating.

And while there were a number of thoughtful things … this quote from Wellsley as he went to Spain to take on Napoleon (at Napoleon’s peak) is the quote that stood out for me.

So.

Great people have to have skill <he was a master tactician and excellent leader of men>.

But they also have to have attitude.

I put this quote side by side with his senior <in age>, Lord Horatio Nelson, who said <paraphrasing> “you can do no wrong by placing yourself as close to the enemy as possible.”

Attitudinally they sought action. They sought putting themselves in situations where they would confront their enemy.

Well. Think about that. And business.

So often businesses talk about ‘white space.’ Seeking places their enemy is not.

What would happen if some business leader said “I propose to get in fortune’s way” (meaning I plan on engaging the enemy/competition)?

Wow.

Have to tell ya. That sounds different. And, frankly, it sounds like something I wish more companies would do. treat business like war.

Ok. There is a time and place … and it can vary by category … but in my eyes too many companies are too nice <with regard to competitors>.

Regardless of whether you agree with that or not a business leader who would say something like this quote has a good confident attitude … with an understanding that losing is bad … really bad.

Wellsley got in fortune’s way. More often than not he gained fortune.

Nelson sought to put himself s close to the enemy as possible <fortune’s way> . More often than not he gained fortune.

History remembers the heroes. It remembers the great. Why? Because they elected to put themselves in fortune’s way.

I often believe business leaders can learn more from military than they do … this is another one of those times.

incompetence through overcommunication

June 12th, 2012

So.

I think we all have seen plenty of dysfunction in the upper ranks of business. This may sound obvious but what this means a lot of dysfunctional people are actually chosen for upper level positions. It is curious because I struggle to believe we are oblivious to the spectrum of dysfunctionality. So why would any executive actually choose a person with some type of dysfunctional leadership qualities to take an upper level position?
I actually believe it is because we are breeding a brood of dysfunctional managers <or less competent managers if want to be kinder>.

This thought reminded me of an article the Economist had about the British East India Company (article: “the company that ruled the waves”).

In the early 1800’s before there was email and fax machines and overnight delivery and twitter this private company successfully, and effectively, managed a far ranging organization across oceans & continents when the only means of communication was letter <or in person> by ship or overland <think months>. The success of the organization was dependent upon autonomous management. And the British East India Company was quite successful. Yes. Of course there were immense management mistakes and there were also the ‘unmanageable’ factors … hurricanes, war with France, privateers, etc. but in general the upper level positions were manned by competent decisionmakers who balanced autonomy and the overall organizational needs and vision.

A couple of things I can think of:

Traditions & values. The tradition & values of the organization <lets call them attitudes> were so intertwined into the individual’s learning & values that not only ‘in the field’ likeminded managers were consistently reproduced but the ultimate leaders in London could confidently predict the behavior of those in the field.
Distance honed responsibility. Without constant communication and feedback in the field managers had to make decisions on their own. They were responsible for their actions … to the home office as well as to the livelihoods of those immediately affected by the decision.

Therefore, with few communications, business was conducted … successfully. This suggests that the immediate and constant communication/feedback does not necessarily create better managers. In addition you would have to assume the depth & breadth of the constant communication <beyond the time consumption> does not help develop managers who take risks, learn on the job and take responsibility.

I thought of my own experience … and I envision I would have become a really crappy upper level manager if I had learned my management skills in today’s world of instant feedback/input.

In my 20’s I had three out of town clients and a team in the home office which I didn’t see all the time. For several years I had to delegate & trust a team, make decisions in the field, access my own managers based on assessed importance to do so … oh … and assume responsibility <for the good and the bad>.

Note: I am not old enough to have worked at the East India Company in the 1800’s.

Anyway.

My guess is that delegating did not come naturally to me and if I hadn’t been forced to learn to do so, and inevitably learn how to trust a team, I most likely would have never learned it.

This is not research proven but I imagine most people who actually like to make decisions suck at delegating <and have to learn to do it>.

Interestingly <and I am not sure it is exactly the same these days for young people in business> at that time moving up in an organization was often a battle of attrition.

Most people who moved up did so based on their decisions balance sheet. In my words … decisions were not ‘blurry’ … they were yours.

Today? Decisions are often made within ‘smart systems’ in which there are immediate communications gathering consensus and gaining input. In other words … decisions are blurry. And, depending on the organization, the smart system can be used by someone to smartly shirk decision responsibility and place it in the hands of the system. Just to conclude that thought … that means a person’s resume is then stacked with blurry decisions <of which no sane interviewer would ever admit to>.

Look.

I am not anti-email. I believe it actually, when used correctly, enhances efficiency.

And I say that despite the fact I do believe “real time decisions” are not often necessary <we treat each decision like it has to be made in real time and often it doesn’t> as well as they are bad decisions <made without the use of information that could be easily available if you take the time to get it>. Regardless at no time prior has there been an ability to access a store of information and a computing capability with to enrich decisions … almost instantly. Therefore, if used correctly a smart system can enhance decision making ability.

But emails <and instant communication> have several costs – from the honing of managers to poor time utilization.

Email use is a hidden cost for many businesses but a formula developed by researchers in the UK/Australia assessed how much of an employee’s salary is effectively paying for their email use.

The formula, reported in the International Journal of Internet and Enterprise Management, estimates that email use costs anywhere between £5,000 and £10,000 (about 8k to 15k) per employee each year.

The survey of company email use revealed typically that almost one in five emails was cc’ed unnecessarily to staff members other than the main recipient. 13% of received emails were irrelevant or untargeted and a mere 41% of received emails were for information purposes. Less than half of emails (46%) that required an action on the part of the recipient actually stated what the expected action was. And 56% of employees remarked that email is used too often instead of telephone or face-to-face. Ironically, almost half of employees (45%) felt that their own emails were easy to read.
But.

This post isn’t about emails it is about developing good managers.

In a business world where it appears to me that hiring practices seem to initially filter <and increasingly post initial> almost exclusively on experience and qualifications assuming it is the most important factor of all that ignores a reality where someone’s experience and/or qualifications is often … well … not really theirs. Oftentimes someone’s experience is simply experience of shared decision making responsibility – their main qualification is delegating risk and responsibility. And, yet, their qualifications are a list of ‘accomplished deeds.’

We are breeding a group of managers whose strength is not making decisions. <yikes>

I truly believe you can take a person who is very smart who has the right attitude and train them to do a fantastic job, and be an excellent autonomous decision maker, if they have the right attitude. I personally prefer filtering on personality as a slightly higher selection factor than related experience.

Regardless.

Even if we resolve the ‘teaching manager’ issues disfunctionality in upper evel positions wont ever completely go away. Why?
well. Let me give this one a shot from personal experience not offering any solutions but rather offering ‘whys’ <and, by the way, I am not proud of number 2>.

Although I believe it is fairly rare that a totally incompetent ‘dysfunctional’ person is elevated to a meaningful position <unless nepotism or favoritism is involved but let’s disregard those two> here is how I know I have been personally involved:

- 1. You believe you can fix them. The person is productive at some valuable aspect. Maybe even REALLY valuable. You convince yourself you can either fix the part that is obviously dysfunctional or supplement that person with someone who can fix it <deal with it> as part of the ongoing process.

- 2. Horse trading <the one I am not proud of>. Even with the greatest psychological/competency tests in the world you can still torture the numbers/information until they say what you want. Therefore a number of candidates get placed in a subjective discussion pool. In the end, sometimes, you are horse trading positions and people to get what you want, i.e., put someone here and you get someone there. Doesn’t matter if it is a small or large organization … I believe we all do it with good intentions (or how about … belief what we are doing will better the company).

- 3. Not ‘placing out’ flawed employees. Not many organizations have a ‘planned place out’ system for employees as they move up higher in the hierarchy. As people rise, and earn their stripes, we begin seeking to place them in an organization and not ‘place them out’ at any point. They have proven some value and therefore get assessed on value provided and not on value not-provided (or value they impede).

- 4. Today’s “speed to solution’ needs. Experience seems to count even more today than ever because of leaner organizations. at the expense of originality or innovation we are putting higher & higher value on speed to solution (getting something done). If you are good at the speed to solution we seem to be able to overlook a slew of dysfunctional attributes.

Of course, none of these suggests that the decision maker is oblivious to the dysfunction and that is an entirely different issue.

In the end I believe this creating dysfunctional managers is a big issue now … and certainly in the future.

And I truly believe the incompetence is being driven significantly by instant overcommunication (which probably has some underlying issues like ‘less tolerance for mistakes’ and the concept of ‘share responsibility’ as well as managers who just don’t know how to delegate and instant communication continues to feed that behavior).

Somehow we need to resolve this issue or the only non-dysfunctional managers who will be in the upper level will be those who truly manage by numbers <because we know numbers never lie>. And that, my friends, is scary. The number crunchers will rule the world.