Enlightened Conflict

rabbits

February 9th, 2013

rabbit hat mean

… not even the best magician in the world can produce a rabbit out of a hat if there is not already a rabbit in the hat.”  - Boris Lermontov

 

Ok.

I admit. I often get a little crazy when I hear “well, you pulled that one out of your ass” <this generation’s version of pulling a rabbit out of a hat>.

Well. I apologize. Only 99%+ of the time I go crazy. I account for the less than 1% of the time to sheer dumb luck.

When someone makes a surprisingly good in the moment decision … or uncovers a relatively surprisingly insightful idea … in most cases the fact they are surprising people does not mean they just made it up out of the ether.

What I mean is that pulling a rabbit out of a hat <or out of your ass> implies you created something from nothing.

 

Here is a Life truth … even a business truth … so maybe let’s just call it Truth.

 

You cannot create something from nothing.

Sure.

Sometimes the connections between what was and what ends up being are blurry <if not even visible and sometimes appears to come out of the proverbial ether> but everyone needs to have a solid base of knowledge before making the connections <thinking or tangible things> to create something. That knowledge can be within <your own pea like brain and its experiences and thoughts> … or without <tapping into other people or things>.

Anyway.

Here is the full quote reference.

Livy Montagne: “You’re a magician, Boris. To have produced all this in three weeks, and from nothing.”

 

Lermontov: “… not even the best magician in the world can produce a rabbit out of a hat if there is not already a rabbit in the hat.”

 

Again.

You can’t create something from nothing … you can only create something from something else <or something elses>.

Another Truth?

Wrap your head around this.

Ideas exist … and don’t exist <simultaneously>.

Yup. Physicists have found something <particles and things that move around that we cannot see> can simultaneously exist and not exist.

In other words, some things are capable of existing in several different states.

Any physicist can correct me but I believe it is the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics which suggests particles are allowed to travel along all paths and exist in all possible states simultaneously.

What changes uncertainty? The simple act of measurement. Measurement, or the simple recognition of what actually is, instantly forces it into just one path or state and it is no longer uncertain.

I believe it is called something like ”collapse of the wave function’” in physics.

Yeah.

It is the same in thinking, doing or whatever.

world controlled by a rabbitRandom knowledge collapses upon itself until it creates something. The ‘nothing’ is just a bunch of somethings yet to be consolidated.

 

I have been to far too many ‘brainstorming’ or ‘creative thinking’ or even ‘the power of visualization’ workshops … so many that my brain cannot storm and I cannot think straight let alone creatively and I cannot visualize shit. Every time I walk out I grab my copy of James Webb Young’s “Technique for Producing Ideas” <published in 1937 and still relevant today> and flip thru the pages to remind myself that ideation is all about cramming bits & pieces of ideas & information & thoughts into your head until you can either assimilate it into a ‘rabbit’ or you interact with someone else and inspire them to create a ‘rabbit.’

So. With that. Two thoughts.

Accumulate knowledge: the more you learn the more you can pull out of your ass <consistently>.

Practice: the more you use what you have learned the easier it is to pull something out of you ass.

 

Sorry. There is no such thing as divine inspiration.

There is no such thing as pulling rabbits out of hats <unless there is already a rabbit there>.

 

We all have a gazillion thoughts, observations, and information <parts, pieces or whole> bouncing around in our heads … either in our subconscious or conscious mind. There are a myriad of possibilities existing with regard to possible outcomes.

The nothing is all these pieces and parts not assembled.

The something is when assembly is achieved.

Now.

Not everyone is good at “assembling” or even implementing from the nothings floating around in their heads but that is a different post for a different day.

If you feed your mind you will end up with a boatload of rabbits in your hat.

But, please, something from nothing?

Not even a magician can do that.

temporary advantage

January 9th, 2013

“Every advantage is temporary.” ― Katerina Stoykova Klemer

And.

“… the only true advantage is knowledge.” – <someone I cannot find at the moment>

So.

This thought of temporary advantage, and knowledge, is easy for business but it is also relevant to Life.

Let me begin with business <because, frankly, it is easier>.

Businesses are always seeking an advantage.

And they should.

I imagine the point I am going to make <in the end> is that most businesses don’t consider ‘advantage’ as temporary. When it actually happens … they treat it as sustainable and want to ride it all the way into the sunset <or as far as the horse will carry them toward it>.

And ultimately that becomes their downfall.

Couple of thoughts.

First thought.

Most often all energy is invested in developing a distinct product, or service, or some tangible advantage.

In fact gobs of money is spent against this objective.

Definition of gobs? Lots of money & time & intellectual energy. And this typically leads to some type of patent <if you are smart> or, at minimum, something different enough you feel it is … well … different <you may actually convince yourself after eating a pound of M&Ms in focus groups and multiple cocktails staring at your navel that it is “unique”>.

Now.  Let me tell you a business truth.

Product advantages are actually fairly easy to attain. In fact … they are a dime a dozen. Yup. Sorry about that.

Here is the other business truth.

The majority of product advantages are indiscernible to anyone but the one who developed it. I call it ‘dancing on the head of a pin’ differentiation.

Frankly? It is all wasted energy <mostly>.

Personally I prefer to aim for a competitive parity product that has enough meaningful benefits that it can compete over time <in other words … it is a sustainable product> … and use knowledge to be an advantage.

Sound crazy? Maybe.

Sound painful to say to management? Yes. Trust me … I have the scars to prove how painful.

But if you can keep your head out of your egotistical ass you actually have a chance to see this idea through to a very profitable, sustainable profitable, conclusion.

This translates into the ability to keep the product competitive but limit the amount of investment you have to invest to update/improve/trash & reinvent.

And use knowledge to sustain advantage because knowledge is a changing environment … never stagnant.

Next.

Second thought.

Sustainable advantage.

Sustainable advantage is really rare.

Extremely rare <unless you define ‘sustainable’ as ‘we did it for a week’>.

And, frankly, many businesses are actually too slow to take advantage of their … well … advantage. The window of advantage does not stay open long.

Businesses work to gain it <the ever elusive ‘advantage’>. They get it. They build plans to take advantage of the advantage. They go and do … and … well … their advantage is not only as advantageous as it used to look … but in many cases it is no longer even the advantage that you thought it was. The window is closed. Oh. Maybe worse? To your dismay you look around the room and another frickin’ window is open.

Damn. Wrong window at the wrong time.

That’s my quick acerbic soundbite for businesses on temporary advantage.

Personally I believe many businesses mismanage ‘advantage.’ Mismanage through incorrect attitude and in incorrect behavior.

Not only do they typically think incorrectly they also implement too slowly … and ultimately they do not know when to ‘abandon ship.’.

Regardless … now that every business person wants to send me a scathing personal email I will move on to the next topic.

Life.

Yup. I will discuss Life and temporary advantages.

We all know Life is challenging. And that is so mainly because it is always changing.

Just when you think you have at least one thing figured out Life moves the thing <hence the term “life sucks” was created>.

To even have a chance to be competitive with Life you have to continuously gain knowledge and adapt. There is no formula for gaining knowledge … sometimes you read something, meet someone or see something that changes your knowledge.

That is self stimulated gathering of knowledge … and it takes some fortitude and self desire to do so.

Therefore thank god for kids (youth in general).

They are a natural incentive to stimulate knowledge growth to maintain advantage. I worry about people like me, who does not have children, as well as those who ignore the knowledge, and stimulus to learn, young people offer. I guess my point is that we should use kids as a knowledge stimulant <rather than ignore them or subjugate them to our past tense type knowledge>.

I thank god I am a reader. It permits me to at least maintain a competitive place in a restless world. Notice I didn’t say competitive advantage.

Just be competitive.

I say that because I fully understand I will never find a competitive advantage against life. Well. Maybe I get a glimmer of an advantage on occasion. But it is fleeting.  I keep a constant eye on the fact you gain knowledge to try and keep up. And every once in a while you get really lucky and dash ahead for a second or two.

Two things about that ‘glimmer of the advantage.’

First.

Some silly people delude themselves into believing they have a competitive advantage in life. And, yes, they are delusional. People like this don’t seem to understand that Life is like a river constantly flowing. They quit paddling to rejoice in their ‘advantage’ and … oops … all the crap in life not only feverishly paddles by to get ahead <and lay some traps> but some of Life’s crap may actually slow down and do their best to smack you around a little <because a moving target is harder to hit so when you stop paddling you are easier prey>.

These people confuse ‘glimmer’ with ‘this is my new home.’ That is why they are delusional … because normal people could never get confused by those two things.

Second.

I worry about the people who never even gain one glimpse of the advantage. Because a glimpse gives hope you can win … at least on occasion in life.

No glimmer? No hope?  That worries me.

How can anyone, even the strongest of the strongest, keep going on without hope for something better?

I am fairly sure I couldn’t.

I struggle to see how anyone could.

Anyway.

I now envision someone cranking up an email with a thought on “hey, hold on a second, you seem to be suggesting becoming a chameleon … and don’t you always talk about being true to yourself at all times?!?” <please notice I used a rare exclamation point just for emphasis>

Despite the fact I will give that someone cranking up an email major points because that means someone actually has read some of my drivel in the past … I will quickly go to this quote:

“Adaptability is not imitation. It means power of resistance and assimilation.” – Mahatma Gandhi

And then I would answer this way … in business and in life … the core is the core.

That core is the “me inside” and that is the sustainable competitive product. And by product I mean a product being a manufactured product or simply you <or me>. Anyway. That competitive core probably doesn’t have any advantage … it is simply able to go on day after day, year after year and … well … continue to ‘be’ … to exist. It <you & I> compete in Life <or with Life> because of a good steady core.

Adaptability through knowledge leverages your core … and means possible temporary advantage.

That’s it.

That’s my point.

those darn Mayans

December 6th, 2012

Well.

Given the absurd discussion going on about the Mayan calendar predicting the end of the world I thought I would use it as an excuse to share some business thoughts.

Oh.

Some background <on the whole Mayan, end of the world, 5000 year calendar, etc.>

If you have not been paying attention … just turn to DoomPreppers on some random cable tv station and watch the doomsayers on that show ‘doom-prep’ for December 21, 2012.

And several films and documentaries have promoted this idea that the ancient Mayan calendar predicts that doomsday is on December 21, 2012. I know. It is kind of crazy.

But even better?

The Guatemalan Culture Ministry is hosting an event in Guatemala City — which as many as 90,000 people are expected to attend — just in case the world actually does end and tour groups are promoting doomsday-themed getaways <huh? … so are there refunds if the world does not actually end?>.

Oh.

Just in case you have nothing to do then <and cannot get to Guatemala> there are also a couple of college football bowl games on those days … one which is really crappy so maybe the world will end and we will not have to watch the end of the “Beef O’Brady’s Bowl” <Ball State and Central Florida>.

Anyway.

All this crap about the 21st. It happens to be the last day on a 5000 year Mayan calendar …. and therefore many say the Mayans predicted the world would end on that date <of course we cannot go back and ask any of them to be sure>.

<note: many others would say something crazy like “they created a 5000 year calendar and this just may be the last day they actually invested energy trying to plan for.”>

But.

Here is the truly crazy thing <the business thoughts are about to be shared>.

In a business world where we struggle to make 5 year plans, let alone stick to our daily plan, we are giving the Mayans shit for only developing a 5,000 year plan.

Geez.

We should be standing up and applauding these guys for thinking that far ahead. Instead we panic over why don’t they have a longer plan? Why is their plan incomplete? Couldn’t they foresee the problems this would create ?!? <5000 years later> Why haven’t they updated their plan? Why doesn’t someone else update the plan? Did they actually think through their plan and maybe they made a rounding error?

Holy cow.

Trust me.

If they were still around they would have updated the stupid calendar.

Me? I think the guys who developed the longer term calendar were allowed a cacao break and began partying like it was 2012 and never got back to work.

Regardless.

The Mayan calendar reminds me of two business things:

-          Long term plans

-          False deadlines

Long term plans.

Business today has a love/hate relationship with long term plans. We love the idea of having a path to follow and steps to take and a horizon to gaze at <albeit most of that horizon gazing is actually a bunch of people meeting quarterly debating whether the cloud are nimbus or cumulus and what that means to the long term plan>. We hate not thinking short term. We want to be able to adapt and the ‘long term plan’ is like wearing shackles on an inmate who sees an opportunity to run free.

Suffice it to say, in my opinion, don’t waste the energy … on the long term plan nor loving or hating them.

Shit. We are bitching about a 5000 year calendar and what it means now that it is on its last date. That is our current business culture. No one is sitting back going “man … that was an awesome 5000 year run.”  Instead everyone is saying “why didn’t they make it a 5500 year calendar?!?”

In business .. long term plans are shit.

Now.

That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have a vision. And a thought of where you want to go … and maybe some guardrails to be sure you don’t go all willy-nilly <that is a technical term for sheer chaos> … but investing a lot of energy, like the amount of energy it would take to develop a 5000 year plan, is nuts. While you are doing all that planning someone else is doing.

Oh.

And I hate to break the news to you … by the time you have finished your detailed long term plan it has become obsolete <at least one aspect of it> as soon as it is done. It begins to die a death of a thousand cuts/exceptions … but it is a good death. It is a healthy death … called “smart adapting.”

We should dream of developing a successful 5000 year plan of action. But the reality in today’s business world is we struggle to develop a 5 day plan of action without wanting to change it.

Today’s business world would have driven the Mayans crazy.

False deadlines.

The 5000 year mark is not a deadline for the world … it was simply the ending of a time cycle in Mayan thinking. Today’s business seems to confuse cycles and deadlines all the time.

A cycle is a continuous flow of shit getting done where an end is a beginning and the beginnings mark an ending. By the way … that is called <in a high falutin’ business consultant thinking> “an effective business process.”

A deadline is … well … when something is done. Finished. No more. Put the file in the filing cabinet.

Here is the problem.

Business leaders like to see ‘completed checks’ next to long lists of things to show that shit is getting done. Therefore it creates a culture of false deadlines.

Huh? Yup. In order to show progress I need to show completion. Say what? Isn’t progress moving forward and not stopping? Silly me.

Companies are strewn with false deadlines. And here is the even crazier thing … employees and middle management isn’t stupid. In fact most are pretty smart. They know they are false deadlines but if they don’t show them <and meet them somehow> they become ‘ex-employees.”

Crazy.

The Mayans didn’t really believe in deadlines … they kind of treated each day as a unique entity. In my eyes? The Mayans would have had the fashizzle of a company.

Ok.

Let me close with some shit about the Mayan calendar and how present day Mayans think it is a bunch of bullhockey <my term not theirs>.

Okay.

Here is the even stupider aspect of this doomsday discussion.

Apparently <as we freak out> … we don’t even show the right frickin’ calendar!

Yup. Most stories regularly detail the Maya calendars although displaying the Aztec Stone of the Sun.

And the real present-day Mayans are pissed <because most are young and do not want to die yet … but they also aren’t Aztec so you gotta understand>>.

Looking at the reality of ancient Mesoamerica I guess it could become easy to be confused by two distinct cultures that lived 500 years apart <but … we ARE talking about the end of the world … so little details become big important things … don’t you think?>.

“There’s a lot of conflation between these two cultures. It would almost be like comparing England at the time of the War of the Roses to the Romans or the Romans to the Greeks in the age of Pericles. They are vastly different periods, separated by considerable distances. The societies had many shared features but they were organized in very different ways.” – Stephen Houston (a “Mayanist” – I did not make that up – at Brown University>

In addition … Guatemala’s Mayan people accused the government and tour groups of perpetuating the myth that their calendar foresees the imminent end of the world for monetary gain.

“We are speaking out against deceit, lies and twisting of the truth, and turning us into folklore-for-profit. They are not telling the truth about time cycles,” charged Felipe Gomez, leader of the Maya alliance Oxlaljuj Ajpop.

Maya leader Gomez urged the Tourism Institute to rethink the doomsday celebration, which he criticized as a “show” that was disrespectful to Mayan culture.

Here is some fact to insure you don’t plan for the end of the world <at least for now>.

Experts say that for the Maya, all that ends in 2012 is one of their calendar cycles, not the world.

The Classic Maya had almost no tradition of cataclysmic endings. For them, 2012 is just a year when several of their calendars reset, like 2000 for modern calendars. Taube, who is helping interpret the paintings around Xultun, says the 2012 hysteria totally misses the point. It’s not that Maya were tracking the apocalypse but that they saw significance in every new day. With multiple calendars, ancient Mesoamericans had a different combination of dates for every day, each combination having a special significance. Almost as if every day was a holiday.

Lastly <about their calendar>:

“It’s a much more lush view of time … every day is going to have multiple, multiple inputs. It’s going to have multiple shadings of possible meaning. In a way, it’s a richly rewarding way to go through time. You are not just ticking off a day in your calendar. Each day is just percolating with all of these different meanings and recollections and hopes.”

Well.

There would be an interesting business management thought. I cannot see any cautious business leader ever accepting it … but, wow, what a company that would be <I would love to work there>.

Regardless. How ‘bout them Maya business leaders. Great thought.

what American business leaders should learn from election

November 7th, 2012

With political correctness in mind I will open this post with the fact I am an old white guy.

So.

What should business leaders learn from the election?

-          Old white guys are becoming less relevant.

In some places exit polls showed that almost 65% of older white people did not vote for the president … and yet he won the majority of the vote in those places.

Whoops. I thought old white guys drove the decisions in America.

Canvas the top leadership of American businesses and you will see gobs of old white guys sitting around their old white guy crystal ball pontificating and discussing how to make more money.

And they do not represent who they will make their money from.

That should be a very scary thought for old white guy leaders <assuming they even look beyond the financial statements and stock prices>.

The business world has not become globally flat … it has just become multicultural and gender equal. We old white guys may not like it but we sure as hell better learn to accept it.

Here is the really <really> hard part.

What we say versus what we actually think … and think subconsciously … and how it affects what we actually do.

I will bet you as much money as you want to bet that if  we sat down with all the old white guy leaders they will say all the right things and will appear open to inclusiveness … and they will, for the most part, not be truthful <and not even recognize it>.

A personal example.

I like to believe I am inclusive and fairly liberal when it comes to this topic. And then I took part in a diversity program as part of a management leadership team and I almost cried at my naiveté. I didn’t know what I didn’t know. I couldn’t. No matter how hard I tried to think like a woman or an African American or a Latino … I didn’t have the cultural aspects embedded from childhood & heritage. I always did, and always will, have a white guy perspective. Did I make what would be considered ‘massive inappropriate decisions’? Nope. But, frankly, the nuanced errors in thinking seemed more painful to me.

My point? Old white guys are old white guys. They know what they know … and don’t know what they don’t know. They may try. And they may try with the best intentions relentlessly. But in the end? They are old white guys making decisions impacting a whole bunch of non old white guys.

-          Inclusion versus outreach.

As a generalization … old white guy leaders don’t understand how to be relevant. Sure. They try … and may even have good intentions.

However, they typically think in terms of outreach rather than inclusion. Huh?

Five old white guys start reaching out to women, African American, Latino, Asian, etc. and invite them to be included in the thinking. They do research which reaches out to ‘better understand the shifting dynamics of the user population.’ And then the five old white guys interpret the data/information/input from invited participants … and make all-encompassing decisions. Outreach participants inform decisions but really do not make the decisions.

Inclusion means they don’t have to reach out and invite … someone is part of the leadership team … with an equal voice is already at the table.

Oops. That must mean … yup … there are only 4 or, gasp, 3 old white guys at the leadership table.

Let me add to this thought.

This is not about adding someone to the leadership team and then have them go out and tell “their people” why the decisions the leadership team are right for them. This is about adding someone to the team so ‘their people’ have a voice and it actually informs the decision and is part of the decision.

Okay.

-          Money. And how it is spent.

Never has $6 billion dollars been spent with so little impact made. Think about it. $6 billion advertising dollars were spent … maybe $700 million in the ‘battleground states’ alone … and the status quo was attained.

God it pained me to share those huge numbers. Just painful.

First <and I have stated this before> … who is fired? If that is my business, my CMO is toast. Heck. I would fire myself if I was the CMO.

Second. So what won the election? Grassroots. On the ground real people with a passion and belief communicating to others.

I am not suggesting television advertising is useless. It has a role. But if you want to protect your market share … and you want people to “get out and buy” once in a while nothing beats a solid grassroots infrastructure.

Let me be clear <because someone is going to abuse that thought>.

You cannot activate a grassroots infrastructure the way it was done for this election 24/7-365 days of the year (even in a leap year). Think about building it, keeping it passionate and motivated and informed 365 days of the year … and then only activating it when <a> it is important to do so or <b> on a planned, maybe twice a year, basis.

Look. I am television advertising advocate <as well as an old white guy> because there is no other way you can reach so many people so quickly with a visual/entertaining/educating message.

None <there is no debate on this from a numbers standpoint>.

But business people abuse even that information because they use that as an excuse to not make the big investment necessary to build the grassroots and maintain it.

And, yes, it is a huge investment to build a grassroots infrastructure.

And, yes, it is one of those huge investment decisions that old white guys mumble about in big high falutin’ meetings and bring in squads of young people talking enthusiastically about grassroots … and then they table it for another day <sadly … and embarrassingly … I have been a participant in several of those discussions>.

A grassroots program is a capital expenditure. It is a machine, a building or a manufacturing plant.

It is just like America’s highway infrastructure. If you don’t suck it up at some point and build it you will never be able to control the mobility of your buyers. Oh. Those buyers? Let me be clear about ‘mobility of buyers.’ The mobility of your everyday working class buyers who get around in 10 year old non-BMW/Lexus vehicles with a heater that doesn’t always work as well as it should all the time.

Old white guys think in terms of building planes and air routes … and they should be thinking paving dirt roads and temperamental cars.

That’s it.

Actually there was a lot more to learn from the election but these were the things I thought of last night as I watched number after number float across the screen.

I know a whole bunch of old white guys are pissed off Romney didn’t win … so I thought I would give them something else, and someone else, to be pissed at.

But hopefully business people pay a little more attention to the real learning.

the art of being unreasonable

October 1st, 2012

I typically dislike business books <but this post will be about one I liked> mostly because I believe their authors are indulging in narcissism at our (buyers) expense.

Oh. Let’s add on that within their narcissism they dumb down (see: simplify in a silly soundite way) the conclusion of ‘attaining success within complex business reasoning’ into one word snippet nonsense. Oh. Lets add another thing … they also tend to ignore (in their attempt to share learnings for anyone to implement) the fact that most business success, in general, typically has a layer of idiosyncrasy that begs the ultimate question – can it really be copied? (Answer: no).

Here is a thought <to be applied with business book learning before you run off implementing everything you read> … as Henry Kissinger pointed out when discussing learning from history … “if you are seeking examples and exact  parallelisms by studying history you will be disappointed. The study of history is the study of analogies.”

Smart man.

He should have been a business man instead of trying to save the world.

However I actually found an interesting business book.

There is a relatively short book called ‘The Art of being Unreasonable” from a guy named Eli Broad.

I liked it for 4 reasons.

1. It was pretty short.

2. He suggests that rather than be a pioneer it is often better to be second with a new idea. – I love it.

3. He suggests that the best diversification may not be into an industry related to your own. – I love it.

4. The premise of the entire book is that the world has always been shaped by unreasonable people <ultimately they are the ones who force change>. – I love it.

The book did get me thinking and some thoughts.

Business people often confuse safe with smart. Safe may not be smart … because it is … well … just safe. Typically safe means less return <combined with less risk of course>. In fact it often translates into less return than the initial idea because it is … well … simply an extension of what is <smaller increments of growth>.

That (in simplistic terms) doesn’t mean bad return but rather diminishing return. Because it is … well … safe <okay … you get the point about safe>.

Safe is hedging your bets. It is a sound strategy depending on what you would like to achieve. And it is a reasonable thing to do.

The book’s point is that concept really isn’t what an entrepreneur <or business builders in general> is all about – being reasonable. They simply get convinced to do so by those around after their initial unreasonable-driven success (or sometimes they simply fear losing that has been gained).

Here is a silly thought. Maybe an unreasonable thought. Entrepreneurs are entrepreneurs. To ask them to be anything other than what they are is fraught with peril. As Broad points out there is a safe path (extension into a related industry) or a comfortable path (one that is an extension of him). By the way … I love the distinction between safe and comfortable in this sense because to some people <me could be included here> safe can make some leaders uncomfortable.

Now. I am not as smart as Eli. But I have coached several businesses in a similar fashion. It makes them uncomfortable (the leader group) and excites the one (the leader). I often find myself negotiating between the desires of the organization formed behind the success of the leader/entrepreneur and the entrepreneur themself. It is an odd experience. I would say in my experience that the entrepreneur gets dragged down into the dismal depths of the “reasonable” decision making organization. And I also admit I often walk away shaking my head in disappointment as the one who “built” defers to those who “protect” an investment under the guise of a “mature business people.”

What many business people don’t recognize is that building & protecting are different skills. Or, actually, they probably do but inevitably decisions need to be made that become a battle between comfortable and uncomfortable … and the seemingly reasonable and the unreasonable.

Last thought.

I am not suggesting the unreasonable is always the path to walk because sometimes the unreasonable is really unreasonable <undoable, impractical, insane>. However, there is an art to being unreasonable. An art that can lead to stunning success if it is fostered properly and encouraged <even if it is uncomfortable>.

The point? Never totally disregard the unreasonable option & idea.

question of an ongoing eurozone

August 30th, 2012

So.

It seems like I get asked my thoughts about the Eurozone a lot these days.

And I have been thinking about writing about the euro and the Eurozone for some time.

This could be a painfully long and intense post but I have elected to keep it quasi-brief and summary-like thoughts.

And I know where to begin.

Because I mistakenly thought it was a brilliant idea … but I was naive.

I selfishly thought the brilliance was having one currency when traveling.

My naïve belief was it was going to create a super-country centered around a common currency and creating a ‘super-economy’ to balance America, a growing Asia, emerging countries <Africa> and, at that time, I thought Russia.

Well.  Silly me. I ignored <or maybe better said … I was oblivious> to the fact to be truly successful there were three structural components necessary … currency, economic and political.

Without alignment on all three the Eurozone idea was doomed for a long struggle if not dismal failure.

I wish I had seen this following thought from then Chancellor of Germany Helmut Kohl  in 1991:

“Political union is the essential counterpart to economic and monetary union. Recent history, not only in Germany, teaches us that it is absurd to expect in the long run that you can maintain economic and monetary union without political union.”

Now.

To be clear.

He was not suggesting a super country but rather an alignment within constituents. The monetary, the euro currency, to be complemented by a fiscal/economic and political union so there could be control of individual country spending and coordination of economic policy within constituents.

The currency came. But not the alignment of the constituents on the remainder.

The discussion of a fiscal alignment fell apart into a set of what they called “convergence criteria” which set limits to public debt as a % of GDP and deficits under 3%.

In my own pea like brain at that time I guess I had envisioned a quasi-euro parliament guiding this super cargo ship of economy insuring the overall interests of the entire Union were met while also permitting individual constituents the highs, or lows, they deserved – within a range.

Nope. And I should have remembered that Caribbean had tried something similar in the late 50s. After dissolving that “union of constituents” in 1962 individual islands have struggled, and some have prospered, and regional combinations of islands have been successful <I am actually surprised more ‘experts’ do not pull this example out of the bag when discussing the repercussions should the Euro concept be dismantled>.

Anyway.

Euro zone.

Without a governmental oversight <aligning, at minimum, economic interests> the Eurozone has turned into a one currency pegged to a median while all the constituents, individual countries, may have inflated or deflated economies against the median. Therefore it can make the best even better and the worst even worse. Oh. Which it did <oops>.

For example, while Germany is getting a lot of great press on its austerity and debt management one should remember that they managed a misalignment with debt in maybe the early 2000’s <or they assessed risk well and assumed some short term debt bubble> in addition their economy in particular has benefited from a currency pegged on a median, therefore offering great value in exports, when their economy is prospering. Some reports suggest that the media currency value has added at least three points to their overall GDP growth.

My fleeting point here is that Germany is not the formula for all constituents.

Regardless.

The euro concept has also eliminated a valuable tool – the possibility of floating an individual’s country currency against its individual economy. It doesn’t solve all the issues but it does provide a key economic tool to manage value without being burdened by the success, or failure, of others.

Look. Using Germany (who is doing well now) as a guide for all countries is insanely stupid. Unless the countries revenue generating economy mirrors Germanys (which none do I believe) a country needs to customize economic management based on the country. And, once again, a country loses an important management tool if they cannot manipulate the value of its currency. It is a catch22.

So.

When asked what I believe … I believe the best thing is to dissolve the eurozone as it currently exists. Similar to the Caribbean solution there could possibly end up being euro-regions with their own currency and governmental alignments (with regard to economy) but I would dissolve it.

Oh.

Regardless. I also believe it will fail even if it isn’t dissolved.

And I believe that thought maybe for an odd reason <which I frankly haven’t seen anywhere else>.

Lack of patience.

Let me explain.

The best argument I have seen for why the Euro WILL survive is a simple one … while the Eurozone was a flawed design in conception <mainly because no one really wanted to build that particular house in the beginning> that as each crisis is faced ultimately the partially built house will be completed room by room out of necessity. And I actually agree with that thought. Crisis forces constituents to make the hard choices & decisions.

But.

No one has the patience.

Structural reforms pay off in the longer term. And no one has patience for long term <even if long term is really only 2 to 3 years>.

Even today we see the signs of it. Several of the steps taken to resolve the situations in Spain are 2 year plans <at minimum> to be truly effective. Yet if people do not see results now they clamor for more discussion and more solutions and … well … more of more. Is discussion bad in itself? Nope. But it also takes your eye off the ball.

In addition. While global economy actually needs more spending <and even some inflationary aspects> which leads to some increased deficits in stronger economies, because of overall fear, the people who shouldn’t be seeking to lower deficits will continue focusing on deficit management.

<by the way … that last thought is one America should be focusing on rather than debt>

In today’s world we just do not have the patience. Well. Let’s say in the western world we just do not have the patience. Asia <and China> tend to have a longer view.

Anyway.

I could be surprised.

And probably will be I imagine.

I was certainly wrong about the Eurozone when it was created. I could certainly be wrong here. Or maybe better said … I wasn’t wrong … I just had flawed thinking.

There is certainly an opportunity to strengthen the structure and rebuild the flawed institutional architecture but I just don’t see how (1) the constituents will align to do so and (2) withstand the public scrutiny and have the patience to make, and take, the hard choices.

Oh.

And dissolving the Union? Painful. 2 years <at least> of the shit hitting the fan.

But. Maintaining the current course <or current list of actions> is simply absurd as an ongoing solution … globally as well as european-wise.

Me? Rip the bandage off quickly. Lots more immediate pain but less pain overall.

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.

songgaar and burungaar

July 31st, 2012

These two words are Tuvan.

songgaar means “go back” or “the future” in the tuvan language.

burungaar means “go forward” or “the past” in the tuvan langaue.

Yes.

I typed that correctly.

Tuvans believe the past is ahead of them while the future lies behind.

The thought? They constantly look to the future but it’s behind them … not yet seen.

To most of us this is confusing. Aw shit. Thinking about the past, present and future is confusing anyway.

We are told to not live in the past. Yet we are also told to learn from the past. We are told to treat the present, each moment, like it is the last. And yet we are told to plan for the future.

We save money for future needs while sacrificing some present needs <or wants>. We look to the past with an eye toward how we could improve ourselves in the future while doing things in the present that will inevitably confuse people around us, most likely have a number of people be hesitant to accept whatever changes we are attempting to sincerely attempt and ultimately make us unhappy, in some form or fashion, with ourselves in the present.

Well.

Now that I have typed that, frankly, I am not sure that we are ever going to be happy attempting to do all that we are supposed to do with regard to the past, present and future.

Heck. I am not sure if I am being selfish focusing on the present, dumb for ignoring the past and irresponsible for not investing energy planning for the future. In addition I fear that while I had a thought in the present by the time I typed it I had stepped into the future and the thought remained in the past.

<my head hurts>

Ok.

I do not know any Tuvans <the Republic of Tuva is located in southern Siberia on the edge of Mongolia>.  So they can probably truly explain the thought. My attempt will be … well … mine.

I like the concept of what they believe.

I imagine, unlike many of us, the future to them doesn’t have all the trappings of ‘better’ and ‘more’ and ‘personal improvement.’  I hesitate to say that their view of life is simpler because it implies we have a more complicated life. And we do not. Nope. We only make it so … by worrying about status and how other people view us and what our title is and what type of car we drive. Oh. And retirement. I imagine they don’t worry about planning for their retirement.

Anyway. Maybe their lives are more focused on the present and doing the best that they can within some frame of time they call “now” <which may not be a speck of time but rather a longer living moment>. It permits them to say that their future needs, yes, needs to contain elements of the past. In addition … by focusing too much on the future they are sliding backwards.

Now. There is a thought, huh? Investing energy, or too much of it, on ‘future thinking’ could possibly be detrimental to moving forward?

Wow. Love it.

Ok.

Here is a thought.

Most of us are smarter than we think. Not maybe in terms of sheer brain power but rather with regard to “making decisions in the present that will benefit us in the future.” We spend so much time planning for the future and assessing decisions yet to be made that all that time <which I would suggest could be called ‘the present’> just slip on by. In general I tend to believe most of us know how to assess ‘now decisions’ and their possible effect on our future. That doesn’t mean we will always make the right decision. In addition some of us may get suckered into making similar wrong decisions more often than others <not having had that statistics class that taught us that each decision is mutually exclusive therefore the odds do not increase in your favor as time goes on>. Time teaches you that <by the way … that is called ‘the past”>.

Well. That was complicated.

So try this.

To move forward you must look to the past.

Simple as that.

No more. No less.

Chew on that thought.

Ok.

About Tuva.

The Republic of Tuva is the former Tannu Tuva, a country in south Siberia first annexed by Russia in 1914 and then absorbed by the former USSR in 1944.

Tuva extends from the coniferous forests of the taiga in the north to the rolling steppe of the south. 82% of the lands of the country is hilly and the rest 18% are covered with savannas. Tuva has a lot of variety within its geography containing grassy meadows, boundless steppe, medicinal springs, beautiful lakes, mountain rivers fed in spring by melting snows, dusty semi-deserts and snowy chains of mountains. Tuva is near the geographic center of Asia and Tuvans are historically nomadic herders, moving their aal—an encampment of yurts—and their sheep and cows and reindeer from pasture to pasture as the seasons progress.

Regardless.

When I saw these two words I wanted to share. Interesting how different cultures view different aspects of the past & future. And maybe we can learn something from their view.

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.

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.

Enlightened Conflict