Enlightened Conflict

outlines are often vague and it’s the details that count

September 13th, 2017

 

vague definition unclear indistinct

===========

 

“The world is not as simple as we like to make it out to be. The outlines are often vague and it’s the details that count.

Nothing is really truly black or white and bad can be a disguise for good or beauty … and vice versa without one necessarily excluding the other.

 

Someone can both love and betray the object of its love … without diminishing the reality of the true feelings and value.

 

Life is an uncertain adventure in a diffuse landscape whose borders are constantly shifting where all frontiers are artificial where at any moment everything can either end only to begin again … or finish suddenly forever … like an unexpected blow from an axe.

 

Where the only absolute, coherent, indisputable and definitive reality … is death. We have such little time when you look at Life … a tiny lightning flash between two eternal nights.

 

Everything has to do with everything else.

 

Life is a succession of events that link with each other whether we want them to or not.”

 

—–

Arturo Perez Revarte

 

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

 

 

Vague sucks.

 

outline vague certain uncertaintyAnd, yet, I would argue the majority of people only really have some vague outline of how the world works, or how effective or ineffective a leader is, or even only have a vague outline of any specific relationship between cause & affect.

 

This vaguery exists because it takes a lot of work to parse the details, and the appropriate details, and the ‘right’ details to make the outlines less vague and more tangible.

 

Is this work valuable ? Sure.

 

Is this work necessary to increase some certainty in Life? Sure.

 

But the majority of people have shit to do <other than this type of work>. That is neither good nor bad … it just is what it is.

 

A lot of pseudo intellectuals and smartish pundits bitch & moan and gnash their teeth over this but they would lead a significantly less stressful life if they just accepted it.

 

What this means is that in this ‘vague outline’ people inevitably create a vague/semi solid outline belief. From there they look around on occasion and question that outline. The questions raised either support the vague outline or raise doubts and … well … more questions.

 

All the while this is happening more information barrages the vague outline. In this barrage is a confusing mix of real, fake and quasi truths. All these confusing things do in the people’s minds is, contrary to belief, not confuse but rather make the person more dismissive of the incoming confusion and steadier in whatever vague outline they may have constructed.

 

Once again.

This is neither good nor bad … it just is what it is.

 

A lot of pseudo intellectuals and smartish pundits bitch & moan and gnash their teeth over this but they would lead a significantly less stressful life if they just accepted it.

 

Ah.

 

But at some point the questions gain some gravitas. This can happen several ways but let me point out two:

 

  • The questions themselves coalesce into some easy to understand ‘blob’ from which people who have a vague outline decide … my vague outline is wrong <or sucks>. Let’s say that this is the point at which the doubts and questions begin to outweigh the beliefs that created the vague outline.

 

 

  • Someone weaves a narrative using the doubts & questions into a relatively succinct, believable and non-hyperbolic driven framing of an outline which people look at, scratch their heads, go “hmmmmmmmmm …” and decide this new vague outline will replace the one they had in place. Oh. To be clear. This narrative must not only use the doubts & questions to dissolve the current vague outline but must also offer an alternative vague outline <outlines need to be replaced not simply destroyed>.

 

 

The first never happens fast enough to people who just cannot understand how and why some people have decided to live with some vague outline <that just seems ‘not really a smart outline’ to them>.

 

The second is not as easy as it appears. It isn’t as easy because problems are rarely as clear as we would like them to be and a narrative never lives without the context of all the barrage of real, fake and quasi truths impacting and denting and solidifying a vague outline that already exists. Or someone weaves a  great narrative to destroy but forgets to offer an alternative.

 

In other words … everything has to do with everything else.

 

I imagine I have two points today.

 

 

First.big-decisions-stress-uncertainty

 

We humans have come to accept a certain amount of uncertainty with regard to our lives and our decisions. This uncertainty is also built into the vague outlines we tend to construct for ourselves. What this means is that the construct of our beliefs and thoughts and ideas may be certain to us and, yet, its silhouette accommodates some uncertainty.

 

I began today by unequivocally stating that vague sucks. And I believe 99% of people would agree that it sucks. but in today’s world the majority of people have enough shit to do that they slot their thinking thoughts time. in one slot they place unequivocal certainty type thoughts. In another slot they place the “I will always be uncertain about this shit and thank God there is someone else at some higher pay grade than I who can be certain about it.” and, lastly, we slot all the shit in which we have formed some vague outline which accommodates a certain degree of uncertainty.

 

My point here is we tend to make this a binary discussion where the reality lies in a more complex mix of vagueness & clarity, certainty & uncertainty.

 

Second.

 

uncertainty-principle-here-thereCertainty, in and of itself, has degrees … it is not a simple black or white binary.

 

People can have vague outlines AND have questions with regard to their outlines … and not want to ditch the outline. “How can you still believe that?” may be one of the most misguided and unenlightened questions that has ever existed.  It completely misses the point in that it assumes ignorance, stupidity or some negative trait in order to hold on to some vague outline regardless of doubts.

A vague outline is a choice.

No more and no less.

We question choices all the time and, yet, remain with the original choice despite some fairly extensive doubts.

I say this because that said … it is silly to point out doubts and questions as a reason to ditch a vague outline. My easiest example is President Trump. His followers have a vague outline of what they like and believe about him. We scrutinize them for doubts and questions and when they share them we immediately pounce and suggest “then how can you still believe in your vague outline!?!” <usually said with a slight overall disbelief & wonder>.

Within their lives of doing shit that is important to them they created a vague outline of who and what Trump is, or isn’t, and … well … uncertainty was built into their certainty. The moment they will begin to disbelieve their vague outline is when the uncertainty overpowers the certainty. Until then … we should stop acting confused that someone believes what they believe.

 

Anyway.

 

I love the quote I opened with even though I hate vague. The truth is that we all live with some vague outlines albeit your vague outline may actually be one of my non-vague outlines, and vice versa. And when they are in conflict then … restless spirit fly vaguewell … there is conflict.

 

All that said … while vague sucks there is a reason we do it … and this reason is not stupid, nor unenlightened nor ignorant.

It is just damn practical to have some vague outlines.

 

 

Life is an uncertain adventure in a diffuse landscape whose borders are constantly shifting.

 

 

Life is restless.

Our vague outlines need to accommodate some of its restlessness. Not recognizing that is either naive or foolish.

 

angry strategizing

August 11th, 2016

if you are not angry you are not paying attention

======

 

 

“It’s time we stop worrying, and get angry you know?

But not angry and pick up a gun, but angry and open our minds.”

 

————————-

 

Tupac Shakur

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

 

 

This is hardly worth fighting for

But it’s the little petty shit that I can’t ignore

When my fist hits your face and your face hits the floor

 

It’ll be a long time coming

But you got the message now

‘Cause I was never going

You’re the one that’s going down

 

One of us is going down

I’m not running,

It’s a little different now

‘Cause one of us is going

One of us is going down

 

—————-

Sick Puppies

<You’re Going Down>

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

 

Well.

 

The Olympics is reminding us of a topic which is not discussed often enough in business … angry competition. I call it angry strategizing.

angry strategy yell think business

 

 

Yeah.

 

The Olympics has reminded me about competing angry.

 

While the Olympics are supposed to be about the love of competition and a better world through sports competition … it is actually about determining the best in the world. And that, my friends, is not about love it is about the rage of competition.

And while I will surely give a nod to respect shown to other great competitors and the aftermath camaraderie that can only be had among the best in the world who have competed the hardest and recognize greatness around them at the Olympics, and how they do so even in loss, I must point out that the Olympic best carry a certain rage into their competitiveness.

 

It may not be the traditional version of anger but it is most certainly a version of anger.

 

And it drives them to compete with the intent to beat the shit out of whomever they are competing against and be the best they can be so they can actually be the best.

 

I say all that because I don’t believe enough business people strategize with some anger. Anger that … well … there are some stupid ideas out there …

 

some stupid opinions

 

some stupid attitudes

 

competitors say and do stupid things

 

and certainly there is a stupid acceptance of mediocrity.

 

I know that I have sat in a meeting room with some business partners and looked around at the competition and what they were doing and saying and … angry sign window republicanwell … got angry.

 

And got angry enough t want and do something about it.

 

 

Being angry in business. and, no, I am not talking about being some anger management candidate but I mean planning angry … developing a strategy thinking with some anger about the status quo … maybe even having some anger toward conventional thinking and certainly some anger against whomever you are competing <but you can still respect the ones who deserve the respect while doing so> is effective and leads to effective business strategy to create real distinction in the marketplace.

 

To be clear.

 

Anger, to me, is much more useful than disdain.

 

Disdain breeds some arrogance and certainly diminishes the capabilities of the competition as you think about competing against them. In your scoffing at them it suggests that it is … is … well … just not worth even thinking about.

 

Anger, on the other hand, suggests you are facing what is straight on … in its face … and taking it head on. Anger guides you not toward some flimsy white space but directly into the fray …  directly toward the space you want in a market <whether it is already occupied or not> and take it.

 

Or, as Admiral Nelson once said, “you can do no wrong by putting yourself as close to the enemy as possible.”

 

 

And you know what?

 

In business strategy that is smart.

 

So that is why I call this the angry business strategy.

 

Certainly … there is only one real way to win … and that is without cheating.

Anger almost forces you to not only recognize that there is no virtue to be found in taking a shortcut <although shortcuts never really exist anyway> … but that there is no long cut or shortcut but rather simply getting up and going … and competing to win.

 

I am sure someone will point out that it may simply be you look around and get aggravated by what you see and decide to do something about it.

 

But I think if you have the team, and you have the product or service and you actually have the means to make your mark in the business world … then … well … it is okay if you look around at the competition and the competitive business world and get a little pissed … not just aggravated.

 

You get a little angry …

This is stupid … there is a better way.

 

This is crazy … I have a better product.

 

This is nuts … I can’t believe people believe that shit.

 

Your anger puts an edge on what you decide to say and do.

 

Far too often we sit around and have pot after pot of strong coffee and have intellectual discussions on how to smartly effectively compete. We worry through some fairly random details, talk about being the best and then go ahead and be anything but the best.

 

So … you know what?

 

If you are better and have a better offering and are truly worth a shit and want people to know you are worth a shit … well then … there is no real intellectual challenge.

 

You get on with getting on.

 

You just get competitively angry and stand in the middle of the field and say “here I am, and I am not going down.”

 

strategy think anger angry business ideas filterI am not suggesting being stupid about competing.

 

Nor am I suggesting bludgeoning the industry and competitors with some dull edged hammer.

 

But I am suggesting the anger puts some attitude into your strategy and tactics.

 

It puts a sharper edge into your sense of competitive purpose.

 

And here is what I know.

 

If it isn’t blind anger but rather competitive anger … you won’t tiptoe into your messaging and go to market strategy. You will stride in with some swagger, some confidence and clearly some strong purposeful messaging.

 

I think … no … I know more businesses would do better to attack their business meeting angry business strategystrategy with some anger.

 

Get a little pissed about perceptions, attitudes and mediocrity.

 

Get pissed that people are accepting less than the best and less than real truth.

 

Get pissed at yourself if you are in a position where you don’t believe enough in yourself and your offering to be able to get pissed.

 

Yeah.

 

I do believe more businesses should strategize with some anger.

As Tupac said … not angry and pick up a gun, but angry and open our minds.

on s’engage (you commit yourself)

March 10th, 2014

adapt plans

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

 

 

Ah.

Commitment and patience … and … well … adaptation.

 

The combination of these three ingredients is a powerful one.

Oddly … not many of us learn this particular recipe.

 

First.

We engage. With focused commitment I may add <that’s a nice way of saying ‘with blinders on’>.

 

Second.

We then tend to be less than patient. In fact I could suggest we are very often impatient in our engagement <but still committed to the plan>. I would suggest in number 2 that we often underestimate the value of doing nothing <and observing>.

 

Third.

And adapting? Yikes. If we did that we would <in our eyes> bastardize the integrity of the structure of the commitment. In other words … in most situations we are willing to stay the course with a plan … until the bitter end.

 

In business … many of us commit to a plan of action and believe staying the course creates the highest likelihood to succeed. And in our impatience we plow through opportunities to adapt. In other words … we don’t really ‘see’ … we just commit to a plan.

 

Now.

To be clear.

Napoleon also said “When you set out to take Vienna, take Vienna.”

 

I share that because the commitment wasn’t to the plan … but rather to the objective. And there is a massive difference.

I sometimes believe in business <and Life too I imagine> we confuse this.

 

We commit and don’t see.

We commit and implement.

We commit to the means <the plan> and not the end <the objective>.

 

That said. Why?

Now <part 1>.

freedom and responsibilityThis may also be a reflection of a ‘cover your ass’ world we live in.

 

What?

If I do what I committed to do <the plan> and it doesn’t achieve the objective … well … “Ain’t my fault. I did what I was told to do” <or the plan everyone agree was the best plan of action>.

 

The alternative?

As soon as you “see” after you have made the initial commitment … and adapt the plan … well … oops … you have assumed some responsibility.

 

Now <part 2>.

You can always mitigate that responsibility by going back to the “all those who agreed it was the best plan” and saying ‘here is what I see now that we have actually committed … and I think we should adapt in this way <to increase the likelihood we will achieve our objective commitment>. The problem with this is timeliness. You miss the opportunity to make the change when it should be made. Napoleon was a master of adapting the original commitment within the proper window of ‘adapting opportunity.’

Gaining consensus on adapting <or a change to a plan> is … well … a frickin’ bear. Let’s call it almost impossible. For sure we can call it ‘less than timely.’

Bottom line. Shirking responsibility takes time.

 

Regardless.

 

Risk analysis is simply part of business. Always has been and always will be. And it should be. Running a business without doing so is simply chaos … not running a business.adapt new plans

 

However.

 

Eliminating risk is impossible. Only mitigating risk is possible. And I could argue that not adapting after committing actually increases risk.

I wish in today’s business world we would spend less time building ‘the perfect plan’ and instead build ‘the best plan we can’ and commit … and see.

 

Look.

-perfect_planNapoleon won a shitload of battles. He wasn’t perfect … and his planning and plans were significantly less than perfect.

But the dude knew how to commit.

He knew how to engage when the window of opportunity existed.

He knew how to ‘see’ <adapt>.

He knew how to keep his eye on the bigger commitment <the objective … see Vienna … take Vienna>.

 

He didn’t confuse committing to a plan and committing to an objective.

 

And, frankly, I believe we get confused on this far too often in business.

 

More business leaders should be saying ‘let’s commit … and see.’ And not just saying the words … but walking the walk so the implementers do not feel as if the plan is something etched in stone.

 

Adapting is part art <seeing information and feedback as it is absorbed and ‘feeling’ its momentum & conclusions – statistics can lie as well as people can> and part science <making sure you actually see the most relevant information & feedback>.holding universe together matters

 

Adapting is not for the faint of heart.

 

But.

 

To the bold comes the fruits of victory.

Enlightened Conflict