Enlightened Conflict

instinct

April 6th, 2013

“Ideas pull the trigger, but instinct loads the gun.” – Don Marquis

This quote is taken from Marquis’ “The Almost Perfect State” which was written in 1927 as a series of sharp criticisms of the Progressive Era.

Ok.

I imagine a lot of people read this quote and wonder if the quote would work better … “ideas load the gun, but instinct pulls the trigger.”

But I believe that misses Don’s point <albeit I have not spoken with him on this topic … he died in 1937>.

The point?

Knowledge and experience can only take you so far.

It is the difference between being solely analytical and incorporating the intangible <the instinctual>.

What he is suggesting is that all the bright big ideas in the world don’t mean shit if they cannot be brought into being without a person who can originate the intellectual movement of action. This person requires a special character.

Ah.

Special character.

Instinct is one of those things people hate.

Because it is not tangible … and it always assumes some level of risk.

It is research of one <which scares the shit out of people these days>.

That means …

Collaboration? Well. Nope.

Consensus? Geez. Nope.

Extrapolation through the hypotenuse of multiple data points discussed ad nausea and plotted on some nifty white board? Sounds like fun … but … nope.

Instinct is gut … albeit typically great instincts have been honed by experience and knowledge.

But in the end … it is not tangible nor proven.

It is … well … just what it is.

Sure.

It can be cultivated.

And it can even be honed.

But I do not believe it can be taught.

Well. Let me take that back and try this.

Good instincts cannot be taught.

Good instinct is first and foremost an internal aptitude. We all have instincts … but some just have gooder instincts. Beyond that natural foundation it is probably a combination of experience and knowledge and ultimately a mindset.

I say a mindset because instinct is a feeling and not anything visible or tangible. You sense what to do and where to go and what to say.

And it often isn’t because your instincts are proven good … but just rather that you know what feels wrong.

“Every time I’ve done something that doesn’t feel right, it’s ended up not being right.” – Mario M. Cuomo

That said.

I know one of the most frustrating things I have heard in business decision meetings is “I am not sure what the right thing to do is … but … what we are discussing doing sounds wrong.”

And while frustrating … it also feels right.

We sometimes get so rushed to make a decision we grab one … anyone will do. And, yet, it feels wrong … okay … maybe not wrong … just not right.

That is instinct.

Not only knowing the path to success … but also recognizing paths to failure & disappointment <before you even take one step on that path>.

It is a true joy to be near someone with good, if not great, instincts.

They seem to be in an effective zone and not in a comfort zone. What I mean is that they have a habit of disregarding distractions … discerning the important from the unimportant … and have a focus. That focus may not be the destination <it can be> but oftentimes their instincts are reflective of the journey to the destination.

They have a humble confidence … and sometimes are even slightly insecure .

“Trust instinct to the end, even though you can give no reason.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson

And they are rarely emotional in decision making.

Now.

Conversely, it is absolutely miserable to be near someone who has crappy instincts <but thinks they have good instincts>.

It is not only miserable because you end up going down lots of fruitless paths and waste a lot of energy but also because instincts are intangible.

There are no numbers or research or facts that can counter instincts and intuition. Therefore someone in a leadership position who has crappy instincts is unmovable. They are literally an elephant in the room.

That is misery.

Regardless.

Instinct is a natural aptitude.

Kind of like a knack.

An innate tendency or response to act in ways that, at its most base description, is essential to development, preservation or survival.

As Hayakawa suggests … instinct implies innate disposition rather than having a talent. It is not a gift, nor a talent or even an aptitude. It is more an inborn intangible. It could be called a ‘Knack’ but that has almost always been associated with social rather than intellectual causes & situations.

It is tough in today’s world for people with good instincts.

While intellectual in its strength it is not proven with any reason.

In an over thinking, over analyzing, over safe world .. ‘without reason’ doesn’t often gain a place at the table.

Instinctual decision making often requires having people follow with some blind faith. And in a world of consensus and collaboration … well … that ain’t happening much these days.

answering the help wanted ads for data decipherer

March 12th, 2013

Help Wanted!- Data, data everywhere—and not enough people to decipher it – WSJ headline 3/11

51% of surveyed IT professionals currently involved in big-data projects cited ‘lack of expertise to connect the dots’ as a reason projects fail in their organization. No other factor was more commonly cited. – infochimps, inc.

Well.

This post is either going to show I am incredibly naïve or incredibly smart or incredibly stupid <and clueless>.

Look.

Everyone in business is drowning in data these days.

But here is a newsflash … we were always drowning in data … albeit different data … but I am willing to bet a shitload of money that anyone with any business experience will agree that we had so much data crossing our desks <in the good ole days> that you could build your own great pyramid of paper if you so desired.

As I scratch my head over the flurry of farcical diatribes around “big data” I can’t help but be reminded of the poem “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner”:

“water, water everywhere, nary a drop to drink.”

We might say the same thing about how technology has enhanced the volume of data these days.

The volume of data is almost unfathomably vast.

And because of that we see thousands of articles on how to sift through the data for business advantages.

Well.

This is crazy talk. Mostly because it seems like everyone is mesmerized by the quantity of data available.

Anyone with any business chops will quickly point out that anyone, throughout the history of business, has always had a quantity of data available.

And we almost always had too much quantity <more than they could ever use>.

The access to quantity has never been an issue.

Now.

They will also point out that part of knowing your business shit is setting up efficient/effective data gathering … so you capture the most important <and not invest gobs of energy on stuff you will never use, cannot use, do not really want to use or is just plain useless> data.

Now.

They will also point that data analysis has three components:

- Assessing the data available <with gobs available which gobs are most meaningful>

- Setting up a system to use the useful data <consistently trapping & tracking the useful stuff consistently saves time and effort>

- Analyzing the data <connecting the dots … instead of just showing numbers>

Now.

They will also point out that the third step in the process is often best done by someone who has no clue how the data is gathered … or even needs to know exactly what data was not gathered <although they may at some point suggest gathering something that someone up the ladder had decided was unimportant> … but they know how to connect dots.

Now.

I will now point out we in business have been doing this for years.

Sure. More and different data may be available today but the schematic looks the same.

Business management has always faced an obstacle when it comes to reaping the benefits of big data because they always need someone who can tell them what it all means.

But it seems that because there are so many new ways to gather and track data there is a heightened awareness, and desire, to actually use all this data stuff … with the same good intentions that business had in the past … gain a competitive edge … or at least to keep up with the competition.

Oh.

And here is what any business person with chops will also tell you … relying on data alone isn’t enough. This is a game of both head and gut.

When you rely too heavily on data, you can become too reactive, too myopic in your thinking and miss out on what the numbers can never tell you … the why’s and the what’s and the <inconceivable to number crunchers> impractical inconsistent sometimes illogical human mind & behavior. Data cannot tell you what to do.

<Big> data can lead to small sharp insights and beget great decisions and action.

But.

Here is a business truth <that most executives do not want to hear these days> … data, of any size <double venti, regular venti, grande, etc.> has no value in and of itself.

The true value of data is found in context.

Look.

You absolutely need a team with technical people to gather & mine the data … but they need to be working together with an experienced analytical person who knows how to ‘connect dots.’ This type of person knows how to observe information, interpret information and place it in context with non-number/data stuff and explain it.

And, no, that person may not be a data gwonk.

They are just good at connecting dots.

And they are good at not being blinded by the newest & nearest data point.

“Gut feel is great for everyday problems. But, it often leads us astray when we’re presented with complex streams of information. We can be blinded by the newest and nearest data point and miss the big picture.” – Nate Silver statistician & author

I don’t agree with Nate … well … he did caveat it with “can” and “often” … so maybe I will give him a break.

Gut feel … intuition … ability to “feel” the numbers in context … is essential in order to use the data.

I do believe in what IBM calls “augmenting intuition.” And that means … well … what it says. Augment … ‘in addition to’ … add in as part of your decision criteria.

No amount of numbers <and data of any kind> can eliminate all decision risk. Nor can any amount of numbers <and data of any kind> insure you make the best decision.

Here is my last “Truth” of this post … data & analytics can make you equally smart & stupid.

People make smart decisions using data all the time.

People make stupid decisions using data all the time.

The only thing consistent is people.

And here is where the article kind of truly went a little nutso.

Increasing training & skill set on ‘connecting dots’ to increase the amount of decipherers available to businesses.

This is where it all falls apart for me.

Because doing what they suggest basically means that data drives good decisions. Data all by itself. No intuition … no feel … no gut from experience … that maybe data can make a decision for you … and they are wrong.

I become scared because I almost feel like this is a deeper dive into that business hellhole I call “responsibility free decision making” with the intent to do the “safest behavior to increase return <or increase advantage>”.

This is using data to make all the decisions <and they even use it to hire a person which is also kind of nuts>.

This is dancing on the head of a pin business management.

And it doesn’t teach people how to think.

It doesn’t utilize skills of existing people <who aren’t steeped in ‘Big Data” but are also not intimidated nor blinded by the newest & nearest data point> who are very good at connecting dots.

And, worse, it guarantees a next business generation of “big Data decipherers” … or people who use data decision making skills and have honed no intuition skills at all.

Am I suggesting “gut management” alone? Of course not. I never have. I never will.

In the 80’s we scoured computer printouts with ‘crosstabs’ and supermarket SAMI and Nielsen reports which contained reams of data point we had to make sense of.

In the 2000’s we are scouring computer printouts <assuming you print out> which contain reams of data points we have to make sense of. And you did it then, as it should be done now, as part of a team to insure you didn’t get dazzled by some shiny data point.

This stuff drives me a little nuts because we all think the newest and nearest data point <oops … innovation> means that the world has turned on its head.

It hasn’t.

Some skills are just … well … good business skills. Adaptable to pretty much any new widget or innovation that mankind can create.

I know how to connect dots. I have no clue how to build systems to gather these dots. And you know what? I am not sure I have ever known.

And I am not unique. There are hundreds if not thousands of Me’s out there.

The skill?
Making Big Data nice small simple learnings/conclusions. Ok. Making any data available into nice small simple learnings.

2013. 1913. 1813.

The skill has always been relevant … and thinking that ‘data decipherer’ is some new skill is crazy.

leaf without a tree

March 4th, 2013

So.

Studying history, and using what you have learned, is a tricky challenge. Often we study history, and the past, so that we can “not make the same mistakes.” Well. The attempt is one of valor <and good intentions> but most actions using historical learning are misused <as they are misguided>.

“If you don’t know history, you don’t know anything. You’re a leaf that doesn’t know it’s part of a tree.” – Michael Crichton

—-

“History is not, of course, a cookbook offering pretested recipes. It teaches by analogy, not by maxims.” - Henry Kissinger

—–

Henry <or Hank to his friends> also said …

“The study of history offers no manual of instructions that can be applied automatically: history teaches by analogy, shedding light on likely consequences of comparable situations. But each generation must determine for itself which circumstances are in fact comparable.”

Now.

Studying history is always good <that is a Bruce postulate>.

How you use what you learned studying history is always a challenge <that is a Life truth and an ongoing Life debate>.

Too often people want to use historical “learning” as a literal guide for what to do now <or in the future>.

You cannot.

Sorry.

But you can’t.

I do not care if we are talking about business, life or economics.

You cannot .

Hank, discussing Foreign Policy, actually walks us through a nice way to think about this.

Intellectuals analyze systems & situations while statesmen build them.

And therein lays a vast difference between the analyst and the statesman. The analyst can choose what problem he wishes to study whereas the statesman’s problems are imposed upon him. The analyst can allot whatever time is necessary to come to a clear conclusion while the overwhelming challenge of a statesman is time. The analysts runs no, or little, risk. If the conclusions prove wrong he can rewrite and reanalyze. The statesman is permitted only one guess and his mistakes are irretrievable.

Sure. Typically the future is simply a version of the past. But what makes it challenging is that what appear to be superficial changes, that sometimes make it easily recognizable, are the things that transform situations into unrecognizable changed situations. In addition … we tend to ignore the ‘collection of people’ variable .

In the end? We wonder what happened <and why we didn’t learn from history>.

Well.

As Kissinger states … history teaches by analogy, not identity.

Unfortunately this means that the lessons of history are never automatic.

That they can be apprehended only by a standard which admits the significance of a range of experience, that the answers we obtain will never be better than the questions we pose.

Now.

I do believe no significant decisions are possible without at least an awareness of the historical context.

For everything exists in time more than they do in a moment in time. What I mean by that is an explanation of ‘context.’ You may not be able to completely replicate the exact time, place, situation and experiences of any & all affecting what you are studying <or even replicate a majority of those variables> however you can gain a sense of choices that were available and choices made. This is contextual learning.

Because people forget that what they are studying is a given moment which is simply a situation where it is not only a reflection of a collection of individuals <and their experiences> but that situation also achieves a unique identity through the consciousness of a common history <those individuals are studying that particular moment colored by,or driven, by perceptions of beliefs of that time>.

The only possibility of learning is studying history within the collective memory.

It is not often that we actually learn something from the past. And it is even rarer that we draw the correct conclusions from it.

Why?

The lessons of history <and Life experiences also> are contingent.

That means they teach the consequences of certain actions … but they cannot force a recognition of comparable situations.

Well.

That is a BIG thought right there.

One that many of us should think about more often.

Let me translate <for my own pea like brain>.

History is contingent upon a series of factors … and to make it exponentially more difficult … contingent upon a continuum <horizontally> as well as simultaneously <vertically>.

Yikes.

That means exactly replicating the situation in which you are ‘learning from’ is … well … pretty much impossible.

The variations and variables almost seem limitless <try pointing that out in your next business meeting when someone says “what did we learn from past experience”>.

And … well … gosh … doesn’t that kind of make you rethink every business book you have ever read?

Regardless.

History is just that … history. A series of factors & variables all aligned for one moment in time <vertically & horizontally>.

Therefore … change is not only the constant but it also possibly represents the only legitimate path to progress.

I say that to suggest that change may actually freedom from the past.

And to suggest that history, when one decides to live it and not learn from it, can cage you.

I know.

Learning to break free from the history that holds no value <or decreases value> is difficult. It is easier to simply use it as a handbook of ‘what to do.’

If we truly seek to learn <and teach> we cannot be subjugated to history.

If we truly seek to be better than what we already are … we cannot do simply as history ‘dictates.’

But all we really feel most comfortable with is remaking things in the image of historical learning.

Well.

I guess that means to remake things better we have to be … oops … uncomfortable.

I believe what I just wrote will make a boatload of people very uncomfortable <assuming anyone understands what I wrote>. Why? Well. This kind of thinking can drive you crazy … particularly if you want to simply study and create conclusions <rather than hypotheses>.

So. The how do most people, and businesses, get around this type of thinking?

They suggest that they have isolated the most important variables … and can draw a correlation to the current situation … draw some conclusive conclusions … and isolate the best plan of action.

Well. They are nuts <if not crackpots or liars>. I do not doubt 99% of the intent of these people but they are still wrong. History provides context not analogy. Now people <in general> do not like that. It makes them feel uncomfortable. They want to know unequivocally that they will not be ‘making the mistakes of the past.’ Sorry. Can’t happen. You may be able to reduce the odds but cannot unequivocally guarantee it. Oops. Big trouble in the working world if you say shit like that.

But it is Truth. Truth in a business world. Truth in Life.

Another truth? <and something that most people will also feel uncomfortable with>

Studying history will make the in-the-moment decision better. I did not say “using history to make the decision” but rather “people who have studied history will better be able to CREATE a unique decision in the moment.” Yup. I used the dreaded ‘unique’ word. Most decisions are discreet <unique to the moment>. That makes people feel very very <very> uncomfortable.

Regardless. It is a Life truth.

In the end?

“Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought.” – Basho

Well.

That is a nice uncomfortable thought to end on.

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.

rangers and business

November 19th, 2012

So.

I almost called this “when someone that’s in the right” as I thought about what the Texas Rangers <not the baseball team> could teach us about business.

“No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that’s in the right and keeps on a’comin’.” – Captain Bill McDonald Texas Ranger in the 1800’s

Some initial thoughts for business people:

- More people should keep coming when they are in the right … and not give in.

- More people should keep coming when they are in the right.

- Being in the right, and being sure you are right, is difficult … in fact it may be easier to know what is wrong.

- Right is often just a belief, not facts or statistics, and sometimes that is all you have.

Regardless of what I write from here on out … it will all be balanced by this fact.

Being in the right is about making choices.

It is not about being smarter … or knowing more than some else … or more sure … or a litany of other semi-arrogant aspects.

Sure. Of course you have to believe yourself, and in yourself … particularly when other people tell you your right is … well … wrong … but the foundation of ‘being in the right’ is, and will always be, you knowing in your heart <stomach, soul> what makes you … well … you . Your gestalt … what makes you the way you are in business <which I hope is an extension of your everyday life but this is about business>.

But … it is about making a choice.

When you believe you are in the right … it is in those times you have a choice to make. You can choose to believe what ‘they’ say or you can choose to disagree and stick to your guns.

But, remember, you always have a choice.

Ok.

- Being right and keep on coming.

I happen to agree with Captain McDonald. No business person in the wrong can stand up against someone in the right … who doesn’t quit. I know that sounds naïve in today’s’ world of consensus and compromise and conservative decision making … but I truly believe this.

But it is hard. Really really difficult. Wrong wins a lot in business these days. Wrong is relentless, and sneaky and smart.

And that is why, similar to the size of the Texas Rangers, this is a relatively small band of people who are willing to go out into the business desert, all by themselves, just with their guns to fight the enemy. It takes a special person. It takes a resilient person. And it takes more than a couple holsters of character. I imagine I believe there are more of them out there than those who actually signed up … it is just that they are not encouraged to sign up <because today’s business environment doesn’t often seem to encourage the right to keep on a’comin’>.

Regardless.

All I really care about is that business today needs people who won’t even think of giving up. The benefits of those who are in the right and keep coming are evident so I won’t list them. However … I do recognize that this type of character and personality <to keep ‘a comin’> can pose some problems. In a work environment/organization the potential problems are rampant.

Ok. Here is where being the right people separate themselves into ‘non problem versus ‘problem’ employees. First, of course, this person gets intrinsic points in business for their high degree of certainty about what they believe <the more strongly you know you’re right … the more certain it is you are right in others eyes>.

However … being sure you’re right and being right are two different things.

And confusing these two is bad.

What I mean by this is that intensity of belief isn’t the same thing as Truth. In fact, intensity of belief doesn’t end up implying anything but exactly that … a belief. Yup. If you believe something strongly, all it means is that you believe that something strongly … not that it is true. Nor can you assume that intensity of belief intrinsically translates into that others will believe it strongly too.

The error of thinking that intensity of belief means anything at all outside of itself isn’t something we should be encouraging. This error causes major cracks in teamwork and organizational efficiency.

All that matters is the intensity of the truth, i.e., what is the right thing to do <the action>.

Anyway … being in the right takes a strong person … think about this example of one of those in the right keep who kept ‘a comin’ and assumed the risk.

Southwest Airlines co-founder Herb Kelleher was willing to risk his career for four years (and his own money) while he fought in the courtrooms to get Southwest Airlines on the ground. Though airlines and Dallas based airlines fought Southwest in the courtrooms Kelleher was willing to risk everything to “fight the good fight.” Why? Because he believed so strongly in the vision, what he felt was right, that nothing else mattered.

‘Nothing else mattered.’

Strong thought.

Hey. This topic ain’t easy.

And with all that I just said … let’s go to …

- Sometimes compromising is the worst thing you can do.

Notice I began with ‘sometimes’ but let me begin with ‘the worst thing you can do.’

Yeah. I just finished writing about the dangers of sticking to your guns … but now I will shift to compromising.

Compromise is always a dangerous game. Especially if you are compromising ‘in the right’ and ‘in the wrong’ things. there is no balamce in that equation. In the world of weights & measures something odd actually happens to ‘right’ … wrong things actually weigh more, have significantly more mass … so if you try and compromise and balance the ‘right’ side of the scale is always lower <that is bad>. And, yet, despite the weight & the mass … when you actually do the right thing is has a larger impact.

Yup. I guarantee it.

Being the right is weightless but a heavy burden to carry. Being in the right has no significant size yet makes a large imprint. Being in the right is a funny thing that way.

It is easily destroyed by compromise because of its smallness in its ego and image.

Well. I will go back to the Texas Rangers to help me out on this one … with minimal support and no communication from higher authority, they lived and often died by the motto, ‘Order first, then law will follow.”

They had no compromise in their actions. Keep order based on what is right. The law will follow the right actions.

Which leads me to ‘defining the law’ of what is right.

- Being sure what is right.

Oddly I will begin the topic of being sure you are in the right with … well … adaptability … and not uncompromising consistency.

I find the people most often really, and truly, in the right are the people who are constantly revising their knowledge and understanding of situations … and reconsidering a problem they ,and everyone else> thought had already been solved. They seem to always be open to new points of view and new information and new ideas and accepting seeming contradictions … they are always challenging their own way of thinking.

This doesn’t mean these people do not have a well formed point of view.

But I do tend to find that they sometimes consider their point of view as temporary.

The corollary? The people who are most often ‘in the wrong’ are obsessed with data/knowledge that only supports one point of view.

This adaptability typically translates into an ability to determine what just doesn’t matter.

Because they realize that is where “right’ can be waylaid most often.

Most time is spent wasting time on things that just don’t matter. If you can cut out the work and thinking that just doesn’t matter … being in the right means being focused on what really matters …. And in business that typically translates into a level of peak productivity.

In the end … being in the right depends on each situation and needs some adaptability to stay the course. Sure. There is overriding ‘law’ … but order is defined by the situation <and sometimes solely defined by ‘the wrong’>. Yup. In fact sometimes the “Law” is most easily identified by knowing what is wrong … and putting wrong to order <and Law will follow>. Those in the right seem most often to attack wrong rather than make it right.

And that leads me to the last topic on this … the one that makes the Texas Rangers in business so special.

- Being ‘in the right’ sometimes intangible.

Now. Let’s be clear.

Feeling right about something doesn’t make it … well … right. But sometimes that is as close as “right” becomes.

And that is tough in today’s business environment where people want ‘proof’ as a way to absolve themselves of responsibility <that is the cynical aspect> or need some comfort in statistics/data in order to quantify their decision <this recognizes a pragmatic aspect>.

Order can be kept in a variety of ways and stay within the law. The adaptability of actions, in a world where everyone wants best practices or ‘solid every day process’, is a talent beset with challenges within the office. It is an intangible belief, and understanding, in what to do … which makes it sometimes very difficult to explain.

And I ended on this thought because it circles back to the original quote … ‘keep a’ comin’. Being in the right means you have no quit, not an ounce of it, in you. if you are in the right you just gotta keep on keepin’ on.

More businesses need people like this.

Those who are good at being right about the right things to do … and the character to stick it out and keep coming.

Okay.

My last thought for business people.

“The rangers are what they are because their enemies have been what they were. The rangers had t be superior to survive. Their enemies were pretty good … so they had to be better.” - walter webb

I refuse to quote ‘good to great’ but I will say two things …

- Good enough is the enemy of great good

- Those who are ‘in the right’ are typically really really good because their enemies, those in the wrong, are pretty good at doing what they do best <be in the wrong>.

Open, open … and open again

November 4th, 2012

Ok.

I have two pet peeves … or things that aggravate me, in business meetings.

(1) Selling beyond the close.

(2) Having multiple people say the same thing.

Selling beyond the close is going to be another post.

Because that really only aggravates me when it is an experienced person who does it. Less experienced have to find the “feeling” associated with agreement and then have the strength, and fortitude, to keep their mouth shut <to leave unsaid words … well … left unsaid> because the idea had been agreed upon. And that just takes practice.

This is about “the repeat.”

It may be the single most aggravating common mistake business people do in meetings.

I bring it up because I just experienced it. <again>

In the opening of the meeting someone else came crashing in and … well … re-opened the meeting … oh … and then someone else steps in to reopen.

Yup. That would officially be three opens to the same meeting.

Three opens differentiated mostly by the sound of the voices … and maybe a word here or there.

I used the opening as an example mostly because it sets the tone for the rest of the meeting and I started scribbling notes for this post right then and there <yeah … even I started tuning out … and I had a role>.

So.

You would think experienced business people would not do this, but experienced people are actually the worst offenders <probably because they have the most bloated egos>.

Let’s think about this … because this repeating can occur in a variety of ways in a business meeting.

The most popular is three people answering a question … when the first answer was just fine (or 90% right which is just as good as fine).

This one is just frickin’ crazy.

It is crazy for 2 reasons <okay … there are more but I will stick with the two most common sense business craziness aspects>:

- Multiple answering is acting like this is the one and only opportunity to answer the question. It looks like three dogs slobbering over a bowl of human food thinking they need to eat it fast before the bowl is completely empty because they will never ever get any food ever again <dogs have no sense of time>.

It is crazy because if it is important enough it will come up again.

Oh. And isn’t there something at the end of a meeting called “questions”? <silly me for pointing that out>

- Multiple answering implies the business people on the opposite side of the table are stupid. Okay. It just implies that they are not smart enough to ask a clarification question if they actually need clarification. Oh. But here is the crazy part. You will never frickin’ know if they had needed clarification because you just bludgeoned them with three different clubs of words.

But I guess the open, open, open practice is the worst.

Or maybe it just feels the worst.

Because it is delaying the actual meeting. And it is people just talking. And most of the words are saying the same thing (in different words).

And. It. Is. Painful.

And it shows lack of confidence (from the presenting group).

And it shows lack of understanding (in that if you are patient and the point you want to make is THAT important it can be discussed later).

And it shows lack of meeting dynamics understanding.

The only example I can come up with would be if you went to a symphony and they opened with a song. And at the end of the opening one of the band members said: ‘Let’s play that again <because I think we could do it better>’.

And then at the end of that opening … another band member said “ok, let’s do it once more” <because I think we could do it better>.

Oh. And think of that example just as I explained it … but it is decided to do so … without telling the other band members you were going to do it.

Yeah.

You would kinda be tempted to shove a violin where the sun don’t shine on that person wouldn’t ya? <yes>

Now.

Because this is so aggravating and is so prevalent I know I have been part of several fairly creative techniques to halt things before it can even happen.

Just some tricks of the trade <but even they don’t work all the time>. I will begin with the infamous “one person could never answer a question correctly so several people will addend the initial answer.”

First.

Of course you tell everyone “just one answer to every question.” Get it out on the table. Even the worst offenders will take a reflective moment and ponder. They may not heed the advice in the heat of the battle but at least you have set the groundwork. Please note … 99% of the time this never works.

- Designate a question answerer. Most companies have one or two people who are just … well … better than other people at answering questions. Just have all questions answered by this person. Now. This person doesn’t actually answer all the questions … but they redirect to the appropriate person.

“Sue knows the most about that … Sue … what do you think?” is the easy redirect.

The power of this solution is that all questions are being handled by your best question answerer. Depending on the type and length of the meeting it is very very effective … but puts a very heavy burden on that person. The only tip I really have on this option is that even though that person may be your best answerer, if you ask him/her to do this … do not ask them to close the meeting. They will have invested too much energy and thought to be the most effective in closing.

- Designate a question follow-upper. This is most typically the person who you have decided to close the meeting because they also tend to be the ones who have listened the best, assimilated the data <who said what and asked what> and crafted a bunch of words that doesn’t sound like gobbledygook <a technical business term>. This person follows behind answers to questions and either adds a brief point or asks for permission to move on <it can be done like this … “if that answers the question we can go to …”>.

Trust me. It sounds smooth if you have the right person do it.

- Coach everyone to end their answer with something like “did that answer your question? If not, someone else may have something to add.” It is a preemptive strike against your ‘repeat’ offenders on your side of the table … in addition it shows patience, care for your audience, desire to listen <and respond> and a sincere desire to insure something is covered well before you move on.

And directly to the rant topic of ‘open, open, open.’

- Stick to the plan & the script.

Look. Most meetings using a full team have been discussed, discussed again, and most likely rehearsed. You have made some decisions. You have a plan. Stick to it.

Most likely you have made one of two decisions for the opening.

The first is ‘I am going to have my best opener and have that person set the tone’ or, the second option, ‘I am going to have the most relevant person open the meeting and have them set the functional groundwork’ <which isn’t exactly ‘tone’ as it is more functional>.

And because you have made that decision, either one, you have also made a conscious decision on two additional things for sure … who follows the opening … and who will close the meeting <the rest of the speakers are really all about delivering the information>.

The second talker will always know the risks of what happens if opener doesn’t have their “A” game that day. And will move in and do whatever it is their script suggests.

Oh. On that thought … people who step in and ‘re-open’ for some reason always seem to be clueless on the affect they have on the second speaker <which constantly amazes me in its lack of awareness>. Not only does a ‘second opening’ undermine the opening statements but also immediately suggests to the audience that the second planned speaker wouldn’t be smart enough, and aware enough, to know what to do.

Anyway. You have also selected the closer because … well … they know how to close a meeting. A good closer knows if you stumbled out of the gates or not, if you have picked up momentum or not as well as what was covered and what wasn’t. You picked that person because that is what they do. And if you stick with the script that closer will pick up whatever pieces which are important enough to be picked up as well as assimilate what has been shared and discussed.

Frankly, going off script can make the best closers in the world become the non-best closers in the world. Why? Mostly because it scatters even more random pieces out to be assessed and juggled.

Lastly on sticking to the script … not all openings go as well as planned … and some go better than planned … in either case it does a meeting no good to slow down.

You keep on keepin’ on.

Because meetings, just as in Life, if you are not going forward you are going backwards.

Oh. Someone is probably going to suggest all these guidelines and boundaries make for a rigid cold meeting. Well. I have three things to say with regard to that:

No. <or … “nuts to that.”>
Meeting & the Business World
It sometimes seems like people put a higher priority when designing & discussing meetings on “casual” and likeable and a whole bunch of loosey-goosey nebulous feel good stuff versus information delivery. In meetings … pretty much any meeting … the number one priority, far and away from any other, is delivering relevant information. Worry, and focus, on that. The better, and more relaxed, you are on delivering the information the more casual/likeable/nebulous good you will look.
Adaptability. The ability to adapt to a situation is the pinnacle of meeting effectiveness. But notice I used ‘pinnacle.’ I did because it is difficult … which is kind of funny for me to write because despite that ‘truth’ … I cannot remember the last time in discussing a meeting where it was almost discussed as a “well of course we will adapt if we need to.” Look. I love adaptability. That characteristic in a meeting is powerful. I also recognize it is very difficult. I only suggest being open to adapting if you have one of two things <there may be others but these are the easiest>:

- a cohesive team with a track record together. Anything other than an experienced team is fraught with peril. And, no, you cannot bend this rule if you say “we have a senior experienced team.” Nope. No can do. Even the best of the best ,as individuals, need to play together as a team for a while, and particularly in pressure situations, before you actually become a cohesive team. So just being senior and experienced doesn’t meet these criteria.

<note: I cannot tell you how many times companies make the ‘this is a senior team’ mistake … and make it again and again>.

- At least two senior great ‘listener/responder’ team members. If you have 2 co-captains who seem like they are two sides of the same coin you can sometimes pull this off. Of course the presentation/discussion has to be built to accommodate adapting <typically this means other people on the team have to have ‘pods’ of information to share and understand they can avoid the transition responsibilities> but a good team can pull this off if you have ‘the two.’ One? No can do.

To finish up …

Meetings, using a team, is all about choreography … in delivering information <not in delivering a show>. However I will use a show metaphor on why “opening, opening, opening” is not only aggravating but never good. In the performance arts even the best make mistakes. The audience groans. The rest of the cast visibly tightens up. But the best of the best pick themselves up and move forward like nothing bad ever happened. The audience doesn’t forget … but they relax … and recognize the best don’t dwell but move on. And the rest of the cast? Hmmmmmmmm … they typically not only relax but they also typically pick up their game ever so slightly because their best of the best decided to show them that mistakes does not mean failure.

It never fails to amaze me how often senior business people just completely miss the boat on this relatively simple thing.

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 .

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.

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.

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.