Well.

This post is partially silly and partially truth.

And maybe that summarizes all of Murphy’s laws in general. What makes them fun to read is that they almost always seem to contain a <maddening> grain of truth.

I was cleaning out a folder and came across a shortened <there is a website that has almost 100 Murphy’s laws of war> list of Murphy’s Laws of war.

And, no, Murphy is no Sun Tzu <The Art of War>. Oh. But just to say this while it is on my mind … every business person should, at minimum, read The Art of War but it doesn’t hurt to have a copy of the little easy to read pamphlet in your working space. Its good <business> stuff.

Anyway.

Let me share Murphy’s version of war theory before I wax poetically on how relevant they are to business.

Murphy’s Laws of War:

- Professionals are predictable. It is the amateurs that are dangerous.

- Never draw fire … it irritates everyone around you.

- Friendly fire … isn’t.

- Never forget your weapon was made by the lowest bidder.

- The enemy invariably attacks on 2 occasions:

When they are ready
When you are not

- If the enemy is within range … so are you.

- Mines are equal opportunity weapons

- When the pin is pulled Mr. Grenade is not our friend

- When in doubt, empty your magazine.

- Don’t ever be first, don’t ever be last, and don’t ever volunteer.

- If it’s stupid but it works, it isn’t stupid.

Well.

On every single point I was drawing a correlation to business.

Professionals are predictable. Professionals can be bad … good … lazy … but predictable. And consistent. Why? Because they actually do know their shit. They may get lazy, or play politics or even get bullied by someone louder … but they really do know their shit. Amateurs? Well. Simply … they don’t know their shit. Sure. They may get lucky on occasion as well as they may instinctually be okay <on occasion> but they are extremely unpredictable. Even worse? If an amateur has an early success they stretch that to ‘I am now a professional’ and become dangerous. Amateurs are valuable to have around because (a) they can see things differently so you can work the wheat from the chaff and (b) someday they will be professionals. But on their own? They are dangerous.

Never draw fire … because it does irritate people around you. There is an art & a science to actually raising the objection … drawing out a complaint or criticism. It also contains risk. People do not like risk. Especially if they are not controlling it. If you draw the fire … be prepared to take the bullet(s). If you are not ready to do so? You will irritate the people around you even more.

Ah. Friendly fire. Let’s call it constructive criticism or what could be <and is often called> ‘healthy debate.’ Well. It may be healthy but it sure doesn’t feel good or healthy. I guess this also falls under the ‘if it hurts it must be good for you’ philosophy. By the way? That is a stupid philosophy. Work is difficult enough without offering up the supposed friendly fire to your co-workers.

Your weapon is made by the lowest bidder. Oh so true. In today’s business world, despite the fact everyone says ‘quality is number one’ they don’t really mean it. Ok. Maybe they mean it sometimes. And ‘sometimes’ means … well … there will always be an aspect where someone decided to go ‘lowest bidder.’ What do I mean? I have a project with 25 aspects. I decide to go lowest cost on 15 aspects so I can go high quality on the other 10. Murphy’s Law? Somewhere within the 15 going on the cheap will haunt you. I say all that <bringing it back to business> because while you may decide to put your ass on the line because you feel confident ‘we did it the right way’ … just know that somewhere within all that ‘right way’ a component was given to the lowest bidder.

The enemy attacking. I laughed when I read this. Why are people in business always scrambling to address competition? Well. It’s because they are always surprised when it happens. And it’s crazy. More time is wasted (a) preparing yourself for an attack that will never come when you want it to and (b) flailing in response to an attack. The point? You control what you can control. Your own company and business. Ignore an attack if it has acceptable losses and attack when you are ready.

If they are in range … you are in range. To me this is the disillusionment of believing you have an advantage. Advantages are so fleeting if you blink you can miss it <and get your ass blown off>. The moment you have an advantage … trust me … someone is already moving into either (a) the space you just left to get you from the rear or (b) into the same space you are moving into to attack all on their own. Never assume you have an advantage. Never assume if you perceive you have an advantage that it will last. Well. Never assume you are out of range.

Mines are equal opportunity weapons. Pointing out problems doesn’t mean you are absolved from (a) blame, (b) becoming part of the problem or even (c) getting your ass blown up. Notice how people are often hesitant to complain or point out some flaws? It isn’t because they don’t see them or recognize that they shouldn’t be solved … it’s because they also recognize that they could get hurt themselves. Oh. That’s why having a minesweeper employee is priceless. Pay her/him anything they want if they are good at it.

The grenade one. Well. That is a silly one. Kind of. Why kind of? Everyone makes mistakes … in life and in work. Mistakes, like it or not, are like grenades. Once a mistake is made … the pin is pulled. It may be on a 5 second timer, 5 hour timer … even a 5 year timer … but it is a grenade and it is on a timer. Too many times I see people trapped by their own mistakes. And, frankly, they get their ass blown off simply because they held on to the grenade. I know the metaphor is silly … but you get it. In business <for sure> and in Life <most of the time> mistakes have to be shared. By sharing you not only potentially save your own ass … you most likely decrease collateral damage. Simplistically … Mr. Grenade is not your friend.

When in doubt, empty your magazine. Whew. If I had seen this earlier I would have put it up as a sign in my office. Inside an office there is so much discussion on strategy of what to do and what to say and ‘showing all your cards’ and when … and it is such wasted energy. If you have the bullets use them. Trust me. If you use them all and still get killed it’s because you didn’t have enough or you didn’t shoot straight enough … you didn’t get killed because you should have held one or two back. Plus. There is a fairly well-known fact that magazines <business bullets> are manufactured in quantities. You can always grab another magazine if you get the opportunity. Say what? No more magazines or bullets! Oh well. Just means someone was smarter than you and had more bullets. Holding one or two back ain’t gonna help here either. Use it if you got it.

Don’t be first, last or volunteer. This one is tricky. But I will give a personal opinion on this … I prefer, in business, to be a quick follower. I know that may sound strange <because leading implies being first and I like leading> but I have always tended to believe the ‘first’ <in general> were simply the most hasty. The most impatient. The ones most scared to not be first. In their desire to be first they just didn’t have all their proverbial shit together. In fact … my dream business scenario is actually to see 2 hasty ‘firsts’ coming out of the blocks duking it out and bludgeoning each other. Whew. Did I just say I liked being the 3^rd out of the blocks? Well. Yeah. If it could play out that way. Being last? Nope. Too late. But a quick follower? Absolutely.

If it’s stupid and works it isn’t stupid. In the business world … too often when things go right and someone perceives it happened out of sheer luck or ‘stupidity gone right’ … it gets ignored. It gets ignored as (a) non replicable and (b) don’t want to replicate <because it was stupid>. You want to know what’s stupid? Ignoring something that worked. I am certainly not suggesting that the ends always justify the means but I am suggesting that working is working. Somehow, someway … it worked. Therefore somewhere within what happened something was not stupid.

Please note that it is mostly the arrogant know it all senior managers who overlook the ‘stupid but worked.’ They “know better.” They “know the right way to do it.” Aw … baloney. They are being stupid.

Well.

That was fun <for me>.

Oddly <in my pea like brain> I thought of writing this using Murphy when I saw this list in some magazine from the J.Crew CEO on business. Maybe because some of the things he suggests would make great Murphy’s Laws at some point.

In addition? I happen to agree with him on his list. Here are his thoughts … the ones I really liked.

Creativity Tips From J.Crew CEO Mickey Drexler

- “Every business could be creative.”

I talk to so many people about the lack of creativity in companies in America. Part of creativity is contrarianism. Creativity battles common wisdom. Because if there’s common wisdom, there’s an opportunity. In my own experience, whatever was a good idea was a bad idea to most people.

- “Companies are in the Stone Ages organizationally.”

You can tell by the offices. “I’m going to see the king!” The king is on the top floor and there are 17 people in front of the king’s office. There are layers of bureaucracy. It shouldn’t be like that.

- “Most companies should have a rule about how big they get.”

Not necessarily assigning a billion-dollar value or a 10 billion-dollar value, but companies that become too ubiquitous go one way.

- “America’s companies are built to destroy creativity.”

If you become the head of a big company today, you’re not the youngest person in the world. You have a contract. You get a jet. You have a huge overpaid salary. You get bonuses. Do you think that CEO is going to screw around with fast, creative change? No. And the board of directors–the last thing they want is someone who’s going to change things. Steve Jobs–he would bet the company, he wouldn’t care. But there are very few people who run companies that way.

- “You have to keep moving forward.”

Everything has a trend to it; I don’t care if it’s appliances or engines. I always ask: What has a company done in the past five years that somebody’s noticed?

- “You cannot copy high quality.”

It takes a long time to get a reputation for quality. There are people in our industry, they’re basically copiers. Look at the cars on the streets. They all look alike. But if you put quality into a product, then have it validated, you have huge credibility. It takes time to earn that.

- “Simplicity is very difficult to achieve.”

Try to ask someone to make a really good roast chicken.

—–

Good stuff.

Smart guy this Mickey. Maybe he should meet Murphy and create some laws.

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 <I imagine because their strength is in the intangible>.

“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.

innovation, creativity and every day normal people

March 20th, 2013

“Unlocking these ideas is how we can help change a person, or help change the world.” - Jim Newton, founder of TechShop which gives creative people access to the tools for innovation.

This is awesome.

Awesome on several levels.

First.

This assumes you don’t have to be Yale/Oxford University freakishly smart to be a great innovator.

Second.

This assumes innovation can be small, medium, large ideas.

Third.

This assumes innovation can be very practical.

Fourth.

This assumes anyone can have an idea.

Fifth.

This assumes anyone can think.

Here is TechShop.

Innovation & Techshop: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU9QrKYs0bs

Here is their mission <in the founder’s words>:

“I find that most people are very passionate about something specific they want to make, but they don’t know how to do it. Some of these ideas are small and personal, and others are world-altering ideas.

TechShop’s mission is to coax people to think about their ideas and help them bring those ideas to fruition.”

Creativity <which is really what innovation is all about> happens in everyone. In fact … creativity is everybody’s business … not just people identified under the misnomer of “creative.”

The connection between business and creativity, or creative thinking, is inextricably linked regardless of whether someone wants to call it creativity or something else which they perceive is more politically correct <or accurate in their own minds>.

We experience creativity in the business world every day. Any time someone’s comfort zone is challenged … the status quo is questioned … or a process is reevaluated … creativity is being activated. I can think of no industry or business that doesn’t embrace creativity … in a traditional definition sense or a nontraditional definition.

And you know what?

There is an additional benefit to embracing the idea creativity exists in everybody <even the common every day schmuck>.

Facilitating it in everyone can help change a person … for the better.

All ideas have value.

Some have value in itself.

Some have value in that it begets another bigger idea.

And all have value to a person’s self-esteem and self-worth.

I love his TechShop idea.

I struggle to find a better business idea for the everyday person out there.

And I struggle to think of one person who could not, or should not, participate.

Yup.

Because I struggle to believe that someone out there has not had one idea <with some potential> in their entire life.

I just wanted to share an awesome concept.

And.

Wanted to share the idea that creativity is everybody’s business.

wisdom

March 18th, 2013

The word wisdom is such a lofty word.

It is such a broad term. It embraces a rare combination of discretion, maturity, keenness of intellect, broad experience, extensive earning, profound thought and compassionate understanding. It outranks all synonyms. And in its fullest most robust sense it is noble in its morality as well as intellect.

And, yet, wisdom is attainable to any and all. Higher educated people do not have the corner on the wisdom market.

Why?

Because at its core wisdom is about simplicity. Stripping away the theoretical mumbo jumbo and all the high falutin’ philosophical meanderings some people get all trapped up in.

“Wisdom is ofttimes nearer when we stoop than when we soar.” – William Wordsworth

Wisdom is actually more about the ability to discern what is important from what is unimportant … and making a decision, or conclusion or judgment, based on that which is the simplest and most important.

Does that mean everyone is wise? Nope.

Does that mean anyone is capable of making a wise decision? Yup.

I tend to believe the wisest among us are the happy few who understand ‘it is what it is’ and nothing more … nor anything less. That truth doesn’t reside in the wretched hollow of guessed intentions or ‘what ifs’ but rather in things as they are.

“More wisdom is latent in things as they are … than in all the words men use.” – Antoine De Saint-Exupery

Look.

I am not suggesting making wise decisions is easy and that everyone is good at making them. Nor am I suggesting wise, or wisdom, shouldn’t be a compliment to the few who deserve it.

Having the ability to understand situations … anticipate consequences … and make sound decisions is a great and honorable <and enviable> aptitude.

But wise isn’t all about fancy words or lofty philosophical platitudes.

Wise is often stooping to simplicity rather than stretching for the complex.

Wise is often simply in what is … not in what it could be.

Wise is often in the guy schlepping in the mail room.

Wise is often in the mother who insures her kids get a square meal every day.

Wise people, and wisdom, is often found in the neighborhood park rather than at some podium or in some talking head on TV.

I say this because we all have it within us … we often know what is right … and the best … and we don’t need some supposedly wise people spewing forth supposed wisdom to tell us what to do and what to think.

We all have wisdom. And we would be wise to ponder that.

morons

March 16th, 2013

“All morons hate it when you call them a moron.” - Holden Caulfield <Catcher in the Rye>

Ok.

Morons is a harsh word and a harsh concept …but let’s face it … most of us have experienced that maddening discussion where we explain that seemingly simple concept … or that seemingly simple common sense point of view to someone … and not only can they not grasp it but may actually argue a completely moronic point of view that flies in the face of <1> facts, <2> truth, or maybe even <3> common sense.

In fact … during the discussion we may even try several different approaches to the idea, using every metaphor <or parable or analogy> within reach to throw into the discussion that we think the person should reasonably be capable of following.

In the end … sometimes we succeed … mostly we fail … and always it is painful <to us> and obviously moronic <to us>.

It is here I will bring up the idea of intelligence <despite the fact it may sound odd in a rant on morons>.

First. Just to set the groundwork … most everyday functions of modern life require an IQ of around 90.

Those functions include driving a car, mailing a letter, paying bills and making a bank deposit.

The more specialized the function, the more intricate, the higher the level of intelligence necessary.

Second. I am not using the term ‘moron’ as a classification of any mental deficiency despite the fact that technically ‘moron’ translates to denoting a mild mental deficiency. I am going to suggest being a moron denotes a certain deficiency … but not a mental one.

Therefore <here is where I link intelligence and the topic of morons> we can dispense with the idea that morons are stupid or have a lack of intelligence.

The deficiency within morons, or being moronic, has nothing to do with intelligence <or at least IQ>. Most have IQs at or above 90 <I made that up but I tend to believe it>.

Let me take it one step further. You cannot be a moron unless you actually are intelligent.

Because morons are actually people who have intelligence … but they waste it.

Either by using it <their intelligence> poorly or misusing it or not even using it at all.

Wow.

Bet you didn’t think I was going to head down that path, did ya?

Morons are actually intelligent? Yup. Morons are simply purposefully ignorant … but they are smart.

Uh oh.

That means morons are as intelligent as you and I <okay … maybe at least me … you are probably smarter and this is simply my issue>.

All that said … it suggests that the moronic issue resides elsewhere than intelligence.

Robert Heinlein said that stupidity characteristics <or characteristics of morons> are actually tied to ignorance <so I am going to steal that idea because I agree with Bob>.

He suggests that stupidity cannot be cured using money, remedial education or some governmental edict because inevitably it resides within a different reason … a purposeful or intentional ignorance.

Purposeful. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … This means that morons actually know something to be wrong with themselves <it may be subconscious but they somewhere within they understand> … they are intelligent enough to understand … and, yet, rather than correct themselves and abandon that ‘something’ … they practice intentional ignorance clinging to that ‘thing’ and inevitably insist that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

And this is where morons are dangerous.

Very very dangerous.

“Because, fanaticism and ignorance is forever busy, and needs feeding. And soon, your Honor, with banners flying and drums beating, we’ll be marching backward, backward, to those glorious ages of the 16th century, when bigots burned the man who dared bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind.” – Clarence Darrow <Inherit the wind>

Morons march backwards. Busily marching themselves and trying to herd the rest of us backwards to some glorious age.

It is a Life truth that fanaticism & ignorance is forever busy <and a busybody>.

I fully understand that this fanaticism and ignorance is impossible to extinguish. But that doesn’t mean it should be tolerated. Particularly if it is actually harmful.

Regardless. Tolerance is an acceptance of the morons.

And with this acceptance, albeit grudging acceptance, the morons simply see it as permission to be moronic and they gladly step up <in their forever busy way of theirs> and do harm.

Harm in the form of stopping <or even reversal> of progress … harm in marching us backwards.

Or they teach and promote falsehoods to others <others including children which is disturbing> with the hope that this younger generation will grow up and can possibly march us backwards.

All this translates into a lot of time and effort and energy lost as ignorance and its byproducts step up and suck time & energy from progress.

Ok. A Bruce thought.

I believe we can no longer afford the luxury of moronic ignorance or tolerate the presence of morons. Tolerating them leads to the creation of a sense that this moronic ignorance actually equals some sort of knowledge <which then makes them some sort of “knowledgeable person” and you know where that leads … ‘trouble in River City’ to quote The Music Man>.

“<there is a> … false notion that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” ― Isaac Asimov

Morons are wily. They have the notion that their smarts, combined with their purposeful ignorance, is just as good as real unfiltered knowledge.

This is tiring to deal with.

In fact … if you find yourself surrounded by morons, rather than just shake your head, you have to purposefully accept the challenge to deal with their moronic thinking with the knowledge that they actually have the intelligence to be non-moronic <but actually choose to be moronic>. Wow. Just typing that made my head hurt.

It would take a monumental effort to create the unlikely evolutionary change where morons become extinct <that may be an unattainable objective but it is certainly an admirable objective>.

And it will take your best monumental effort to deal with a moron because there are instances where the lines are blurred and where argument and debate and discussion regarding two sides of an issue are actually warranted.

But.

You should seek solace in that there are also issues where right is right … and wrong is wrong … and anyone who argues it looks like the guy who believes Yoda exists somewhere and The Force can be attained with focus & practice.

Oh.

And here is where morons really thrive.

Numbers & science & studies & statistics <oh my>.

Science is smart and science is stupid.

Both are true and there could be studies done to prove it.

One of the smart/stupid things about science is something called the ubiquitous study. They are excellent scientific research formats but while all studies <and most research in general> are interesting … they do not reveal eternal, all-encompassing truths.

They simply provide a glimpse into one small, carefully cordoned off area of interest. Extrapolations from the data are based on statistics and therefore do not necessarily apply to everyone and everything.

I say that because it seems like we find comfort worshiping at the altar of the ‘numbers’.

All of us seem to be considering study results and numbers to be the indisputable truth.

What a fantasy.

But it is often a fantasy land morons live, eat & drink in <and thrive in like a bacteria in a petri dish>>. Numbers are their friends and constant companions.

Morons thrive on the isolated statistic. A random factoid or piece of information that has no context nor admits it has Truth only within a limited set of circumstances. And they win a shitload of debates using this technique. How does all this happen?

Well. It sounds simplistic … but I believe we allow it to happen for a couple of reasons … first is a well intentioned but subverted belief in freedom of speech. Subverted because inevitably it is often simply ‘freedom of opinion’ these days. Secondly … ‘opinion’ forces us all to seek something tangible in which to reach some conclusion … therefore we seek statistics or numbers to identify truth <and isolate something we can all agree on>.

And numbers do not necessarily translate into Truth. Especially isolated non-contextual numbers.

In the end we seem to be damned by a society that has ingrained in us this strange belief that because we encourage freedom of speech and freedom of thought … that all ideas deserve respect and consideration that no one individual <or idea> is “better” or more “worthy” of consideration than any other.

What a bunch of bullhockey.

This has created an environment in which any moronic idea can hover around like an aggravating gnat as legitimate idea.

It is crazy.

A moron is a moron.

A moronic idea is a moronic idea.

It is time that we learned to have the balls <or spine if you are a woman> to call out the morons.

Morons don’t like to be called morons.

Why?

Because they are frickin’ intelligent enough to know better than skate by on shallow feelings and beliefs.

And all the while you must swim in the shallow end of the intellectual debate to debate with them … you must be careful of your own ignorance more than theirs … because purposeful ignorance does have a sneaky way of creeping up on you. What I mean is that it is easier to be a moron than to not be a moron. It takes less work, intellectually and curiosity, to maintain an ignorant point of view than it takes to not only grow personally but to actually help a moron grow <which is a quite taxing job>. Frankly it is just easier to quit debating than to take on a moron. I imagine it becomes a test of character.

Regardless. I imagine in the end that is my point <the test morons give us day in and day out>.

Morons are morons because they are smart enough to engage in purposeful ignorance.

To be ignorant on purpose?

Yikes.

You would have to be a moron.

But. In the end … morons hate to be called morons simply because they are smart enough to know they could do, and be, better. Even morons know somewhere under their purposeful ignorance they should be better than what they are. I imagine the only way to beat morons is to actually get them to face that fact.

Wow. There is a tough job. But. We cannot let the morons win. Purposeful ignorance is a disease. A disease that can affect entire civilizations & cultures. That thought makes it scary to even think about tolerating the moron.

the ‘Secret’ ain’t really a secret

March 9th, 2013

Forewarning. If you like The Secret … and live by The Secret … it will be no secret at the end of this rant that I do not believe the secret is a secret at all. So read on at your own peril.

“To create the life of your dreams, the time has come for you to love You. Focus on Your joy. Do all the things that make You feel good. Love You, inside and out. Everything will change in your life, when you change the inside of you. Allow the Universe to give you every good thing you deserve, by being a magnet to them all. To be a magnet for every single thing you deserve, you must be a magnet of love.” ― Rhonda Byrne

“Success or failure depends more upon attitude than upon capacity successful men act as though they have accomplished or are enjoying something. Soon it becomes a reality. Act, look, feel successful, conduct yourself accordingly, and you will be amazed at the positive results.” – William James

Oh boy.

I am going to discuss <rant about> The Secret by Rhonda Byrne.

It really isn’t anything more than a reformulation of William James or even Norman Vincent Peale’s ‘The Power of Positive Thinking.’

Bottom line. The book to me? Tripe. Useless drivel.

Look.

If you want to do something good … well … go ahead and do it.

If you need a self-motivation “I am happy and love life” speech to yourself in the morning … then do it.

But.

Suggesting simply choosing happiness leads to success, well, that is flawed logic. And the whole “magnet for good”? … oh my. We could only all wish it were so easy.

Now.

While I can’t buy this tripe I do love the idea.

But.

C’mon. If it was really this easy wouldn’t we all have everything we truly wanted? <because that’s all we would think about … and I actually guess all of us have actually wanted to do only the things we want to do … and the things that would make us happy>.

Anyway.

The challenge with challenging a book like this is that it actually leverages from a simple Life premise … … that our thoughts <and ultimately – actions> are usually a reflection of our beliefs and attitudes. And if we want to change our reality then we have to change these beliefs and attitudes that shape our thoughts.

But it becomes easier to challenge when it actually suggests that there is a scientific premise <which is actually a made up premise> … that the ‘Universal Law of Attraction’ is a Law in which if you focus on something enough <I assume this is unhappiness as well as happiness> it is not only drawn to you but actually expands.

This made up law says ‘The Law of Attraction states that you will attract to yourself those experiences that match your beliefs: These beliefs then create your EXPERIENCE of reality. So focus on what you DO want, rather than on what you don’t want.’

Therefore <scientifically> you will not only get what you want … but you also get to live a Life only doing what makes you happy.

First. There is no Law of Attraction. Not even a postulate or a theorem. Just a made up law <maybe that is it’s secret?>.

Second. You do not always get what you want. Anything. Experiences included. But I can reverse the logic and guarantee all the things you actually do, and like to do, you actually wanted to do. Reality looked at backwards will always appear closer in the “I wanted to do” mirror. And as for ‘attraction’? What a bunch of bullhockey.

The Secret is a power of intention/power of positive thinking a get what you want formula <also like Tony Robbin>.

Here is the deal.

It will “work” for some based on mathematical probability alone <if enough people think “hard” enough to ‘attract’ whatever they are seeking to attract … a few will>.

And, of course, these few are the ones quoted in the book.

I wish it was actually that simple.

The Secret neglects to inform you, but suffice it to say, it is not “attraction” but rather this is more about discipline and focus and effort.

But.

If the happiness ‘secret’ keeps your eye on your own proverbial ball … then do it.

But to suggest it is a science let alone a law with proof <because you can de-isolate specific incidents and make the argument that they are exceptions to the rule> really does make the Secret untenable if not simply a criticism of our intelligence.

It is certainly sneaky. It uses smart quotes <albeit out of context> and the book takes advantage of the fact we all ask ourselves these questions <all of us do, or have done, at some point>. Things like:

Do you ever wonder how other people do it?

How do some people find the courage to follow their dreams?

What makes happy successful people different <or what is their commonality>?

Well. Sorry. The truth is there is nothing special about the majority of them.

The difference between a person who has an idea and a person who acts on that idea is one step … albeit a big step.

That step often comes down to knowing you are not alone and finding the courage within yourself. Dreaming big certainly encourages you to take that first step.

And to succeed, or find happiness, you do have to be willing to take at least some step. After that? Well. You gotta work hard. I <or anyone> can envision anything … but it ain’t just gonna be given to me.

Whenever I see a quote like “Every day when I wake up I realize I have a choice. I can be happy or unhappy. So what do I do? I’m not dumb. I choose to be happy” I kind of want to puke. Having a positive attitude, or making the best of the situation, is always good … but Life is meant to be a roller coaster ride <even if you hate roller coasters> and there will be highs & lows. You slug it out with the lows and enjoy the highs. No secret.

Now. I certainly do believe in committing to ‘show up’ in Life every day … but this quote? What a bunch of crap <or tripe>.

So.

I had drafted a brilliant <in my eyes> diatribe on how books like The Secret are worse for humanity than even the most misguided government but I found someone who did it for me <and even more smartly than I was going to do it>.

I apologize that I cannot provide the author because when I cut & pasted I neglected to capture that information but suffice it to say I need to credit someone other than me for these well crafted words:

I think a book like this, which makes some really big claims, should, roughly, do the following:

1) Present it’s premise clearly

2) Since it’s a self-help book explain clearly what you need to do

3) Provide compelling evidence that it’s ideas work

4) Be credible.

The book does a decent job of explaining its premise, which is that everything in your life is the result of the law of attraction.

I quote, “the law of attraction says like attracts like, so when you think a thought, you are also attracting like thoughts to you.” In other words, think good thoughts and good things will come to you and if you think bad thoughts then bad things come to you.

I’ve simplified this a bit but not a whole lot as the concept isn’t rocket science.

Now, does this book explain clearly what you need to do? Actually, for a self-help book it does a very poor job of this. How do you control your thoughts? What kinds of practices and thinking produce the best results? The author and contributors basically tell you a bunch of stories about how “so and so did something and you can too by changing your thinking”.

And that’s it for the “how to” part of the book. There isn’t any.

Now, if I wanted to prove something worked from a scientific perspective it would seem to be easy to test this stuff out. You take two groups of people, teach one the secret, let the other go on with their lives and see what happens. In theory those that know the Secret would be happier and more successful than the control group. It might not be perfect but it’d be a whole lot better than what we get in this book. But, of course, you’d have to have an actual methodology to test.

Instead the authors cite numerous anecdotes of how the Secret worked. One person’s cancer went away. Another individual walks after a brutal accident. Still another finds romance. That’s all fine and perhaps it’s evidence but it’s not proof. How many people who were injured like the “Miracle Man” never walked again despite the best attitude and trying the approach perfectly?

The problem with anecdotes is that it’s easy to start with a result, work backward and assume the conclusion.

It’s also very easy with anecdotes to only present the ones that make your case and ignore those that don’t (when someone dies of cancer while practicing the secret for instance). It’s just not good enough to use anecdotes for large claims like those made in this book.

The following quote struck a nerve.

“People hold that for awhile, and they’re really a champion at it. They say, `I’m fired up, I saw this program and I’m going to change my life.’ And yet the results aren’t showing. Beneath the surface it’s just about ready to break through but the person will look just at the surface results and say, `This stuff doesn’t work.’ And you know what? The universe says, “your wish is my command.”

I thought it was interesting that the universe instantly manifest failure but isn’t quite so fast with success. In fact, a cynical individual might conclude that what they are really saying is, “when this program works it’s because the secret always works, but, on the off chance it doesn’t work, well, that’s your fault.” An even more cynical person might think, “gosh, I wonder what would help a person who failed? Maybe, a seminar with Bob Proctor would be just the thing to get them over the top?”

Lastly, is the Secret credible? On the one hand, I think a lot can be said for the idea that if you change your thinking you’d change your life.

In many ways that seems obvious to me.

On the other hand, if the secret actually was true, especially at the scope claimed by the book it would mean that everything that’s happened is the result of your thinking. So, when a child dies of pneumonia, well, it’s because they brought pneumonia into their lives. Michael J. Fox, not only did you bring Parkinson’s into your life but change your thinking and it will go away. Obviously these things aren’t true and they obliterate, in my opinion, any credibility in the book.

Not only does the book go too far but most (I’d argue nearly all) of the contributors aren’t credible. On a topic of this scope: the ability to 100% change your life and the world in an incredible fashion, does anyone really think you couldn’t find psychologists, top flight scientists, therapists and thousands of mainstream individuals to support it, if it worked? Wouldn’t there be tons of research instead of anecdotes? Instead we get a Feng Shui Master, a chiropractor, motivational speakers (err trainers), a metaphysicist, etc. combined with a half dozen anecdotal stories. So the most powerful like changing idea ever and you get it from the crew in this book presented in this fashion? I don’t think so!

If this idea really worked, at anything other than giving material to self-help speakers and generating repeat students, it just wouldn’t be found here. The book wouldn’t even have to be written because we’d all already know it and be practicing it. Remember, this is not a new idea, it’s been around for a very long time, and it’s been the topic of literally thousands of seminars and hundreds of books.

Catchy review title? Thought so. Robert Cialdini, renowned psychology researcher and author of Influence: The Power of Persuasion (perhaps the best book ever written on the subject) identifies six basic rules employed by politicians, advertisers and scam artists alike to persuade others. Each of them are employed quite adeptly by Rhonda Byrne in this book.

Cialdini’s first principle is SCARCITY; people want what’s expensive, exclusive, or otherwise attainable. Byrne’s mastery of this principle is clearly shown by the very name of the book: The Secret. We all learned this the first week of kindergarten as we felt the jealousy of watching two classmates, hands cupped over ears, sharing a secret out of earshot.

This message is reinforced throughout the book and its advertising campaign which pitches “The Secret” (whatever it actually is) as jealousy-guarded information hoarded by the happy, wealthy and successful. Whenever someone tries convincing you of something, whether it’s a way to make enormous sums of money, to lose weight, etc – be wary of when it’s pitched as “the knowledge THEY don’t want you to have.” Think about it – everything from the “secrets that Wall Street doesn’t want you to know” to “uncovered – celebrities’ secrets to staying young” are phrased not simply to pique your interest but to make you jealous. Appeals to our emotion are far more powerful than appeals to reason, and Byrne demonstrates mastery of this principle throughout “The Secret.”

Cialdini’s second principle is LIKING. We like those who like us, and in turn, we do business with them. Positive thinking and emotional intelligence has been linked to strong interpersonal relationships, academic and professional success, and good health, but there is a fine line when positive thinking crosses over to unjustified exuberance. Instead of simply noting the substantial benefits of positive thinking (a well-accepted principle which wouldn’t sell books), Byrne crosses the line so blatantly that anyone with a modicum of modesty would find it blasphemous.

AUTHORITY is another Cialdini principle, also in play in “The Secret” in quite subtle ways. Another technique which differentiates this book from just another book of positive thinking is the heavy use of quasiscientific language, which gives the impression that the “law of attraction” is (or will become) an accepted scientific principle, just like the law of gravity or the law of attraction of oppositely-charged particles in chemistry. Many people are both intimidated and confused by the authority of science, a fact exploited by manipulators ranging from Byrne to peddlers of magic weight-loss pills.

Since no respected physicist would ever publish a paper on the universality of the “law of attraction,” Byrne indirectly seeks experts in other ways. She attributes the success of people ranging from Einstein to Beethoven to adherence of “The Secret,” thereby manufacturing experts. After all, if Einstein and Shakespeare mastered “The Secret,” who are YOU to question it?

The last two Cialdini principles are CONSISTENCY and SOCIAL PROOF. The success of this book should leave little doubt it will be followed by more (and more expensive) forms of media peddling “The Secret.” The audio recordings, weekend seminars, advertising tie-ins, and other follow-up products certain to follow will exploit these two principles. Once people commit themselves to believing happiness will come from “The Secret,” they will attribute future successes, whether a promotion or a great new relationship, to adherence to it. Conversely, setbacks will be even more powerfully in committing people to “The Secret,” as people will attribute their failures to not living up to “The Secret” (and buying more of Byrne’s books). Consistency dictates it will be less painful to buy more books and immerse one’s self further into “The Secret” than to accept the whole premise is a quite ridiculous; while not as pernicious as a domineering cult, “The Secret” promises to charge you handsomely for a positive outlook on life.

Byrne’s book is problematic on many levels.

On its face, it’s a manipulative marketing tool meant to flatter, confuse and deceive. It’s also pseudoscience at its best, the last thing we need to encourage in an increasingly technological world which requires healthy skepticism and critical thought. Most damaging, though, is how the book perverts reality by encouraging people to equate a positive outlook on life with a childish, idiotic narcissism. Ayn Rand must be rolling in her grave hearing about the modern manifestation of her objectivist movement reduced to the intellectual equivalent of canned pork.

In conclusion, I’m not opposed to the idea on a small scale but this book just goes way too far and I’m left with the feeling that all that’s really going on is a bunch of people trying to get their name out and get you to pay for their seminars.

——–

So.

All that said.

Here is my point.

Do what you need to do to keep moving forward in life.

Have dreams.

Seek to be happy.

Seek success.

However you may define all the things I just listed.

They are all good aspects of “Life survival.” And are all good objectives.

And if this book helps you to focus on these things, well, then use it.

But.

The book is not a formula nor is it the bible/Koran guide to Life success or Life happiness.

It is simply a useful tool for some people.

Nor does simply envisioning success, or happiness, guarantee success or happiness. Someone in discussing this book suggested I was debating chicken or egg first. Nope. I break the egg by noting everyone who gains happiness <or 99.9%> will absolutely say they envisioned the happiness … but I can almost guarantee everyone who has not achieved happiness <or 99.9% of them> will absolutely say they have envisioned happiness. Someone doesn’t envision any better than someone else. Sometimes you may have more drive or you may work harder or you may even simply have more talent … or maybe the happiness is tied to something to unrealistic. I do not care which you choose. This logic kills the chicken and the egg.

Books like this drive me a little crazy in that they suggest they are ‘the key’ … because if Life were that simple well … Life would be simple.

I have a secret for you.

Life ain’t that simple.

Anyway. Because the book uses a lot of quotes I will end on a quote of my own from Arthur Rubenstein:

” Most people , in my opinion, have an unrealistic approach toward happiness because they invariably use the fatal conjunction “if” as a condition. You hear them say: ‘I would be happy if I were rich’, or … ‘if this girl loved me’ … or ‘if I had talent’ … or their most popular … ‘if I had good health.’ They often attain their goal, but they discover new ‘ifs.’As for myself, I love Life for better or for worse, unconditionally.”

Good pianist.

Smart man.

Great advice <no secret>.

Love Life unconditionally … and you will be happy.

rabbits

February 9th, 2013

“… 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.

Random 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.

young unemployed and with skills

February 7th, 2013

“The world is full of people whose notion of a satisfactory future is, in fact, a return to the idealized past.”- Robertson Davies

Ok.

This is a follow up to my youth unemployment post. Why did I feel compelled to do a part 2?

I received a question from my friend Jen:

- <comment> Would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the educational system and STEM roots of this problem. I’ve been reading a lot lately on the problem of too many graduates not trained for the jobs that are out there. Also in some cultures (like China), there seems to be a cultural bias against vocational-type work vs. white collar. Wonder if everyone’s expectations are a little skewed these days?

Then.

Someone also sent me a McKinsey study suggesting that employers <businesses> believe young people are less qualified <less skilled> than they have been in the past … and therefore less effective … leading to an increased hesitancy to hire <and find a qualified candidate>.

Here is the research summary:

There is a profound disconnect between the perceptions variously held by employers, education-providers and the young themselves.

In the Mckinsey survey, nearly 70% of employers blamed inadequate training for the shortfall in skilled workers, yet 70% of education providers believe they suitably prepare graduates for the jobs market. Similarly, employers complain that less than half of the young whom they hire have adequate problem-solving skills, yet nearly two-thirds of the young believe that they do have such skills. The situation is such that nearly 60% of young people around the world say they would pay more for an education that would improve the likelihood of securing an attractive job; and 70% of employers say they would pay more for the right talent, if only they could find it.

And then Wall Street Journal had an article on “higher learning, meet lower job prospects” in which the author suggests we evaluate education because “the majority shares a point of view that education is not preparing young for the actual <available> work world.”

First. This “talent gap” <or skills gap> idea.

“The skills gap must be bridged if the world is to avoid dire consequences.” – Dominic Barton, managing director of McKinsey & Company

Let me be clear on this topic to Mr. Barton, McKinsey and every old person bitching about this.

I call bullshit.

On the research and on businesses.

There is no talent gap.

Let me explain.

Young people <new hires> have always been useless <to old employees>. In older people’s eyes education has never trained them properly and the young are always overconfident and overestimate their abilities.

And the young hires?

Old employees are always out of touch, stuck in the old ways and slow things down.

This is consistent.

Here is a truth.

We sucked when we were young & first hired.

Ok. Not completely. If we got hired for the right job <we didn’t lie too badly and hirer actually had their hiring shit together> we didn’t totally suck. But we most certainly were overwhelmed and simply trying to get our feet under us in week one.

Education, unless it is a professional training school, will never prepare us completely for the working world. Not only is it not its role but it is next to impossible to replicate what you are faced with in your first job.

You don’t know what you don’t know.

And you know what? While we older folk may bitch & moan … we don’t really want someone completely prepared and molded for that job. We would have to “unlearn them” <at its worst … ‘break them’> so we could learn ‘em in our way of doing things.

So.

What does this mean?

In the end I think this is old people being old people and young people being young people.

Young people are no worse at thinking or doing the job they are hired to do now than they were years ago … and old people are maybe a little bit better at holding on to the past <because technology has thrown a new variable into the skills equation>.

Young people entering the workforce are skilled. Just not as skilled on the things that an old person is comfortable with. And, in fact, they have more skills than old people in some things that the older people are uncomfortable with.

As consistent with business history … experienced managers are always uncomfortable with the new.

A new employee.

A new idea.

A new technology.

There is no talent gap.

<note: and this is where I make a note about how misusing research to make a point is aggravating … the McKinsey people know better … they used a ‘one point in time’ piece of information with no context from how the information may or may not have changed over time … shame on them>

Second.

As Jen pointed out … “an expectation gap.”

Well.

Yes. I believe that expectation gap has always existed … however, for several reasons; this expectation gap is wider than in years prior.

We would have to go way back in time to find as wide an expectation gap … probably the industrial revolution when the young left agriculture homes <and their parents> or maybe when automobiles became pervasive.

Regardless. The current expectation gap.

There are some things happening which drive older people crazy … which also make younger people think they know more than they actually do … and is all manageable if you accept the new work truth.

Let me break it down for the older folk into 2 thoughts.

Information Acceleration:

It used to be management shared information <suggesting older management had control>.

Uh oh.

The acceleration of the communication is dramatically increased with new technology. The dynamics and complexity is expressed thru Twitter or Facebook or even simple texting … and encompass the entire office <and business world> and informs others of happenings before some supposed ‘information controller’ does.

This demonstrates the enormous power of digitalization. Networking is a communication catalyst which not only accelerates time it takes control from the older experienced people.

Impetus to Work:

Whew.

If there has ever been a more important and intangible business issue I am not sure I could find it.

Important young employees ask themselves: “Why am I doing this?” … and even “do I want to do this?” all under the overarching stance of “I do not live to work, but rather, I work to live.”

The funny thing?

Even unimportant young people ask themselves all this crap.

This is so foreign to most older folk, this type of thinking in one so young <it is okay behavior of you have attained success already in their minds … and only then> that two things happen:

They misdiagnose attitude. Old people hear “I am lazy” when young people say “I do not live to work.” Bad bad bad. Read my lips <and read their lips>. When they say “I work to live” they mean it … and just that. This is a massive part of the expectation gap.
They mismanage by trying to create desired behavior/attitude. What I mean is that when the gap is perceived to be so huge old people do not even try <or they go thru the motions to try and ‘connect’>. They will offer some platitudes … they will have a Facebook page … and then will manage as if the young people are ‘living to work.’ Uh oh. What happens? They get frustrated because youngsters do not react <and easy place to stand back and go ‘geez, they were not schooled properly’> and youngsters get even more frustrated because old people are even more out of touch than they ever imagined.

All these thoughts really narrow into one very fine sharp point which constantly gouges into the youth … lack of respect. The gap will never close without respect.

Now.

Let me break it down into one thought for young people.

Entitlement:

We <when we are young> always feel like we are entitled to some things when entering work because we feel like we have studied, gone to school, done some extracurricular jobs to prepare … and in general expect old people to know we know our shit.

But.

Young people are confusing entitlement versus respect. All young people want when getting hired is respect. And I believe in today’s business world, and today’s economy, older people in management are begrudging <even more so than in the past> of giving respect mostly because more young people are entering into businesses with not only a different attitude but a different knowledge set.

The young need to knock the entitlement chip off their shoulders and focus on earning respect.

In addition.

As Jen noted <as well as a variety of other sources> capitalism & the overall increase in individual wealth has also created a different, odd, sense of entitlement <or expectations> tied to self esteem <and how we perceive others view us>.

White collar versus blue collar. “thinking” jobs versus “doing” jobs. Making money <producing & making stuff> versus making money from money.

Heck.

It was my generation that developed wacky titles so that people felt better about what they did in their jobs. We even have had ‘Chief Karma Officers.’

In my eyes … this is a societal issue … not a youth issue. And, frankly, it is my generation that created this expectation mess.

While what I am going to say is simplistic I fully understand that this issue is complex.

I truly believe if you read on to where I state ‘managing the knowledge gap’ that if we do so there will be an organizational societal respect ingrained in organizations. Therefore as an outcome expectations will be less relevant because employees, young & old, will feel respected by their peers and achieve satisfaction in other ways.

But. That is just crazy me talking.

All that said.

Today’s business world with regard to the young unemployed being hired and the older existing management <who is hiring> isn’t about a talent gap, or even an expectation gap … it is a knowledge gap.

And I believe it is a different knowledge gap than what we have faced in the past.

Here is the gap.

Competition for knowledge.

Knowledge is the most important asset in order to remain competitive in the business world. Knowledge referring to that which ‘dwells in people’ … and not in books or libraries or the classroom.

And in today’s business world we will actually be hiring new first time employees who have knowledge the older folk do not have. So, yes, the current young unemployed … despite being unemployed … have knowledge that does not currently reside within the existing organizations.

Now. They don’t know everything they need to know … they just happen to own some knowledge that the older folk don’t have.

What does this translate to?

Competition for knowledge … and recognize it goes both up and down an organization.

These knowledge people, who are highly relevant for the company, must be identified and tied into the organizational global mind.

Creating a society of knowledge alters the organization. And certainly doing so alters the ecological framework of the organization <hierarchy and attitudes>.

Look.

I purposefully called it ‘competition’ mostly to make an organizational behavior point.

The newly hired young are competitive just because that is what young people are when hired. And it used to be that in this competition the young could only get knowledge by either experiencing it or sucking it out of an older experienced person. Well. Technology has changed that dynamic. Knowledge will come whenever a young person wants it at his or her fingertips. Now. It may not be the best, or right, knowledge but it is knowledge and it is in the moment.

And.

Older experienced people do not want to compete with young newly hired. They believe they are not only above doing so but also believe they deserve respect. Well. that only really matters if you are not ‘working to live.’ The young are playing by different rules.

I told Jen a variety of things:

you know I am an education guy and i do believe there are some things that need to be fixed as well as I believe too many kids are going to college and getting degrees just because that is what they are supposed to do … but … youth unemployment is not an education issue . They are just as qualified as you and i were coming out of school … they just aren’t being given a chance to work. And when they do they have been unemployed for a while. The core issues remain the poor global economy overall and businesses. i cannot fix the global economy but business organizations are at the true core. as slaves to the financial statement and the financial community businesses have become leaner & leaner and less forgiving of mistakes and lack of maximized productivity. That is why middle & some senior management have been squeezed over the past decade or so as they are consistently being asked to ‘play down’ in an organization to ‘flatten’ the organization. so young people are getting screwed on the employment front in several ways by businesses. attitudinally and financially. It is cheaper for an organization to slam an overqualified higher paid older person in a lower slot because they justify it under the ‘less risk/less mistake/less supervision time’ theory. I also believe technology has thrown upper/older management a curveball. every new generation has a gap between them and the older generation but new constantly evolving technology has increased the gap significantly and increased pressure on the younger generation to ‘explain their expertise’ and if you can remember to when you were a young whippersnapper and you are honest with yourself … we, when young, our strength is never clarity of justification/rationale. Therefore you have a very qualified knowledgeable group of young people who not only struggle to explain what comes naturally to them but there is an older management group who just wants it to be the way it was. That last thought combined with an economy which makes businesses hesitant to hire anyway is killing the young qualified out there.

In the end I believe there is not a talent gap.

And there will always be an expectation gap. The expectation gap is almost unsolvable but can be worked through if you seek to manage the knowledge gap.

looking down the road (and young people unemployment)

January 31st, 2013

“I trained for a world that doesn’t exist … I feel I have no future …” - Maria Ulldemolins <unemployed Spanish 20something>

So.

These are my thoughts on young unemployment and that mind numbing thought … “feels she has no future.”

Who the heck is Maria Ulldemolins?

A smart, confident young woman. She has one degree from Great Britain and is about to conclude another in her native Spain. And she feels that she has no future.

Ms. Ulldemolins belongs to a generation of young Spaniards who feel that the implicit contract they accepted with their country—work hard, and you can have a better life than your parents—has been broken. Today Spain’s unemployment is 21.2%, and among the young a staggering 46.2%.

So. I do not personally know Maria.

But I do know that while the youth unemployment are staggering … the youth unemployment issue is staggeringly concerning from a long term perspective.

I began addressing this issue in my 2013 predictions.

Here is what I said:

Youth unemployment

This is about hiring as well as what we do with them when we do hire them. The young are getting screwed in a number of ways. And while being unemployed seems like the biggest issue it is actually only the first domino in what we need to be sure we address. By being unemployed there are 3 key issues we need to be prepared to deal with:

- Lack of training: typically as we hire young people we have lower expectations. We permit them some time for ‘on the ground training’ as they gain experience. The longer they stay unemployed the longer they miss out on this practical training. Now. Most youth are not remaining mentally idle … they are thinking, observing & improving personally. This translates into a new, different type of entering workforce. Existing management needs to think about that … very carefully. It represents a challenge … and an opportunity.

My main prediction? Existing management will fuck this up. They will remain with status quo thinking and get poor results … but most importantly … we will miss an opportunity with this generation of youth.

- Lack of earnings: studies have shown the longer you wait to begin your earning history the less you earn in your lifetime <for a variety of reasons>. Short term this may not mean a lot but long term there is a huge issue with regards to earning history, savings and lifetime net worth.

My main prediction? Existing management will fuck this up. Mainly because they will only see the short term as an opportunity to get an older, more mature, cheaper employee and not recognize the longer term issues that will arise.

- Lack of ROY <return on youth>: youth and young people are the cheapest innovation engine in any organization. While typically overlooked in an innovation model their innate ability to provide a fresh perspective through fresh eyes is invaluable. Organizations may not recognize their current loss with the ‘lack of youth’ within their organizations but it is having an impact. It has a domino effect within an organization. Without the ‘hidden youth engine’ more pressure will fall on older employees for innovative ideas … and these employees are more focused on ‘safe behavior to maintain employment’ and … well … you can see where this ends up.

Focusing on the youth <and not the organizational issues> … I believe we will not manage this issue well. Mainly I believe this because we will tend to focus on numbers & jobs and not some key psychological aspects … some Maslow stuff.

At the crux of the self-actualization <Maslow> aspect I have one word … productivity.

Society has tightly tied the concept of individual productivity to labor … work. Especially at a young age <the hierarchy of importance … i.e., giving back to society, can shift with age after your ‘labor’ efforts has been actualized> productivity is pounded into our young heads that your productivity is a tangible way to define your personal success.

We teach in schools with an eye toward labor productivity <the entire school system is set up in a “here are the labor requirements and if you produce you get ‘x’ system & process”>.

We teach in home <parenting> with an eye toward labor productivity <work hard and you will succeed>.

We teach in cultural events & media <movie, tv, etc.> with an eye toward labor productivity.

Let me clear.

None of these teaching things are bad.

Directionally, and with an eye toward purpose, it represents a practical focus.

However, an emotional or psychological issue arises when the teachings do not bear fruit.

What I mean by that is we have guided our youth to a point … and then have put them on hold <being unemployed>.

Everything they have been taught, and prepared for, is unfulfilled.

This is an aspect I tend to believe most businesses will not give a shit about and society will be hesitant to grasp <society including parents>.

*** end of my 2013 youth unemployment prediction> ***

Now.

I purposefully began this with Spain.

Because Spain’s unemployment figures are particularly horrendous. But youth unemployment is rising and/or remaining at disturbingly persistent high numbers across much of the developed world.

This issue can easily be ignored as everyone else struggles with their own professional & Life challenges … and we always think that the young often have parents to fall back on or they can use the time to expand their education but we don’t see them as being ‘lost’ … just ‘on hold’ for now. In addition most have no families to support nor dire medical needs they need to insure against.

All this is compounded by the fact that this young generation is so damn positive <I mean that in a good way>. Pew Research shows that despite the fact their professional lives are being significantly challenged they are quite optimistic about their future.

What do I say about that?

First. They don’t know what they don’t know <but they are pretty damn resilient so there is hope>.

Second. We older folk have a tendency to look at the young unemployed differently than we do older unemployed <and information like the Pew report make it easier to do so even more>.

We need to revisit that type of thinking <and put it in the garbage where it belongs>.

In America just over 18% of under25s are jobless. Young blacks, who make up 15% of under25s, suffer a rate of 31%, rising to 44% among those without a high-school diploma <the figure for whites is 24%>. Other countries, such as Switzerland, the Netherlands and Mexico, have youth unemployment rates below 10%: but they are rising.

<numbers source: The Economist>

Globally there are now approximately 3.3+ million unemployed workers between the ages of 25 and 34 <more than twice the level in 2007>.

Globally there are now approximately 2+ million unemployed college graduates of all ages <nearly three times the level of 2007>.

Globally there are many millions more that are underemployed <those unwillingly working less than full-time or unwillingly working in a job outside their field which pays less than jobs in their field>.

Here is why we should start caring more than we do.

There is research that suggests youth unemployment does lasting damage <file this under the category of ‘they don’t know what they don’t know’>.

Young people are hit particularly hard by the economic and emotional effects of unemployment. The best predictor of future unemployment, research shows, is previous unemployment. In Britain a young person who spends just three months out of work before the age of 23 will on average spend an additional 1.3 months in unemployment between the ages of 28 and 33 compared with someone without the spell of youth joblessness. A second stint of joblessness makes things worse. – Jonathon Wadsworth Labor Economist

In addition.

Research from the United States and Britain has found that youth unemployment leaves a “wage scar” that can persist into middle age. The longer the period of unemployment, the bigger the effect.

Take two men with the same education, literacy and numeracy scores, places of residence, parents’ education and IQ. If one of them spends a year unemployed before the age of 23, ten years later he can expect to earn 23% less than the other <yikes … one year and 23% less>.

For women the gap is 16%. The penalty persists, though it shrinks; at 42 it is 12% for women and 15% for men.

Now.

They will not be unemployed forever <and that is what this post is actually about>.

So, when hired, if the objective were solely “speed to productivity” I would probably put the burden of responsibility on the mid30somethings as they have just figured out the maze to success. But the objective is “speed to long term productivity.”

In other words … sustained productivity.

Therefore I am going to end up putting the burden on the 50somethings capable of assuming this burden <and will outline in detail at the end on how>.

Now. I am not suggesting 50somethings do this for free. They should be paid handsomely. Personally I would be delighted to be paid primarily thru performance. Yeah. Teach and earn off of future value/contribution. Hmmmmmm …. that may seem nuts because a bunch of people will say “gosh Bruce that means the bulk of what you earn will be when you are already sitting at the great beach bar in the sky.”

Well. Maybe. And maybe not.

Guess it depends on how quickly, and how effectively, the people I mentor become productive.

Anyway.

Moot point. No one <but me> would do it.

Regardless <getting back to the young unemployed and how to ramp up productivity in a way that will sustain it later in their careers>.

It’s about teaching.

It’s about teaching data points.

Providing relevant data points.

Teaching how to assimilate data points.

How to prioritize and assess data points.

How to effectively use data points (make decisions).

What am I saying?
Young unemployed people are lacking data points because they just do not have the work experience. The burden of this generations’ 50somethings is they need to become the search engine optimizer for the young generation (with the “if you bought this you may be interested in this” feature).

Yup.

They query and we optimize against the query.

Ok.

Stop.

Please stop. I can already hear the shouts from my sage old peers.

“This generation is lazy. They need to think for themselves. OUR generation did it the hard way…we worked our way to the solutions. That’s the way to learn.” (and add in a bunch of exclamation points)

I call ‘bullshit’ on that.

I see little evidence that high unemployment is due to the shiftlessness of youths and far more evidence that high youth unemployment is due to systematic weakness in labor markets associated with a shortfall in aggregate demand.

Look. Some of all those issues older folk have with the younger generation may have some merit … but not in this situation.

We have a significant group of quite capable smart ambitious young people who have thru no fault of their own not had the benefit of experience. We have the responsibility to figure out how to squeeze the experience into shorter ramp up. To me that suggests iterative teaching. Which is admittedly a pain to the SEO generation because it is … well … a lot of work. And it takes an SEO nimble accumulator and assimilator mind. Not everyone can do it. Heck. I am not sure I could do it (but I sure as hell would give it a shot).

I say all this because I believe we not only owe it to these young people but we owe it to the global economy. The true productivity of this generation will be 20 maybe 30 years from now when they are leaders and influencers. Selfishly I would hope they would then be sharing perspective – past, present and future type thinking with the next generation by then.

Aligned with whatever the challenge is at hand.

Because that is what we mentored them on.

Alrighty.

Now that I have ranted, and stated the issues/problems/challenges … I will actually offer some solutions to any company and 50something who cares to listen.

Solutions suggestion:

Companies <training>:

a. Develop a 3-to-3 training program. <3 years into 3 months>.

First you have to get your head out of your ass<es> and understand the incoming 26 year old is not the 26 year old with 3 years on the job training but rather 3 years of life training … and it ain’t the same. What to do? Now that your heads are out of your ass put them together and develop a training program that replicates the on the job training one should have achieved in the first three years.

This does not mean ‘on the job training’ like we old folk think of it because it is too slow and they missed three frickin’ years of that on-the-job stuff already. Think of this as maybe an MBA real situation case study program without all the academic bullshit. This isn’t ‘learning the abc’s of our business.’ This is replicating real day-to-day business in training. But you gotta figure out how to cram those 3 years into 3 months. But we are supposed to be smart enough <and experienced enough> to be able to do that shouldn’t we?

b. Develop a reversed shadow program.

You know how young kids used to shadow a senior person watching and listening? Yeah. Well. now you are hiring a young person and slamming them into a responsibility & role … and you are having project hired experienced people to shadow them for let’s say the first 2 or 3 months. Sound expensive? Maybe from an out of pocket sense but the company benefits <monetarily> 2 ways. Call this person a ‘productivity catalyst’ and it is the new employee catalyst initiative.

- The young person is significantly more productive faster.

- The young person will be more valuable to the company faster <down the road>

Oh.

This idea also slams an entire tier of experienced knowledge down to a lower level in a way that doesn’t bog down the process <because it is simply being injected and doesn’t stay invested day in and day out month after month>.

Old/experienced folk:

You are now a ‘productivity catalyst.’ Suck it up. You are no longer a manager nor are you a long term brand strategist … you are parts & pieces of all those things and yet none of them. Your job is solely to make your talent & expertise appear like Scotty has beamed them there in Star Trek in a particular moment and place.

Remember? Earlier I discussed ‘data points.’ That is what this is all about. Teach in the moment but do not over teach <in the moment>. Part of our experience is simply about navigating the moment. I learned by watching others … and having them explain later.

Do the same.

Help navigate.

Design your teaching skill session by taking notes.

Use notes to teach skill <and background perspective> in pods at a later date.

Look.

I have written about 50something transformational people who are very good at bridging the old fart knowledge and the young whippersnapper arrogant know-it-all-leave-me-alone exuberance <http://brucemctague.com/older-experienced-people-and-transformational-hires>.

Those transformation people are a minority within the 50somethings.

Most 50somethings suck in dealing with the young generation.

So do not ask them to manage them.

This shadow idea focuses the 50somethings, who do not deal with the young people really well, on specific projects and short term ramp up. Will it take some mental work on their part to suck it up? sure. But they have to figure it out or they just will not be hired <or be successful>. But there are enough of them who will get it at some point.

They will stop living in the past and decide to build the present … moment by moment.

They will learn the art of e-communication … and quit blaming things on lack of face to face.

They will make a decision to try and walk in the young person’s shoes <and along the way they will realize that they aren’t much different than we were at that age>.

They will learn to define fun, and success, differently … because this is … well … different.

And those who don’t do those things?

Will stay unemployed.

Whew.

Done.

That’s my rant <with a solution>.

Young people and their career development later, with high global unemployment now, is one of the most important issues facing businesses globally today.

Here is a business/Life truth <whether older folk want to face the truth or not>.

Professionally it is tough for young people to not be a mess.

The world has changed from when us old folk began work. Options in this new greater more open global economy are limited <sounds odd but companies are running leaner, have less patience for less the 100% productivity and desire generalists but hire on a specialist role/responsibility acumen … meaning that in general most businesses are confused with what they actually need>.

Insecurity dogs even the best young people … even if they know they are quite capable … if not even very good … because businesses are becoming increasingly less tolerant of mistakes and are increasingly risk averse.

Therefore fear of failure shadows every moment and every action.

This is the generation entering today’s global economy … well … this is the generation that WILL enter once they finally get to leave the unemployment lines.

I know. I know. There will always be the exceptions to what I have just written.

But to focus solely on the exceptional exceptions? It is silly, if not stupid, for us as adult leaders.

We <us old folk> owe it to the next generation to assist them … because we put them in this position.

And you know what? If you want to look at it selfishly … we old folk can benefit. We can have more jobs doing what I outlined and be productive <businesswise> for a longer period of time <and be employed>.

I don’t really care why you may do it … but we need to get our heads out of our old asses and get doing it.

“Que scais je?” (What do I know?)

January 30th, 2013

Montaigne ended his life by saying “Que scais je?” <what do I know?> on his deathbed.

Montaigne. A man who probably spent more time thinking and searching for answers than anyone else in history. And he ends his life asking “what do I know?”

And thinking was his life.

“ … a man of thought must feel the thought that is parent to the universe.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson on Montaigne <from Representative Men>

As I sifted through some boxes of books the other day I came across my beautiful 1946 edition of The Essays of Montaigne. A wonderful book which explores thought on an astounding array of topics <cannibalism to idleness to imagination to friendship to the custom of wearing clothes>. When reading it one truly understands when Emerson says “he is never dull, never insincere, and has the genius to make the reader care for all that he cares for.”

I love it because Montaigne is this everyday person <the way he writes> … and the ultimate thoughtful thinker.

Reading his essays is like having a conversation with a casual acquaintance on a variety of topics … skipping from thought to thought like children exploring the old forest in the backyard with a new friend.

He makes you think of little things … in big ways.

Auguste Collignon’s grave in the Pere Lachaise cemetery reads … “lived to do right, and had formed himself to virtue on the Essays of Montaigne.”

True then <late 1800’s>.

True now.

The essays of Montaigne provide context to thinking <even today>. And frankly we could do a lot worse than living a Life formed on the virtue of Montaigne’s Essays.

And I believe that is what Ralph was trying to tell us.

Thinking, in general, is cheap.

Easily done and easily wasted.

Individual thoughts can roam aimlessly without any direction and without regard for any repercussions they may reap as they leave those, who actually think about those thoughts, behind.

But.

The real thinkers?

The real thought?

At some point to be ‘real’ it must explore the foundation …seek the roots of individual ideas and thoughts. Something to provide context and ground the thought in something meaningful beyond ‘I think.’.

Without feeling the ‘thought that is parent to the universe’ you may find your thinking, and thoughts, comfortable in the mind … you may even find you are even pretty satisfied with yourself … yet you have simply reached a place where thoughts can vanish … untraceable and undiscovered.

They are thoughts floating at the mercy of Life’s breeze.

At its worst it is lazy thinking. At its best it is simply mental masturbation.

Thoughts are truly invisible until they meet its parents … and look at each other eye to eye. That is what I believe Emerson was asking us to think about. It is a fair request.

As Emerson stated:

EVERY FACT is related on one side to sensation, and on the other to morals. The game of thought is, on the appearance of one of these two sides, to find the other: given the upper, to find the under side. Nothing so thin but has these two faces, and when the observer has seen the obverse, he turns it over to see the reverse. Life is a pitching of this penny,- heads or tails. We never tire of this game, because there is still a slight shudder of astonishment at the exhibition of the other face, at the contrast of the two faces. A man is flushed with success, and bethinks himself what this good luck signifies. He drives his bargain in the street; but it occurs that he also is bought and sold. He sees the beauty of a human face, and searches the cause of that beauty, which must be more beautiful. He builds his fortunes, maintains the laws, cherishes his children; but he asks himself, Why? and whereto? This head and this tail are called, in the language of philosophy, Infinite and Finite; Relative and Absolute; Apparent and Real; and many fine names beside.

Emerson called Montaigne a skeptic. With all due respect I am not sure I agree. Montaigne was a pragmatic thinker. He avoided the extreme <even found extreme ‘wrong’>. As Emerson did suggest … “He labors to plant his feet, to be the beam of the balance.” I do not believe that is a skeptic. I find that pragmatic. I find that using a good dose of common sense. And I even find that for a true deep thinker he had the ability to make the thinking non-complicated.

As all thinkers should … he believed in all and believed in nothing. He took scraps of truth found in everything and pieced them together as if building a puzzle.

“ … not at all of unbelief; not at all of universal denying, nor of universal doubting. He is the considerer, the prudent, taking in sail, counting stock, husbanding his means, believing that a man has too many enemies than that he can afford to be his own foe.” – Emerson on Montaigne

We cannot be all like Montaigne. He was a special man … with a special mind. But we can all be better thinkers … better considerers … better at husbanding our thoughts.

I will end with 2 thoughts <hopefully deep thoughtful thoughts>:

First.

Here is Emerson’s full quote reference.

The final solution in which skepticism is lost, is in the moral sentiment, which never forfeits its supremacy. All moods may be safely tried, and their weight allowed to all objections: the moral sentiment as easily outweighs them all, as any one. This is the drop which balances the sea. I play with the miscellany of facts, and take those superficial views which we call skepticism; but I know that they will presently appear to me in that order which makes skepticism impossible. A man of thought must feel the thought that is parent of the universe; that the masses of nature do undulate and flow.

Reason, the prized reality, the Law, is apprehended, now and then, for a serene and profound moment amidst the hubbub of cares and works which have no direct bearing on it;- is then lost for months or years, and again found for an interval, to be lost again. If we compute it in time, we may, in fifty years, have half a dozen reasonable hours.- Emerson

Whew.

‘… Reason is apprehended now and then for a profound moment amidst the hubbub of cares … we may in 5o years have a half dozen reasonable hours.’

And that, my friends, is stated by one of the greatest thinkers of that generation discussing one of the greatest thinkers of another generation..

Bigger thoughts, big ideas and deep thinking, are exceptions rather than the rule.

True deep thought has its rare victories.

We may feel reasonable in how we think and when we think … and how often we think deeply about things … but the profound moments of reason are fleeting and rare.

Why do I say that?

For perspective.

I don’t say it to discourage anyone from deep thinking <because frankly all of us should do so more often> but rather simply to give perspective.

It is a good reminder to keep those of us who like to think … well … humble.

Second.

Deep thought comes at a price. Or maybe better said … deep thinking does not increase the value of self worth <or ego>.

Montaigne said: “There is no man, in his opinion, who has not deserved hanging five or six times; and he pretends no exception in his own behalf. Five or six as ridiculous stories,”too, he says, can be told of me, as of any man living.”

So not only is clarity of Reason few within a life time … but it is combined with the fact we, probably in the same quantity as the few victories, connect thought to action in a way that “we deserve hanging.”

Deep thought’s price is few victories and a few, possibly mortal, mistakes.

Deep thought is not for the faint of heart or for those who need ‘wins’ to feel good about themselves or find self actualization <or self esteem>.

Deep thought is not always ‘reasonable’ nor even right all the time. So what does that mean? Deep thought is that, and only that … deep. Being thoughtful does not mean being right.

Why do I say that?

Once again not to discourage deep thinking but rather to suggest deep thinking is a journey in which you will find scattered right and wrong thoughts as way stations along the way. And you will most likely stop at a number of both types of stations to rest your thinking.

The real moral? Keep moving. Stay on the journey <and avoid getting hanged>.

Keep thinking.

Thinking is good.

Deep thoughts and thinking is even gooder.

So.

My deep thought ends like this.

Montaigne ended his life on his deathbed saying “Que scais je?” <What do I know?>

Not everyone can live that kind of life … but if you can? Whew. What a Life.

Would not that more of us said this to ourselves every day … what do I know?

In closing.

Emerson … “Consent yourself to be an organ of your highest thought, and lo! suddenly you put all men in your debt, and are the fountain of an energy that goes pulsing on with waves of benefit to the borders of society, to the circumference of things.”

Consent yourself to be of your highest thought.

Good advice for anyone.

Enlightened Conflict

Tag Archives: original ideas are typically nuances of existing

murphy’s laws of war (& business)

morons

Enlightened Conflict