“This may be the most important proposition revealed by history: At the time, no one knew what was coming.” ― Haruki Murakami

Well.

Looking back is a timeless tradition in second guessing and seeking blame … okay … okay … as well as even some forward thinking.

But the opening quote is a humdinger of a Life truth … at that time no one knew what was coming.

Yup.

You can be pessimistic <and be proven right … or wrong>.

You can be optimistic <and be proven right … or wrong>.

You can plan incessantly … and smartly <and the plans can work perfectly … or go awry>.

You can make it up as you go <and it works perfectly … or all goes wrong>.

But in general … you are guessing.

Sure.

You can make an educated guess … and the odds may be higher or lower based on what you decide to do … but someone is lying if they say “I knew it was going to end up that way.”

They did not know.

They guessed <and possibly guessed well>.

Here is a ponderable factoid.

‘History teaches by analogy, not identity.’ <Hank Kissinger … Hank to me>

Analogy is … well … not a blueprint of what will be. People tend to mistake a study of history, or a historical moment, for proof of what is to come. They are often sorely proven wrong. And, in fact, those proven right have the benefit of going backwards and connecting dots <even when the connection is tenuous at best> to prove why they were right.

Hmmmm … once again. A reminder. “No one knew what was coming.” <corollary?: sure is easier to know what came>

Regardless <here is the entire thought from Hank>.

History teaches by analogy, not identity.

This means that the lessons of history are never automatic, that they can be apprehended only by a standard which admits the significance of a range of experience, that the answers we obtain will never be better than the questions we pose.

No profound conclusions were drawn in the natural sciences before the significance of sensory experience was admitted by what was essentially a moral act.

No significant conclusions are possible … without an awareness of the historical context.

For societies exist in time more than in space. At any given moment a state is but a collection of individuals, as positivist scholars have never wearied of pointing out.

But it achieves identity through the consciousness of a common history. This is the only “experience” nations have, their only possibility of learning from themselves.

History is the memory of states.

To be sure, states tend to be forgetful.

It is not often that nations learn from the past, even rarer that they draw the correct conclusions from it. For the lessons of historical experience, as of personal experience, are contingent.

They teach the consequences of certain actions, but they cannot force recognition of comparable situations. – Henry Kissinger

What a powerful thought.

… teach the consequences of certain actions, but they cannot force recognition of comparable situations.

Once again … cannot force recognition of comparable situations.

I love it.

So often we suggest ‘this has happened before’ and … well … yeah … kind of. Close. But close only counts with hand grenades <and horse shoes>. Ultimately you are simply assessing the echoes of history.

You may listen to the echoes of history … but until they walk in to your life … you will not truly recognize who and what they are.

“I have sometimes sat alone here of an evening, listening, until I have made the echoes out to be the echoes of all the footsteps that are coming by and by into our lives.” - Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities

Studying history is just like Dickens says.

You are inevitably sitting alone listening … listening to the echoes of the footsteps of those who have walked before and envisioning, from those echoes, who may be coming into your life.

That is it. No more. No less.

In the end.

I believe all of us would probably like to have a better sense of how to plan for the future. To better understand the best and proper actions to take to maximize the future in some form or fashion.

Therefore we do the best we can … and most often that means examining the past to assess actions affecting the future … trying to understand consequences for our decisions yet to be made.

The intent is good … and true.

However.

We should never confuse honest good intent … with ‘what is right’ or even worse ‘what will be.’

The echoes of footsteps are context. But they are simply echoes.

And as for the future?

We simply hear the echoes of footsteps but never meet their owners until they actually enter our lives. And, frankly, you cannot control all that ‘are coming by and by into our lives.’

Oh.

And at each point in time … no one knew what was coming.

A Life truth for all to remember.

the strongest bridge

May 20th, 2013

So.

hope bridge by michael underwood

Several of my friends give me crap because of some of the obscure things I have stored away in my pea like brain <because I tend to read random obscure things and store it all away>. Therefore they ask me random obscure questions to see what I have stored away.

The random question this time?

What is the strongest bridge in the world?

My random answer?

Hope.

Hope is the strongest bridge in the world.

“All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope.” - Winston Churchill

Well.

It was a flippant response on my part … but it kind of made everyone at the table sit back and hesitate … because it is one of those rare insightful non-smartass flippant responses.

Ok. First.

To be clear.

I am not a psychologist <nor psychiatrist … I get them mixed up> nor am I a behavioral scientist <possible a mad scientist though … a childhood goal>. I say that because I may just not know jackshit. But here’s what I think.

Lots of discussions about the strongest motivators/demotivators on human behavior seem to revolve around fear, love, self esteem, hate , etc. <Maslow created that excellent chart which I have used so often and adhere to> … however … I tend to believe that all these experts overlook hope.

Research digs deep down into the moments of minutiae with regard to why we do the things we do.

Heck.

That is how the best companies in the world attempt to derive strategies to make their companies <and products & services> a success in people’s heads, hearts & wallets.

In my own pea–like brain something shadows each response found in research … hope.

“The present is the ever moving shadow that divides yesterday from tomorrow. In that lies hope.” - Frank Lloyd Wright

I imagine it is so often overlooked as something impactful or something we should pay attention to because it is stealthily present in everything. Yup. Everything. Attitudes & behaviors. Thoughts & actions. And because of its omnipresence it gets overlooked as “non differentiator.”

Silly thinking.

Because it is everything.

It is what someone called “the well of self” which can permit you to begin again … and again.

“Hope arouses, as nothing else can arouse, a passion for the possible.” – William Sloane Coffin

Everyone wants to be aroused by the possible.

And I am not even talking about this in the grandiose abstract <dreams and such> but even in the drivel of the day.

A grocery shopper has the simple hope that everything will be found as quickly as possible.

A coffee drinker hopes that the first sip is everything they expected <and desired>.

A father hopes his daughter has a good day at school.

You get it.

Hope isn’t often the really big things … it is in the gazillion little things that happen in everyday life as well as the big “I want a better life” type things.

And maybe that is why I flippantly suggested it is the strongest bridge in the world.

It is strong enough to span generations of years.

Strong enough to span yesterday to tomorrow.

Strong enough to span the micro-second subconscious thought.

So. I say all that maybe to suggest that losing hope deprives someone of an essential structure in Life. The bridge to … well … make it in Life.

To be able to get from here to there.

Now. That said.

I do believe more of those who actually have hope to share … should share it <pragmatically> with those who struggle to reach that bridge.

Yes.

I do believe professionally I am a ‘dealer of hope.’

Yes.

I do believe all forms of hope, realistic and unrealistic, are better than no hope at all.

Yes.

I do believe the moment you have lost sight of how to see, or reach out and touch, hope you have entered some version of Hell.

Sure. Life offers a multitude of disappointments. Life is not easy. But I fear it becomes unliveable without hope because then disappointment becomes infinite in a finite Life.

That, my friends, sounds overwhelming distressing even as I type it.

“We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope.” - Martin Luther King, Jr.

John Lennon suggested people like me … believers in hope … are dreamers.

Well.

Maybe.

But Martin Luther King also said this …

“The hope of a secure and livable world lies with disciplined nonconformists who are dedicated to …”

In a way … a secure livable world lies with those dreamers. We disciplined nonconformists. Or maybe more pragmatically … bridge builders.

The resilience of Hope lies in we happy few … we happy disciplined nonconformists … we happy believers in hope despite what appears to be an infinite disappointment.

We happy few who have bridges to share.

We happy few who constantly drink from the well of self and … well … know how to begin again.

So, yes, the strongest bridge in the world is Hope.

murphy’s laws of war (& business)

May 15th, 2013

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.

the price of the tempestuous sea of liberty

May 14th, 2013

Well.

Liberty is certainly not for the timid.

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin

First.

The actions committed by the Boston marathon bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother, Tamerlan, were cowardly, heinous and unforgivable.

Four people dead and over 150 wounded.

Second.

This is certainly not the first time that homicidal killers have attacked a major American city.

In 2002, Washington DC was terrorized by two roving snipers, who randomly shot and killed 10 people. In February, an unhappy police officer murdered four people over several days in Los Angeles.

I would also note that on the same day as the Boston tragedy I believe 30+ other people were killed in America because of some type of violence.

Now.

I say this not to diminish the Boston tragedy but rather instead to suggest we fight this battle every day.

We are constantly at war with those who attack liberty.

Liberty is certainly not for the timid.

We cannot allow ourselves to be easily and willingly cowed by the threat of terrorism.

We cannot allow fears for temporary safety permit us to be timid with liberty.

It would be easy to begin increasing restrictions, surveillance, and oversight of the citizenship under the overall <good> guise of safety.

I do believe people deserve to not actually feel safe … but also to be safe. But I say that also with an eye toward ‘we cannot always be 100% safe.’

It can easily go beyond punishing everyone for the evil transgressions of a few to punishing the foundation of liberty. We should be seeking to remain vigilant without superseding liberty.

Liberty is not for the timid.

“It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it.” – George Washington

American liberty, democracy, is all about the freedom of citizens to speak their mind, choose their leaders, demand their rights, be entities in their society and be different <think and believe different thoughts>.

Now … democracy, to be truly effective, must be rooted in the hearts and souls of each individual within that citizenship.

But here is an uncomfortable <and unsafe> truth.

Within a citizenship of over 300million people not only are the roots going to vary <depth & breadth of belief> but also the simple meaning of democracy <how it is defined> will be different in each individual.

Some will abuse it.

That is a fact.

That is an unfortunate truth.

That means people will get hurt on occasion.

And that also does not mean we can deprive people of liberty because we ‘think’ they will abuse it.

Yes.

This is difficult.

And it makes you feel unsafe even thinking it.

There is risk in democracy and liberty.

Because this means we need to stop seeing ‘enemies’ everywhere … even though they may truly be everywhere.

Liberty is certainly not for the timid.

“Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” – Alexis de Tocqueville

A democracy seeks equality in liberty.

For good or for bad. The highs and the lows <of the people making up that society>.

I do not suggest this lightly … for death is a very high price to pay.

I am certainly not suggesting senseless sacrifice of life. Nor am I suggesting losing life through the ineptitude and irresponsibility of practical monitoring of the citizenship and its safety <note: I am not suggesting that anyone did that in the Boston tragedy>.

Nor am I suggesting any perpetrators of violence should not be pursued to the full extent of the law.

I am suggesting that sacrificing life for liberty … well … that I, personally, would do.

Restraint and servitude are not characteristics of democracy and the liberty our forefathers foresaw for the country’s citizens.

Freedom means … well … freedom.

“… what we call freedom … it is necessary to determine the justice or injustice of this phrase. Try to draw a circle with the ‘free’ hand, and with a single line. You cannot do it of your hand trembles, nor if it hesitates, nor if it is unmanageable, nor if it is in the common sense of the word ‘free.’ So far from being free , it must be under control as absolute and accurate as if it were fastened to an inflexible bar of steel. And yet it must move, under this necessary control, with perfect, untormented serenity of ease.” <1905 Evolution of Expression>

The circle must be drawn with a strong hand. And, yet, it must be absolute and accurate true with its intent. The circle, drawn with intent, does not wax and wane with fear or the thought of ‘what could happen.’ It remains resolute in its space.

Restricting liberty is not, should not, be what democracy & freedom is defined by.

Will some people abuse a broad definition of liberty? Absolutely.

Should they pay the price for that abuse? Absolutely.

<unfortunately> Will others pay the price when those few abuse it? Absolutely.

Does that mean we should restrict liberty? Absolutely not.

Liberty is not for the timid.

Lastly.

The tempestuous sea.

That sea called liberty.

“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” - Thomas Jefferson

Every day, week, year, decade … whatever … we are buffeted on this sea of liberty. That is the challenge liberty to gives us all. We get tugged this way and that way by waves of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ but our intent is to remain afloat … and not sink. Sink to tyranny or fear or … well … lack of liberty.

“It is of small importance to any of us whether we get liberty; but of the greatest that we deserve it. Whether we can win it, fate must determine; but that we will be worthy of it we may ourselves determine; and the sorrowfullest fate of all that we can suffer is to have it without deserving it.” <1905 Evolution of Expression>

Oh my. “… that we will be worthy of it we may ourselves determine.” Yes. We <the people> determine whether we are worthy of Liberty.

Regardless.

A mistake <to me>?

Seeking absolute calm or safety. And I fully recognize that we could end up debating what constitutes ‘absolute’ or ‘acceptable’ and what a citizenship deserves.

All I suggest is that we remember Liberty rarely equals safety or calmness.

It most often provides the turmoil of great minds and great thinking and … well … greatness.

Is it an uncomfortable greatness? Surely.

It is the greatness insured by not remaining stagnant despite the temptation to find some calmness in the tempest.

Not a mistake <to me>?

Freedom and equality.

Liberty is a choice. And with that choice comes some responsibility … and some broad boundaries … an expansive circle as it were.

And certainly some uneasiness within that wide open space … that tumultuous sea.

And unequivocally some fear because of its broadness.

In the end … the enemy of liberty is fear & ignorance.

Therefore to enable liberty there must remain the courage in all of us to accept it even with its imperfections.

Sadly the cost of having true liberty may be lives.

But the true tragedy would be if the cost of liberty was our freedom.

It seems to me that the biggest tragedy would be to have lost lives, which most likely embraced the full liberty America had to offer, as means to kill or restrain liberty.

Harsh words? Maybe.

But.

Liberty is certainly not for the timid.

the web as the problem? (and children’s education)

April 17th, 2013

Well.

My project global generation may never go anywhere … but it certainly puts me within some of the most interesting conversations with regard to educating the youth.

Let me share the part of the conversations that is a head scratcher <at least to me>.

But it is a consistent head scratcher part.

Like in the over 90% of the time consistent.

My conversations begin with ‘it is a web based global children’s education’ and always <and I mean always> veers very quickly to someone stating unequivocally … “how the world wide web has made things more difficult-worse-insert some negative comment here.”

The web is destroying reading skills.

The web is destroying cognitive skills.

The web is spreading criminal (lower value-ethic) attitudes to a broad audience.

The web facilitates laziness.

The web is diminishing attention spans.

The web is giving voice to thoughts that are encouraging the destruction of character.

All, some, most and more.

The majority of older people want to go back to the “way it was before” because it was better (definition of better would be “we weren’t lazy, had broader attention spans, stronger character, less people thought criminal like thoughts, we read more … ).

The majority of older people seem to think of the past as ‘simpler.’

“How many people long for that “past, simpler, and better world,” I wonder, without ever recognizing the truth that perhaps it was they who were simpler and better, and not the world about them?” – R.A. Salvatore

Well. after scratching my head … In the beginning I used to just chuckle and try the “it is what it is today … we cannot ‘undo’ the web so why waste energy looking backwards?”

Well.

Experience has taught me that (a) that is not the A response (b) that response got me nowhere very fast (c) there are a shitload of people – people with leadership roles, smarts and influence – who are dedicating a shitload of energy into trying to reintroduce past plans of action <albeit at least focusing on those which can often be associated with some success thank god>.

So.

I have regrouped. While my path of least resistance would seem to be to find those who don’t want to go backwards but instead embrace what is and move forward , alas, I can’t.

Maybe I am too stubborn <yes>.

Or maybe in some semi smart way I have realized there is a significant group damming up the flow of progress. And this ‘stubborn against change’ group are creating a double fold issue:

(1) – They are increasing creating an ever increasing gap between age generations.

While there is always friction between age generations as innovations occur something like the web (just as the printing press and maybe the automobile did) is a lightning rod of paradigm shifting attitudes and behaviors. Generations have never been further apart.

(2) – They are increasing the problem gap.

Issues are being exacerbated as they balk at moving forward. No solution behavior translates into issues being permitted to gain momentum (which I feel obligated to point out from a physics perspective that a faster moving object is more difficult to slow down, stop or change direction than one moving at a slower pace).

Anyway.

Let’s try some of this thinking out.

- 1. Kids read more today than ever before.

Oh. And reading is reading.

Yeah.

Reading is reading (with regard to cognitive skills). I was part of an online TED forum on this subject and I was getting the shit kicked out of me (by people who were arguing the web/texting/twitter was destroying cognitive skills in children) until this gentleman stepped in (or ‘up to the plate’ or ‘to stand by my side’ or whatever phrase indicative of a sigh of relief on my part) and said this:

“but … I don’t even know where to begin with this one. I have a PhD in reading. Not that this necessarily means I’m smart, it’s just that I’ve studied and continue to study reading. So here goes…it doesn’t matter what a person reads, in what form, by which author, on which device. Reading is reading.
My first “Crayola secret” for you is that we all read on 4 different levels: instructional, informational, recreational , and frustrational. Not any one is better than the other. Just read. The definition of comprehension? It’s still being worked on. No one, not even the experts and researchers, can seem to agree.” - Marti Dryk, PhD

Amen.

Reading is reading. And between tweets, social media, web searches, e-books … and good ole fashioned paper literature … kids are absorbing more words and thoughts than ever before.

- 2. Young people have always had short attention spans.

<note: and I could argue changes in parenting style have affected children’s attitudes and behaviors – including attention span – more than the web>.

Regardless.

A teen brain has always been a teen brain. As I have written before in that stage of development it simply gets overloaded (with stimulus) and it is wired for short bursts of stimulus. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be teaching the value of “make haste slowly” but on the other hand we do not have any research proof suggesting teaching USING how their brain works (of which the web provides that opportunity where an adult teacher is not readily capable (their brains are built differently) is not effective. If you search for data you will find it is mostly negatively anecdotal (obviously from adults). All I am suggesting is that sometimes a classroom is less effective because we are teaching one way and the recipients natural way of absorbing is another way. That misalignment creates inefficiencies. Why not use a tool and educate in a way that is aligned.

- 3. The web is not encouraging laziness <or lazy thinking>

First.

When we were young we were exactly the same type of ‘lazy thinker’ we older folk claim the web is creating. In our youth we wanted to get to the solution <or whatever would get us the good grade> as quickly as we possibly could. The web is a double edged sword. Quick solutions or answers are easily at your fingertips. Now. They may not be the right solutions or answers but they are right there. On the other hand … multiple solutions or answers are at your fingertips. Some right and some wrong. I have to be honest … I see as many adults today seeking the ‘shortcut’ to answer as I do the youth.

Second.

I actually believe the web is creating a more vigorous thinker … albeit a different type of thinking than we old folk were. The web makes such a myriad of factoids <and semi-factoids> available so quickly that the young are becoming more discernible analyzers, evaluators and thinkers earlier than any generation before.

Who gets the credit? The web <note … with some good guidance from teachers>.

Ok.

Moving on.

I always hesitate to say this <as a nonparent> but I am not sure it is any more difficult to bring up children today than it was in the past.

Different? Absolutely … more difficult? I think not.

Kids are kids.

And they have always been kids.

They are adults in training.

As adults we want what we want. Kids are the same. The web has simply given them a new tool to do what kids do and have always done. The web has probably made it more difficult for a parent to be lazy thinkers (as parents) and at the same time make it more difficult to be “opinion selective” when sharing thoughts.

I think of it as a balance sheet. The web has increased both assets and expenses. But it is still a balance sheet.

I just tend to believe that the value of the overall balance sheet has increased with the advent of the web.

Anyway.

I cannot remember who wrote this <it was an author> … “the web … it is just a matter of time before some kid from North Dakota decides to blow past the popular kids … just blow them out of the water … with something spectacular.”

Maybe the greatest aspect of the web is the fact it is an equalizer. It can level the playing field so that all kids … whether they are popular or not … whether they live in upper income New York or rural North Dakota … whether … well … whatever … can do something spectacular.

And, geez, who the heck wouldn’t want that for our kids?

I have met the enemy (and it is we)

April 17th, 2013

“There is no need to sally forth, for it remains true that those things which make us human are, curiously enough, always close at hand. Resolve then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tinny blast on tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us.” – Pogo Possum

Pogo was a cartoon strip character … an amiable, humble, philosophical, personable, everyman opossum. Pogo was “the reasonable, patient, softhearted, naive, friendly person we all think we are.” He was also the wisest (and probably sanest) resident of the cartoon swamp

Ok.

The enemy … as in … ‘we the people.’

What happened at the Boston Marathon was a tragedy … a tragedy of human kind more than anything else.

A cowardly act committed by a misguided soul <or souls … yet to be determined>.

Oh.

I would like to take a moment and remind everyone that on that exact same day:

- - The Syrian Network for Human Rights said 126 people had been killed including 37 in Damascus. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a British-based monitoring group, said 130 people were killed. These figures and reports cannot be verified because media access to Syria is limited.

- - A suicide bomber in Peshawar, Pakistan killed nine people and wounded dozens more at a Pakistan election campaign rally attended by a former cabinet minister in the northwestern city of Peshawar

Next.

This event reminded me of two others.

- – 1996: The Olympics in Atlanta. Two people died and 111 were injured after pipe bombs in a rucksack exploded in the Centennial Olympic Park. Eric Rudolph, an anti-abortion extremist, was jailed for life in 2003 after pleading guilty to the bombing.

- – 2008: Marathon in Sri Lanka. A suicide bomber killed 15 people including a government minister when he targeted the start of a marathon race near Colombo in Sri Lanka. The bomb killed 15 people, including a number of runners, and injured 90 others. The Sri Lankan government claimed the militant group Tamil Tigers were responsible for the attack.

Why did I begin there?

Boston Marathon tragedy. It would not surprise me in the least if we were to find there was no foreign influence or nefarious foreign underpinnings but rather this was some wackjob misguided American<s> making some point.

That said.

The day’s events made me think several thoughts:

- - An individual with intent to harm will harm. Especially if they are cowardly. If they hide from their actions and hide what they want to do and hide how they will do it … they will find a way to harm innocent people. I don’t say that to lessen the event or to suggest we shouldn’t be outraged when it happens … just that it can, and inevitably will, happen. The best systems in the world will not stop, 100%, an individual with intent to harm.

- - Events like a marathon, or any large sporting event, is staffed and are surrounded by very capable people to minimize the effect of large ‘intent to harm’ acts <I hope misguided wackos read that>. Their intent may be to destroy people … their will as well as their bodies. But in the end they will fail. The good of the capable rise to the occasion. And while devastation is … well … devastating. In the moment the doctors, the medical people, the firemen & police … step up to the plate and accept responsibility to manage the devastation and protect citizens from future & additional harm. Not every harmful act can be deterred or stopped … but they can be managed.

- - Words. Whew. Terror, terrorism … acts of terror. Pick your poison. Who cares? This was the first news media salvo in the war on words … ‘Obama strangely avoided the use of the word “terrorism” to describe the incident in his first comments hours after the bombings, even as White House officials were quick to call it “an act of terror.” But on Tuesday morning he noted that investigators were pursuing it as an “act of terrorism.”’

While politicians make every effort to distance themselves from the politics of an event like this <initially> you can almost feel them preparing the groundwork for the moment they can shift into politicking. Their biggest weapon? Words. They wield them like little armies trying to outflank the enemy.

My words?

It was a tragedy. A tragedy of humans. It is our job, no, our responsibility, to insure it doesn’t create terror. Eliminate the terror and it is not a terrorist act but rather simply an inhuman act. Therefore we do not seek to eliminate terrorists <who claim to have some cause> but rather we seek to eliminate the inhuman <who have no cause anyone would want to stand behind>.

In the end … terror gives them exactly what they want. Let’s not give them what they want.

- - News on TV. Oh my. Rarely have I been so disappointed in American television. Flipping channels you saw a battle of who could use the word terrorism first, who could speculate <with caveats> the most extreme and who could bludgeon you with whatever they had to bludgeon you with at that moment.

If anyone could use a lesson in “less words communicate more” the news industry is it. The American president used less than 3 minutes to say “we are not sure what happened or who did it and we will tell you when we do. Do not jump to conclusions. We will hunt down who did it.” The American news television have spent 30 hours doing that. The difference? News has filled the additional 29 hours and 57 minutes with speculation.

- Where we go from here.

First.

The London Marathon official … “we will proceed … send a very clear message to those responsible we will not be deterred.” The Brits have it right. In World War 2 it was “stay calm and carry on” <as bombs dropped nightly>. America is still shocked by domestic acts of terror. It happens other places … not here. We can either become a paranoid nation driven by fear of “what’s next” or a country that remains calm and carries on. This is our choice.

Second.

Unity and the blame game. I imagine I could have just said any actions which create division among Americans. It is a separate bigger thought but philosopher Leszek Kolakowski outlined something called “the Myth of Unity.” He suggested that there is a type of unity created as the result of a crisis or shock. He also suggests that is an artificial façade of unity which cannot survive where a consciousness of moral and political crisis has seeped through and taken root. I imagine my point is that not all moments are created equal. We can use this moment as one to focus on ongoing unity or diminish it by reverting back to the divisive path we seem to be moving forward on. Once again … this is our choice.

Anyway.

As I stated earlier … I would not be surprised if this was an American tragedy … Americans harming other Americans.

Terror these days is created by those close to home. Everywhere. Libyans harming Libyans. Pakistanis harming Pakistanis. Norwegians harming Norwegians. Americans harming Americans.

The list goes on and on.

We may seek to find enemies from afar … but most of them seem to reside within the confines of our own countries borders.

“we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us.”

I apologize if anyone believes I am diminishing the tragedy by using a quote from Pogo. But we seem often to seek evil anywhere but where we are <because we believe in good and believe we are a good country>. And even while that may be so <that we are a good country> there will always reside a ‘not good’ minority seeking to find a voice – going to whatever extent they need to do so.

Anarchists called terrorism “propaganda by the deed.”

Events like this are measured by the deed <by us> and by the propaganda <by them>.

Ultimately I would like the propaganda to be focused on whatever absurd irrational attitude that drove their behavior. But I am an attitudes & behavior guy.

Anarchists, wackjobs … the cowardly … actually have some attitudes or beliefs that drive them to this act of behavior. If we attack those things maybe we can deter people from having the attitude that creates this behavior. That is called “enlightening the ignorant” in my little world.

Anyway.

I was thinking about this and just began writing.

My thoughts go out to everyone and anyone effected by this act.

my new contrarian hero is contagious

April 16th, 2013

Well.

Contrarians need to stick together … or … well … stick up for each other.

My newest contrarian hero is a guy named Jonah Berger … for several reasons. First. Because not only has he mastered the statement of the obvious:

“We miss out on the value of the message itself as a vehicle for driving virality.” – Jonah Berger

… secondly, he also supports it with research <albeit some of us have been stating it, or something similar to it, for years> … and third, and most importantly, he is using all those trite ‘here is the secret to success’ business books as his foil.

Jonah has a new business book called “Contagious” which I will admit I will never buy but I will also admit probably does as nice a job of outlining some basics of effective communication.

<Contagious: Why Things Catch On by Jonah Berger. At 32, the assistant professor of marketing at University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business is carving out a corner of academia for himself in the study of social epidemics, or how products, ideas, and behaviors become popular>

He even has a nifty sound bite compilation of sound bites to create a sound bite philosophy:

Here are his STEPPS for making anything go viral:

- Social Currency: We share things that make us look good (even if that means pictures of our cat).

- Triggers: Easily memorable information means it’s top of mind and tip of the tongue.

- Emotion: When we care, we share.

- Public: Built to show, built to grow.

- Practical Value: News people can use.

- Stories: People are inherent storytellers, and all great brands also learn to tell stories. Information travels under the guise of idle chatter.

Catchy isn’t it?

Basically he has used aspects from what every one of the top advertising agencies currently teach, utilize and suggest on their own websites <albeit they do it in mini sound bites> and compiled them into a list.

But.

Here is the real genius.

This is nothing new.

Story, Emotion, and Practical Value have been the mainstay of the communications business for years … nope … decades. Let’s even say for a century.

It was the cornerstone of everything I was taught in the advertising business beginning in the 1980’s.

Don’t believe that?

You can visit the advertising archives at Duke University and find this same information in archival information from the 1930’s, 40’s and 50’s <in some nifty in house advertising>.

Anyway.

All that said … what makes him a bigger genius? <the part that makes him my newest hero>.

He is deflating all the tripe ‘The Tipping Point’ and ‘Made to Stick’ and all those other bestselling business books have been peddling to us and the stuff I know I have been kicked out of boardrooms for suggesting is sound bite tripe.

His book actually seems to also in a contrarian way attack what businesses have been battling for several years now … how to handle what Napoleon first suggested …

“un croquis vaut mieux qu’un long discours.” <a sketch is better than a long discourse>

Now.

Sketch <or brevity>. The business world has gone wacko over this thought … going to absurd lengths to create the ultimate soundbite under the belief “a person will only remember one thing” or “all people have the attention span of a gnat so tell them what you need to tell them in 3 seconds or less.”

Well.

Unfortunately, and truthfully, some things are just too complex to communicate in a sound bite or in 3 seconds or less. Effective communication <or ‘contagious communication’> would be one of those topics.

No matter how brief and simple you want to make it … well … it is neither brief nor simple. It is complex and sometimes the opposite of brief.

It isn’t just about telling a story.

Nor is it just about finding influencers to broker the story.

Nor is it just about practical value.

Nor is it just about emotion.

Unfortunately it is a combination of those things.

Regardless.

I have been tempted to write several business books … one even on simplicity and effective communications. And I just saw some of the high falutin’ folk with high falutin’ titles at SiegalGale <one of the top branding companies in the universe … yes … almost solar system-esque in their expertise> are publishing something about Simplicity … Simple: Conquering the Crisis of Complexity <I am hoping they cite me from one of my simplicity posts … but not holding my breath>.

They could have used something from any of these …

http://brucemctague.com/simple-complicated-complicated-simple

http://brucemctague.com/simplicity

http://brucemctague.com/simplicity-the-project-brief

by the way … it is probably a ‘simple truth’ with regard to simplicity but the main issue is not trying to find the simple within a crisis of complexity but rather not making something that is extremely simply into something complicated <or complex>.

Anyway.

Let me explain the trouble I ran into writing my business book on ‘effective simplicity.’

It was a short book.

Two pages <on index cards in fact>.

Page 1: say something meaningful.

Page 2: say that something in an interesting way.

And then because about the only additional advice I give someone is to be ruthless editors with regard to communication and words <sketch instead of discourse Napoleon thing> … well … I simplified it into one index card:

“Say something meaningful in an interesting way.” – Me <author of “the shortest business book ever written”>

Shit.

There is my book.

Save yourself a boatload of money on all those business books.

There it is.

Do that and you have as much of a chance of creating something contagious <or drive ‘message virality’ to use a Jonah term>, or made to stick or tipping cows or points or people or whatever.

There are no formulas nor are there any checklists.

It isn’t really about telling a story <although you can if it is interesting> and it really isn’t about simplified in a short sweet concise way <although you can if a long type driven story isn’t meaningful or compelling>. It is just about doing what is right at that time in that place.

You can use lots of words or few words.

You can use white space or little space.

You can use a great compelling visual or no visual at all.

You cannot use words or pictures or stories that say something meaningless.

You cannot be uninteresting.

Oh. If only it were all this simple.

aging gracefully, scandals, legacy & judgment

April 10th, 2013

Sorry.

This will be a winding post including Rick Pitino, Margaret Thatcher, Ray Lewis, Annette Funicello and Rutgers.

But the past several days has made me think about legacies … and judgment. We judge every day … sometimes simply an event … or a moment … and sometimes reflectively. All I know for sure is that we seem to be quick to judge, relentlessly unforgiving in the moment and oddly selective in circumspect.

Anyway.

Rick Pitino.

Rick Pitino is a great basketball coach.

But he also shapes young men. The other night I was watching a group of 18- to 22-year-old young men teach us a lesson about life.

<side note: to all the boomer 50/60something managers out there who bitch & moan about managing younger generations maybe you should put a picture of Pitino up in your office because he is 60 now … and was 40something when he brought a group of 20somethings to another championship and he was in his 30’s when he brought another group to a Final Four … maybe it isn’t the younger generation … maybe it is you? … oops … I digress>.

It would be easy to focus on his recent success … but his path to where he is today <I was tempted to use ‘greatness’ but didn’t> was not a straight line. There were failures and transgressions. Simply put … today he is not the man he was in his 20’s. Do we judge him on his hall of fame career? Do we judge on basketball statistics? How his young men athletes do in Life? How he did in his own personal life? Or do we judge him in totality?

Margaret Thatcher.

Margaret Thatcher was neither the smartest <a British paper used the word ‘cleverest’> nor the most eloquent politician of her generation. But she was without question one of the most determined. Maggie’s <that is what I called her> unwavering belief in her convictions is most likely her most important characteristic. Whether you believed she was right or wrong … you knew she said what she meant and meant what she said. It was never about style it was always about substance. The content was almost irrelevant because the intent drove in to the minds of people. Maggie did not become a great prime minister by being nice. She was tough-minded, determined, and convicted. Do we judge her on popularity? The success, or lack of success, of things she implemented? Do we judge her as a mother? Or do we judge her simply as one who led and not any specifics?

Annette Funicello.

On the same day Maggie died … Annette Funicello died at the age of 70 from complications of multiple sclerosis <which she had had for more than 25 years>.

For anyone growing up in the 1950s, Annette Funicello was a huge celebrity, one of the original Mouseketeers on Walt Disney’s “Mickey Mouse Club.” After it ended she had a couple of records and starred in Beach Blanket movies … then she left the business to raise her children. <trivia: Paul Anka wrote “Puppy Love” about her>.

Do we judge her on her insanely bad Beach Blanket Bingo movies? Do we judge her on being a Mouseketeer? Do we judge her on her moral compass? Do we judge her on the way she dealt with multiple sclerosis? Do we judge her in total?

Ray Lewis.

Ray Lewis is probably the polar opposite of Annette Funicello. Retired this year more as a motivational inspirational leader than the truly monsterly talented football player that he was. He was a beast on the field. So much of a beast that we may tend to forget that he didn’t become a beast simply by walking on the field … he dedicated himself off the field to not waste his talent. He was an imperfect man off the field … but focused on not wasting the one true talent he had – playing football. And you know what? His motivational ability was simply him sharing that conviction … make the most of what you have <and don’t let the other shit get in the way>.

Oh. Yeah. Ray may have shot someone. He may have just been with someone who shot someone. Ray was definitely a young punk in the 90’s. Brash, arrogant and wandering. Do we judge him as that? Or how he has matured? Do we judge him on an event or a series of events? Do we judge him simply for the fact he didn’t waste an incredible talent despite the fact at one point he could have chosen another path?

Ah.

The Rutgers basketball coach … and that path to choose I just mentioned with Ray.

If I were to judge this coach on a 30 minute video tape I would not judge him well. Please note that I believe this is not about any ‘generational style of coaching’ … his actions are, and were, unacceptable for someone who has the ability to shape and mold young men for life beyond sports.

But.

We never get to see the thousands of hours of coaching video that would make him look like a first round Hall of Fame coach.

Look. Someone could make a 30 minute video of me from my entire professional career that could make unhireable for the rest of my life. On the other hand someone could make a 30 minute video of me that could put me in the top boardrooms in the world.

Highlights, or lowlights, are just that … the peaks or the valleys. And it is silly to assume we are always at the peak of our best. You should notice that most of the great coaches being interviewed have been very careful about how they discuss the situation … why?

Geez. I bet even Pitino is sitting there thinking “whew … if someone went back to when I was a younger coach and created a 30 minute lowlight film I bet I wouldn’t look so good.”

We are being awful quick to judge this coach.

And being awful quick to judge how it was initially handled. Beyond the fact we are in a maniacally litigious world and the university is kind of trapped between ‘being in the right to fire’ and ‘providing the opportunity to improve’ … it would seem like the university <which is in the business of teaching people and improving them for future success> actually gave someone, who must obviously have some redeeming professional value, a good spanking, some good support … and then sent them back out to be a better person.

We are quick to judge the coach … and the university. And from the outside looking in sometimes objects look closer than they really are <sorry … that’s the side view mirror perspective on Life>.

Me?

What he did was unacceptable. What the university did was acceptable <in some ways>. Everyone should be careful how they judge … the event … as well as legacy of the event.

The point of all this?

We seem so quick to judge people these days. We judge with a strong dose of nearsightedness.

In addition we debate judging people on character, deeds or sometimes even lifetime consistency.

We forgive … but we don’t forgive.

Here is a Life truth.

If you sift through the rubble of anyone’s life you will find some cherished mementoes … and some rubbish.

Some people will hold the mementos high and declare sainthood.

Other people will flaunt the rubbish as proof of poor character.

It is all silly.

These people may not have been the smartest nor the most talented nor even the nicest. But they all had conviction.

Despite challenges and any transgressions they may have encountered they got their proverbial train back on the tracks and moved forward with conviction on what mattered to them.

Pitino has always been a great basketball coach. He is now a better man … and a shaper of young men.

Thatcher was never a great mind. She was a leader … not just listening to what people wanted to showing them what they needed.

Ray Lewis has always been a monsterly talented football player. He is now a monsterly talented football player who did not waste his talent.

Annette Funicello was never the most talented. But in the end she could certainly be judged well on moral compass and integrity and heart.

But what did they all have in common?

Conviction.

The Rutgers coach? He is at a crossroads. After the witch hunt has died down and we stop judging him as evil incarnate he can decide where he goes from here. And he has a lifetime to build events that will ultimately decide how he is judged. He will find this is a test of his conviction.

Ok.

I say all that to show judging a person is tough. They have professional success and sometimes Life success … and sometimes one or the other … and certainly some failures along the way.

And in the moment you are simply judging … well … a moment. Life is a series of events. Some good and some bad. Some gooder than others and some a lot badder than others.

But people have a lifetime of events to build a legacy for the rest of us to judge them on. And in the end they will be exactly as we expected them to be … flawed.

Me?

I imagine I would like to judge people not on their greatness or even individual events but rather how they dealt with the flaws in their life.

We can isolate specific events within a Life and find something good or something bad. That is easy. In fact … that is lazy judgment.

But judging how someone deals with the flaws … the mistakes.

Well, maybe, just maybe, that is judging their conviction.

And, well, conviction is a reflection of character … not brains nor genius nor talent nor skills.

a penney for my thoughts

April 10th, 2013

So.

A quick thought on JC Penney and the firing of their CEO. The bleeding was too much and now the CEO, a guy named Johnson, is gone.

Without investing a lot of energy researching the details nor insuring I have all the facts right … here is a quick summary of the situation and my own penny and a ½ thought.

A year and ½ ago. JC Penney is showing profits but becoming increasingly irrelevant in the category and shrinking as frightening levels.

They hire a new CEO <from outside the industry>. He decided to make “the big change.”

- On joining the firm, he said, “In the U.S., the department store has a chance to regain its status as the leader in style, the leader in excitement. It will be a period of true innovation for this company.”

They institute the ‘big change.’

- Abruptly scrapping dubious pricing policies of marking up prices and then offering discounts, with heavy promotions, and coupons as well as incorporated new more fashionable items at reasonable prices all the time.

Sales plummeted.

- The approach didn’t fare well with Penney’s customer base of bargain hunters. They rebelled, traffic declined.

Penney slowly returned to the prior era of pricing, with lots of promotions, lots of price-focused ads, and marked-up prices that would be later marked down.

JC Penney reports a $20+million loss.

CEO fired.

<note: all his happens in 17 months>

Look.

I buy the fact the immediate priority for JCPenney is survival. Stop, or slow, the bleeding.

And I can guarantee a boatload of pundits will rush to the forefront suggesting the CEO didn’t understand the “woman buyer” or “how women like to shop.” <in other words … they will pull out Paco Underhill – the master of shopping psychology – and start saying ‘it’s the thrill of the hunt, not the buying. “>

Baloney.

He knew exactly what he was doing.

And you know what?

He may have been right and judging after 17 months is ludicrous.

Particularly after a knee jerk “whoa! Let’s go back to lots of promotions to bring people back” action.

The CEO was well aware of the mismatch between the vision, strategy and the existing management and culture.

In addition they had to make changes to the product line, marketing and sales and, most importantly, the customer’s perceptions & attitudes <which affect their behavior>.

But he was also aware that radical changes needed to be made <assuming everyone wanted to have a radical result>.

Penney’s aggressive discount practices had not only cut into pricing strategy <it had actually become their pricing strategy> but the company <and brand> had diminished in consumers’ heads.

Macy’s & Kohls were stealing Penney’s business.

The guy came in and decided to clearly re-position the company, and brand, in the marketplace.

Was it a misalignment with the portions of current customer base? You bet.

But wasn’t that the point?

And the new strategy was about authentic & honesty.

Geez. That’s a shitty strategy, huh?

Even better?

I bet good ole Jacque Penney himself <assuming there was one> was standing up in heaven applauding that someone was actually implementing the original vision.

The vision was incredibly sound.

I was not in the board room but I envision no one forecasted this huge a loss … but, you know what? That is where conviction gets tested.

Shit. If Margaret Thatcher was a CEO she would have been fired after 17 months if this was the way of judging.

I am not suggesting the decision to move forward would have been right, nor easy, but judging in 17 months is ludicrous.

My point?

A boatload of people are going to rush to judge this event.

In fact what inspired me to write about this was one of the talking heads on CNN who unequivocally stated “this is going to be a poster case study in MBA schools for what not to do.”

Well.

That is not only silly but crazy.

The CEO had a clear vision to delight Penney customers. Nothing wrong about that.

But delighting customers is tricky.

And it gets even trickier when:

- The organization is not aligned

- And the organization <and outside financial world> panics.

We will never be able to judge this CEO nor the event.

Someone at JC Penney will bastardize the vision. People will be quick to point out the failure … but WE WILL NEVER KNOW if it was a failure or not.

How can we?

17 months for a massive organization like JC Penney? It would be crazy to think you could make the tanker sized business shift almost 180degrees in 17 months.

Me?

I love the vision he had.

I love the fact he actually was going back to the heritage of JC Penney. What it originally stood for.

I love the fact he recognized that brand is not a brand if it is simply promotion <or what some people may call ‘bargain’>.

Would I have implemented it differently than he did? Maybe. I don’t know. It is the infamous debate of gradual change versus quick change.

All I know is that change is painful.

Oh. I also know that dramatic results are dependent upon dramatic measures.

In the end … who knows what the ‘new JC Penney’ could have achieved after they had survived the change bloodbath.

Yeah.

Someone is gonna send me a note about “you have to survive.’ Well. Let me remind everyone of my ‘how far will you go’ post: http://brucemctague.com/how-far-would-you-go-to-solve-a-problem.

Sometimes organizations need to make dramatic changes to turn themselves around. The longer you permit your organization to go down the slippery slope of irrelevance the more dramatic the change has to be. And sometimes you find a leader with a good vision and the balls to implement the dramatic change.

Unfortunately … in today’s business world … no one seems to have the balls to do it.

What I will tell you is that JC Penney will now go the way of Woolworths & Wanamakers. Or maybe the Dollar Store will buy them.

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.

Enlightened Conflict

Tag Archives: quotations

echoes of all the footsteps

murphy’s laws of war (& business)

the price of the tempestuous sea of liberty

I have met the enemy (and it is we)

my new contrarian hero is contagious

aging gracefully, scandals, legacy & judgment

a penney for my thoughts

Enlightened Conflict