Enlightened Conflict

instinct

April 6th, 2013

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

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

Ok.

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

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

The point?

Knowledge and experience can only take you so far.

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

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

Ah.

Special character.

Instinct is one of those things people hate.

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

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

That means …

Collaboration? Well. Nope.

Consensus? Geez. Nope.

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

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

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

It is … well … just what it is.

Sure.

It can be cultivated.

And it can even be honed.

But I do not believe it can be taught.

Well. Let me take that back and try this.

Good instincts cannot be taught.

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

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

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

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

That said.

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

And while frustrating … it also feels right.

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

That is instinct.

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

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

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

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

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

And they are rarely emotional in decision making.

Now.

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

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

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

That is misery.

Regardless.

Instinct is a natural aptitude.

Kind of like a knack.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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.

imagination defined

January 18th, 2013

So.

I struggle to find a more important attribute in a happy & healthy person than a good imagination.

Yeah.

Maybe more important than good nutrition.

Maybe I am naïve but I tend to believe a happy mind tends to guide one to a healthier body & lifestyle. And imagination feeds a happy mind .

Simplistic? Sure. But you gotta start somewhere.

And I also believe all those people who starve themselves or become fitness nuts or feed themselves to attain some absurd body proportions should skip the ‘meal plans’ and ‘counting whatever you want to count’ and ‘tracking plans’ and begin with what is going on in the mind <but I imagine that is a different post>.

Regardless.

Imagination is a powerful thing to create a healthy mind <let me just focus on that aspect>. I found some guy named Murray Hunter who must feel the same way I do because he invested a shitload of energy analyzing imagination and different types of imagination and the components of a good imagination. In fact Murray defines different imaginations <which I will outline later in the post>.

I think it is helpful to state a reminder that imagination is thinking.

Sound obvious? Maybe. But I tend to believe we don’t … well … often think this way about imagination … or maybe not enough. I tend to believe imagination has some abstract reputation that makes it elusive to the many. It sometimes becomes a characteristic of a select few rather than an aspect of all of us. In fact … I believe we herd the idea of a ‘good imagination’ into fewer and fewer people the older we get. For some reason we attribute imagination to tangible output and create imagination scorecards for people therefore leading to people who have high scores versus people who have low scores <people with good imaginations versus bad, or no, imagination>. And … well … that is kind of crazy. Mainly because that means we have evaluated an intangible <imagination> with the tangible <results>.

To me? That is nuts.

We all have imagination.

We all portray imaginative thinking.

We all may use imagination differently.

Imaginative thinking provides the ability to travel a variety of roads as we move toward some point on the horizon <in a tangible sense that would be called strategies & objectives>. By the way … that thought is relevant to Life as well as business.

Imagination simply provides us with the ability to be more divergent, or random, than logical thought. In addition imagination permits us to move more freely across different fields of thought and constructs of organized ‘attitudes & beliefs’ while logical thinking is more orientated to a narrowly focused path.

Now. Good ole Murray suggested that imagination is probably more important than knowledge <as knowledge without application is useless>. I don’t agree with that. Mostly because I do not believe you can have imagination, or at least a productive imagination, without some knowledge. Or maybe better said … more knowledge leads to more imagination. But. Rather than invest a lot of energy debating that knowledge/imagination conundrum … I will simply suggest this is the infamous chicken or egg discussion. It is simultaneous and circular. You cannot have one without the other.

Anyway.

Most of the following words are his and I apologize to him if, as I edited his words <to shape my own thoughts>, I have changed his intent in anyway.

Suffice it to say that imagination has multiple dimensions <too many if you actually buy everything Murray is trying to sell us>. But I do believe it is helpful to analyze the different aspects of the imagination rather than simply suggest someone is ‘using their imagination’ or ‘has a good imagination’ because … well … as with most things in life … not all imagination is created equal.

So. If the topic is not only of interest to you but also important to you then understanding some of the aspects may assist in how you approach enhancing a healthy productive imagination. Here is how Murray breaks it all down <note – I am including all his categories but I do believe he dances on the head of a pin on some aspects>:

- Effectuative imagination.

Let’s call this random imagination. Effectuative combines information together to synergize new concepts and ideas. The ideas tend to be ‘visionary’ and are often incomplete. This type of imagination needs to be enhanced, modified, and/or elaborated upon as more information from the environment comes to attention and is reflected upon.

Effectuative imagination can be either guided or triggered by random thoughts, usually stimulated by what a person experiences within the framework of their past experience. These people may also be maddening because they incubate <pondering a specific problem> by leaving the problem alone … the occasional attention lets the mind wander possibilities … or nothing … and randomly imagines a solution.

Effectuative imagination is extremely flexible and allows for continuous change. This is an important ingredient in entrepreneurial planning, strategy development, particularly in opportunity construction, development, and assembling all the necessary resources required to exploit any opportunity.

I would suggest we hate and love these people and their imaginations. In our process driven world we want to give a deadline and specific objective and milestones … and these people go to the beat of their own drum.

Here is an even crazier thought. Everyone can do this. Crazy, huh? If you buy into the randomness then some people will portray this random imagination weekly … and some once a decade. The really sad part? The once in a decade person is screwed in today’s world. If they do not deliver today they get put in a ‘non-imagination box’ and we ignore them.

Too bad <for the rest of us>. Because, frankly. an effectuative imaginative idea is an effectuative imaginative idea. One is not any better or worse than another. Quality is an independent variable where each is discrete in its value. These people, to me, are builders. Often they are building something that has never been built before <these people are often miserable because they see shit other people do not see … and, as we know, most people are resistant to the truly ‘new’>.

- Intellectual imagination.

Intellectual is utilized when considering and developing hypotheses from different pieces of information or pondering over various issues of meaning say in the areas of philosophy, management, or politics, etc. Intellectual imagination originates from a definite idea or plan and thus is guided imagination as it has a distinct purpose which in the end must be articulated after a period of painstaking and sometimes meticulous endeavor. Murray used Charles Darwin as a prime example. Intellectual imagination <the ability to imagine that which seemed semi-unimaginable> developed his hypothesis leading to The Origin of Species which took almost two decades to gestate and complete. Darwin collected information, analyzed it, evaluated and criticized the findings, and then reorganized all the information into new knowledge in the form of a hypothesis . Intellectual imagination is a very conscious process.

Personally I put this in the ‘renovation’ category. These people use their imagination to take that which is, break it apart and ultimately imagine it all in a new configuration. These people are less miserable than the miserable Effectuative people mostly because at least their imaginations are using mostly existing pieces to suggest change and new.

- Imaginative fantasy.

Fantasy creates and develops stories, pictures, poems, stage-plays, and the building of the esoteric. This form of imagination may be based upon the inspiration of some fact or semi-autobiographical experiences, extrapolated or analogized into new persona and events that conform to or stretch the realms of reality into some magical alternative option. Imaginative fantasy may be very tangible in its construct … very structural <people in real world settings, past, present, or future … or with real people in mythical settings>. Fantasy may totally disregard the rules of society, science and nature, or extrapolate them into a created future. Fantasy can also be based upon human emotions, distorted historical facts, historical times and political issues, take a theme and fantasize it, encapsulate dark fantasy, or evoke urban legend. Imaginative fantasy can be a mixture of guided and unguided imagination and appears to be important to artists, writers, dancers, and musicians, etc.

These people are extremely happy people … but this imagination lives in an alternative world <which means they may not fit in with the rest of mainstream very easily>. This imagination seamlessly eases its way into the world because most people clearly identify it as ‘not change’ but rather ‘not real.’ We love these people because on occasion in their ‘non-real’ imagination they figure out a way to articulate something real in our own lives. We rarely judge them on everything they do and say but rather on those magical moments when they reach inside us and show us something about the way we think or feel.

- Empathy Imagination

Empathy tied to Imagination is an interesting category. It suggests a capacity to connect to others and feel what they are feeling. Empathy imagination helps someone put themselves in someone else’s shoes. Let someone know emotionally what others are experiencing from their frame and reference. Empathy allows our mind ‘to detach itself from one’s self’ and see the world from someone else’s feelings, emotions, pain, and reasoning. Empathy links us to the larger community and thus important to human survival in enabling us to understand what is required to socially coexist with others.

Interestingly, this type of imagination, besides being extremely important in Life, can be an important characteristic in Business. It enables one to think about how competition thinks and reacts and what they would do. I guess branding can also be considered a result of empathy as marketers try and capture connections with potential customers by appealing to their emotions, self identity and aspirations.

- Strategic imagination

While Murray didn’t suggest this … I will … this type of imagination to me is very specific. Strategic is concerned about vision of ‘what could be’, the ability to recognize and evaluate opportunities by turning them into mental scenarios, seeing the benefits, identifying the types and quantities of resources required for taking particular actions, and the ability to weigh up all the issues in a strategic manner. This type of ‘imagining what could be’ helps a person focus upon the types of opportunities suited to them <their personal motivations being the main driver>.

I tend to believe that strategic imagination translates into what we everyday schmucks would call “wise people” <not wise asses>.

- Emotional Imagination

I call this “imagining how I may feel” imagination. This is concerned with manifesting emotional dispositions and extending them into emotional scenarios. Without any imagination, emotion would not be able to emerge from our psych and manifest as feelings, moods, and dispositions. Fear requires the imagination of what is fearful, hate requires imagination about what is repulsive, and worry requires the imaginative generation of scenarios that make one anxious. Through emotional imagination, beliefs are developed through giving weight to imaginative scenarios that generate further sets of higher order emotions. Emotional imagination operates at the unconscious and semi-unconscious level. Emotional imagination a very powerful type of imagination and can easily dominate the thinking processes.

By the way … I tend to believe people who have a vivid emotional imagination are typically emotional wrecks. These are the people who constantly swing between envisioning what would make them happy and living through ‘what if’ misery . These people are almost the exact opposite of what Eckhart Tolle would call “living in the now.” They live in the ‘what if.’ Me? I would shoot myself. What a waste of a good imagination.

- Dreams.

I was surprised Murray threw dreams into Imagination but I included it because I included everything else he dreamed up <sorry for that>. He suggests that dreams are an unconscious form of imagination made up of images, ideas, emotions, and sensations … just that this imagination occurs while you sleep rather than when you are awake. An interesting thought. Dreams show that every concept in our mind has its own psychic associations and that ideas we deal with in everyday life are by no means as precise as we think. Our experiences imprint our memory passing into the subconscious where the factual characteristics can be reacquired or be revised at some point. Regardless … we are not in control of our dreams … this is completely unfettered imagination <an interesting idea in its own right>.

I will admit that I mostly left this in my post because I have a pen & paper next to my own bed. I am not sure I would call what I do when I sleep as “dreaming” but I certainly think. And it helps if I wake up to write down what I thought <before the ‘brilliance’ slips away>. I hesitate to call this ‘dreaming’ because I think of words, business & ideas … not unicorns, angels and stepping through rings of fire to save some damsel in distress. Regardless … this is an interesting aspect I am glad good ole Murray thought about.

- Memory reconstruction.

This type of imagination is the process of retrieving our memory of people, objects, and events. Our memory is made up of prior knowledge consisting of a mix of truth and belief, influenced by emotion. Recurring memory therefore carries attitudes, values, and identity as most of our memory is within the “I” or “me” paradigm. Memory is also reconstructed to fit into our current view of the world, so is very selective.

If you are truly interested in this delineation please do not hesitate to pick up Clotaire Rapaille’s The Culture Code. You will be interested because this type of imagination has to be consciously redirected because Clotaire does a fabulous job in suggesting some of the memory imprints we have are solidly imprinted in our subconscious … therefore dictating a thought platform from which our imagination leverages from. An interesting paradox if you believe imagination is a blank slate.

Done.

Whew.

this has turned out to be a bear of a post to write & edit … which is a shame because it is on a topic I truly enjoy … imagination and knowledge.

In the end I wanted to break down imagination into these somewhat absurd delineations to make a point. Knowledge <and curiosity I imagine> have almost always been discussed in infinite terms. While, oddly, imagination has been discussed as finite <as in some people do not have it>.

The relationship between knowledge and imagination is inextricably tied. And both are expanding geometrically. Murray suggested somewhere in something he wrote that this exponential growth is devaluing knowledge <but not imagination>. I disagree. Adamantly disagree.

I believe the value of knowledge, in particular, is increasing exponentially … because the game of Life has raised its competitive bar. Therefore people need to be able to use all their tools, imagination included, to be more competitive with Life <not other people>. Developing capabilities to investigate and assimilate information and inventing new ways of looking at it is becoming increasingly important. Honestly that thought is at the core of Enlightened Conflict. It is the next step from encouraging curiosity <and actually acting upon your curiosity>.

To end this whole post & thought.

Seeking knowledge and using your imagination is certainly something internally driven. However … to fully prosper it needs to be nurtured … given the space and environment to be successful.

That will not happen until everyone … well … at least the everyones who can crush the potential … recognize everyone has a vivid imagination when given the opportunity. And maybe that is why I went into such excruciating detail on differentiating imagination. Maybe somewhere in the excruciating detail some anal retentive manager/leader will latch on to a reason to give someone a chance to use their imagination.

dream big … because …

November 16th, 2012

I have said this before … it seems like today’s world is tough on dreamers.

It is hard to be a dreamer and it seems to be easier and easier to blindly move down a beaten path <getting beaten up by Life>.

We need to remind ourselves on occasion that it is okay to dream … and dream big.

And that relentlessly pursuing a dream can be inspiring … not discouraging.

Now. Being a big dreamer doesn’t mean that you walk around with your head in the clouds. It means that you have a purpose … a big purpose that makes your life bigger and fulfills some promise within you.

Of course … as usual … the key is to find a balance. Think ground and clouds. Pragmatic with no limits. A contradiction? Sure. But big dreams are a contradiction. As a practical relatively pragmatic human race we would never have them … unless some of them defied the odds and actually came true. Some really do happen.

Which reminds me <to remind everyone> that big dreams are things … not intangibles. They are not ‘becoming rich’ or ‘being a star’ … they are achieving greatness with an idea or a thought. Anyway. And while there should be a balance … there should be some big dream in all of us for a lot of reasons:

- Sense of Self.

Big dreams have a nice habit of increasing the size of your sense of self. You have to be careful it doesn’t become bigger than yourself and consume you … but big dreams remind you that you can make a big impact in some form or fashion. Maybe not today … but a hope of sometime. Big dreams can not only create some interesting self-purpose in life but it also reminds you that anyone, even you, is capable of the extraordinary. Even if it is just in thought.

Be daring, be different, be impractical, be anything that will assert integrity of purpose & imaginative vision against the play-it-safers, the creatures of the commonplace, the slaves of the ordinary. - Sir Cecil Beaton

Maybe that is the biggest part of this ‘sense of self’ thought … it is likely the biggest reason why you wouldn’t want to settle on small dreams … does anyone really want to be a slave of the ordinary?

- Possibilities.

When you dream big things you will find new roads you may want to explore along the way. It is an adventure and sometimes extremely unpredictable and never ordinary. This is because big dreams can push limits of possibility <or what is possible> because it keeps the impossible in life in sight <if you can actually see something like impossible>. It all happens because big dreams are … well … not quantifiable. If they can be <in your head> I would suggest it is not really a dream but an objective or goal. A dream has to be so big it is just an idea … something difficult to put a number on it or a specific GPS coordinate. it is always somewhere on the horizon. And in reaching toward it the possibilities of new roads not taken <and never envisioned nor on any map as a matter of fact> increase significantly.

- Achieving stuff.

Yeah. You may not actually get the big one <the big dream> … but typically if you dream big, you increase the odds you actually achieve something … and it also increases the odds you actually achieve something relatively great in the scheme of things. You may even end up achieving more than you ever thought you could <even if it isn’t the big dream you began with>.

Big dreams are the reasons why the world changes … and becomes better. And I say ‘world’ as in if you define it in business … or in life.

It’s the reason why there have been so many inventions, new ‘out of the box’ ideas, creations or whatevers. As a business guy I love this following quote for the business big dreamers:

“New business concepts are always, always the product of lucky foresight. That’s right – the essential insight doesn’t come out of any dirigiste planning process; it comes form some cocktail of happenstance, desire, curiosity, ambition and need. But at the end of the day, there has to be a degree of foresight — a sense of where new riches lie. So radical innovation is always one part fortuity and one part clearheaded vision.”― Gary Hamel, Leading the Revolution

New concepts inevitably come from one part clearheaded big dreaming.

Same with new ideas. Same with anything really new … and really big. Oh. And along the way a lot of good little stuff happens too.

- Your legacy <and big dreams>

Big dreams give you the opportunity to truly leave your mark on the world in several ways.

You achieve it.

You don’t achieve it <but achieve other shit along the way>.

You don’t achieve it <and it is left for someone else to achieve>.

The first.

The achieving one is obvious. It is satisfying and certainly something at the end of the road you will probably look back on with some satisfaction. I will mention though that most big dreamers update their dreams if they actually attain the original.

You never really actually stop dreaming big <but do not tell anyone that>.

The second.

You don’t achieve it but along the road you have veered off on a variety of paths you encountered and did some good shit along the way. Your legacy is strewn with stuff you have left behind. I call this a ‘no regret’ life. You don’t really regret the missed ‘big dream’ cause you lived life doing stuff.

The third.

Oh. And not achieving the big dream … whew … what does happen to big dreams when a dreamer dies?

Here is the good news.

A big dream never really dies. Only dreamers do. Someone else grabs it as their own. I think most big dreamers recognize his and are okay with it. Big dreams aren’t really meant to be owned by anyone in particular except Life. They can be achieved by someone <if they are lucky enough to figure out how to do it> but big dreams are visionary.

Some big dreams cannot be fulfilled within a single lifetime. But they are so inspiring that future generations <or someone in that generation> will strive to achieve it.

And last.

Inspiring that future?

Well. Maybe, that in itself is why people should dream big.

conscience & psychopaths & cynicism … or naiveté

November 5th, 2012

Dysfunctional Management at the Bar

So.

This is actually about business organizations and how the sometimes “less competent” <sometimes dysfunctional> people get promoted into leadership roles … oh … and how a group of well educated people, a large group by the way, maintained in an unequivocal stance that there were a bunch of psychopaths rising to leadership positions <and are ‘the dysfunctional>. That relatively large group of people are TED members.

On a side note … I recognize that you always have to be careful when discussing “how do such idiots <incompetents> get promoted?” to weed out the envious, the blind and the ignorant.

But in the end … it is true there are a shitload of “less competent” people, and certainly some quite dysfunctional people, who get promoted into some very important roles in business organizations.

Notice I didn’t say ‘incompetent’ but rather ‘less competent.’ I did so because when really putting organizations under a microscope the real issue is not the surprisingly less than competent people who get promoted but rather the truly competent who are dwelling somewhere in the depths of the organization who have NOT been promoted.

This all began for me within a very disturbing discussion among some TED members. I was being faced with an overriding belief that “psychopaths” <or sometimes called ‘predators’> were increasingly becoming this generation’s business leaders. Leaders driven by greed, lack of values and ego doing whatever it takes to maneuver their way to leadership.

Well. I didn’t agree … but I was in a minority.

And until I read a post/discussion comment <from a Dr. Gupta> I had begun thinking I was either naïve, working on a different planet, oblivious to the greed and lack of values surrounding me … or actually one of the psychopaths and was so good at hiding it from others I was hiding it from myself <now … there is an interesting thought to ponder as I look in the mirror>.

Let me posit two things to outline my disagreement:

- It is most often not any predator trait but rather an ability, and desire, to manipulate, or manage, the system that gets a ‘less competent’ person into a leadership role.

- Organizations play a significant role in how their employees decide how to behave to attain ambition/self-objectives even if it means a ‘bending’ of traditional ‘what is right’ conscience.

Anyway.

- Why I believe it is not a predator/psychopathic trait:

I have met and worked with dozens of leaders and I can maybe think of one as having such a poor moral compass that I would place them in the true predator/psychopathic category. Afterwards I knew that one situation couldn’t be solved but I did know one thing … that company would ultimately fail. Not that day but that type of personality inevitably creates a larger dysfunctional company that just cannot compete (in the end). Just as an organism metaphor can be used … the organism dies because it has a bacterium that can’t be cured. I imagine my real point here is that is a natural evolution of companies, i.e., the truly sick die all on their own.

Regardless.

About dysfunctional/less competent people in leadership roles. Let’s be honest … the true psychopaths are few.

Maybe I just have been lucky in the organizations and leaders I have met but while all leaders want to make a profit I haven’t seen boundless moral-less greed. In fact, when interviewed most leaders have a huge desire to increase the wealth of the “head, heart and wallet” of their employees.

All aspects of employee benefit.

But practically speaking most leaders would admit “managing the balance sheet is much easier than the people management.” The typical quote you hear …

“I am more rewarded by the people but I don’t believe I am as good at it (or it is just too difficult).”

So, what happens? As good managers do … they delegate.

They delegate to someone (or someones) who they perceive, or believe, is better at maximizing the heads and hearts portion.

<by the way … if you want to work on corporate dynamics for this aspect that is the gatekeeper to find>.

Is there a way to weed out the dysfunctional? Or, at minimum, identify the harmful incompetent?

Sure. I know I have suggested to HR departments, or the keepers of the culture and staff, that no organism/organization is flawless (unless it is made up of robots, maybe has less than 5 employees or is somewhere in corporate utopia, i.e., a different planet). Therefore their job isn’t to eliminate all the bacteria just be sure you have systems set up to identify the bacteria that could kill the organism.

There are varieties of methods.

I would suggest pattern tracking over time (because even good employees are infamous for doing something bad, or questionable, to get to where they want to go and exhibiting different /better/behavior once there). In other words … one time behavior is completely different than ongoing patterned behavior.

Pattern tracking actually is effective because no matter how sneaky or talented at hiding predator/psychopathic-like behavior that employee does give clues which when tracked uncover the underlying flaw.

Obviously this falls apart once someone shifts companies but you gotta start somewhere.

But. The truth is that most less competent leaders didn’t elevate because of any ‘lack of conscience/predator’ trait but more likely because they knew how to manipulate, or manage, the system. Sure. There can be some less-than-desirable characteristics exhibited when managing the system but the majority of the time it is all about taking advantage of other’s mistakes and taking advantage of the opportunities.

- Why I believe it can be driven by an organization:

Ok. How can an organization contribute to encouraging a thread of predator behavior?

Before I get specifically to that point let me share the premise behind the thought.

Research has shown us several things.

- All people are born with a conscience <or a sense of right or wrong>

- And even true psychopaths have a conscience <they just do not act upon it>

“In the end, we found that six- and ten-month-old infants overwhelmingly preferred the helpful individual to the hindering individual. This wasn’t a subtle statistical trend; just about all the babies reached for the good guy.” – Professor Bloom

So.

In my mind the research and information is clear. Children are born knowing inherently what is moral and ethical … and that over time as they experience the real world their natural born tendencies are shifted into whatever spot their experiences put them in.

I purposefully wrote it that way.

This isn’t “children are born good and the world is evil.”

We now have intriguing scientific evidence pointing to that inherent human faculty.

- At the age of six months babies can barely sit up – let along take their first tottering steps, crawl or talk. But, according to psychologists, they have already developed a sense of moral code – and can tell the difference between good and evil.

An astonishing series of experiments is challenging the views of many psychologists and social scientists that human beings are born as ‘blank slates’ – and that our morality is shaped by our parents and experiences. Instead, they suggest that the difference between good and bad may be hardwired into the brain at birth.

In one experiment involving puppets, babies aged six months old showed a strong preference to ‘good’ helpful characters – and rejected unhelpful, ‘naughty’ ones. In another, they even acted as judge and jury. When asked to take away treats from a ‘naughty’ puppet, some babies went further – and dished out their own punishment with a smack on its head.

Professor Paul Bloom, a psychologist at Yale University in Connecticut, whose department has studied morality in babies for years, said: ‘A growing body of evidence suggests that humans do have a rudimentary moral sense from the very start of life. “With the help of well designed experiments, you can see glimmers of moral thought, moral judgment and moral feeling even in the first year of life. Some sense of good and evil seems to be bred in the bones.”

This is simply the fact children have a relatively blank experience slate on which the first words are not necessarily ‘self interest’ but rather ‘interest in feeling good’ … which can be a social or individual thing.

now. I know that is all about children but let me use it moving into the discussion on ‘psychopaths in the workplace’ (surrounding the discussion on why so many crappy people end up in management positions) and adults entering into the workplace.

So.

Most people understand social contracts intuitively. They don’t have to reason them out. Ordinary people are also similarly attuned to questions of risk.

Interestingly psychopaths typically exhibit similar levels of intelligence to the norm. Nor does their lack of guilt and shame seem to spring from a deficient grasp of right or wrong.

Ask a psychopath what he is supposed to do in a particular situation and he/she can usually give you what non psychopaths would regard as the correct answer. <by the way … this is all pulled from research>

So what goes wrong?

It is just that he/she does not seem bound to act upon that knowledge. They understand the rules of social contracts … just do not believe they are defined by the rules.

<please remember that last thought because I will use it again … but this time within a business organization framework>

This is the life of a true psychopath:

- “Imagine – if you can – not having a conscience, none at all, no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no limiting sense of concern of the well-being of strangers, friends, or even family members. Imagine no struggles with shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken. And pretend that the concept of responsibility is unknown to you, except as a burden others seem to accept without question, like gullible fools. Now add to this strange fantasy the ability to conceal from other people that your psychological makeup is radically different from theirs. Since everyone simply assumes that conscience is universal among human beings, hiding the fact that you are conscience-free is nearly effortless. You are not held back from any of your desires by guilt or shame, and you are never confronted by others for your cold-bloodedness. The ice water in your veins is so bizarre, so completely outside of their personal experience that they seldom even guess at your condition.” – Martha Stout Ph.D.

In other words, a psychopath is completely free of internal restraints with an unhampered liberty to do just as you please with no pangs of conscience. You can do anything at all, and still your strange advantage over the majority of people, who are kept in line by their consciences, will most likely remain undiscovered.

Many mental health professionals refer to the condition of little or no conscience as “anti-social personality disorder,” a non-correctable disfigurement of character that is now thought to be present in about 4 percent of the population – that is to say, one in twenty-five people. This condition of missing conscience is called by other names, too, most often “sociopathy,” or the somewhat more familiar term psychopathy. Guiltlessness was in fact the first personality disorder to be recognized by psychiatry, and terms that have been used at times over the past century include manie sans délire, psychopathic inferiority, moral insanity, and moral imbecility.

All that said … do I personally believe a true psychopath can rise to any significant leadership role in any viable company? Nope.

Do I believe an organization can unburden some of the typical ‘conscience’ restraints a normal person has? Yes.

You bet.

Absolutely.

Remember what I said before about psychopaths … ‘They understand the rules of social contracts … just do not believe they are defined by the rules.’

Similar to a child, an employee entering an organization has the ability to discern right from wrong which tells me that we not only believe there is a difference but that our natural inclination would be to do right <versus wrong>.

Are there people born who do not have consciences? Whew. I doubt it. Or they are few and far between. As a corollary … do I believe there are people who enter a business organization who do no have a conscience? once again … I doubt it.

So what happens? Most likely the organization, through its rewards & promoting behavior, create a new conscience framework in which it so dulls their conscience senses that they no longer believe in the traditional ‘right versus wrong’ behavior <or guides their senses in a different direction> and thus, those who elect to follow the new framework, appear to have no consciences <or have a more expanded view of what is conscientiously acceptable>.

Let me be clear. The employee understands the traditional rules of social contracts but the organization has defined a different set of rules they believe they can play by.

So.

If you believe that then, in general, the really competent people who don’t get promoted have decided, in some form or fashion, to maintain their sense of ‘right versus wrong’ framework. They just decide to not play by the different set of rules.

And, let’s be clear, I am not suggesting they are better people because of this decision but rather each person makes their own decision. And each should feel comfortable with their decision because both are playing by the rules.

I have never begrudged the ‘less competent’ rising to a leadership role as long as they didn’t exhibit the nasty predator-like characteristics. Because if they didn’t, than they just managed the system better than others did.

Last thought.

Maybe we should think of businesses as microcosms of Life itself.

There is something called the concept of Natural Law .

The concept of Natural Law implies that human beings inherently know what is ‘good from evil’ and what is ‘right from wrong’ <our conscience compass>. It refers to our belief that inherent in nature itself is a moral law that has validity everywhere for everybody, regardless of race and culture. Human beings can use our reason to discern that natural moral law so as to derive binding rules of moral behavior which we make into our everyday positive law.

I believe that when a new employee enters an organization they begin with Natural Law embedded.

Any changes to the natural law are created by experience within the organization itself.

Think about it.

Because you almost have to believe that … or you have to believe that a disproportionate percentage of the true Pyschopath population <like all of the 4% they represent> end up in business instead of hanging out in strip clubs & low income housing.

Maybe I am naive.

But I think I would rather believe even the ‘less competent’ leaders have a conscience and a sense of ‘right versus wrong’ than believe a bunch of psychopaths have run amok in leadership within organizations.

visiting fools

October 30th, 2012

“A fool will always come calling.” - unknown

fools who visit

<a bruce thought: we all have a little fool within us>.

Fool is a tough word to use on yourself.

Because fools are those who have the quality or condition of being ignorant and confused about matters, or those employed in making jests about the general circumstances of ignorance and confusion which exists among people.

But no mater how you look at it … it is just part of Life that our inner fool will always come calling.

If you are honest with yourself you will realize at some time, at some point, you will discover you have engaged in some foolish acts or foolish thinking … and made the appropriate internal justifications to convince yourself that you aren’t a fool.

Don’t beat yourself up. And don’t fight it. And stop investing energy justifying your actions. We all have a fool inside us.

I file this thought under the whole ‘managing regrets’ topic.

If you assume the fool inside you is always fighting to get out and do … well … something foolish … then it is a waste of time to regret doing foolish things. Well. At least you shouldn’t invest a lot of energy beating the crap out of yourself for ‘being a fool’ but instead pay attention to managing your inner fool. Don’t ignore it but manage it.

Don’t act like “well, that is not me so that is atypical behavior” because … as I said … it is you. Just recognize that you do have an inner fool who wants to enjoy Life. It is silly to not admit it … and actually embrace the fact. Purposefully ignoring truth because maybe you are afraid of accepting the truth means your inner fool is managing you rather than you managing your inner fool.

It is all about assuming responsibility for all aspects of who you are … the fool and the non-fool is part of who you are and what you do.

And you are a fool really only if you deceive yourself.

Look.

If you accept this thought, then maybe you will end up understanding only a fool seeks answers and it is the wise who seek the questions.

In constantly seeking the right questions your inner fool cannot deceive you. You will probably be less gullible. You are probably more likely to see things as they really are. You will probably have your own opinion <rather than just use other people’s opinions>. You will probably better recognize what makes you happy. You will probably be deceived less by the illusion of what Life may be cluttering your life with … and see more clearly within the moment. Oh. And by constantly asking questions you will probably manage regrets significantly better because of focusing on ‘regret’ you will focus on ‘did I ask the right questions?’

And, probably, you will live a life a little closer to whatever ‘truth’ is … and that ain’t a bad place to reside <even if it can be an uncomfortable place to reside on occasion>.

Life cannot be planned in a way that is fool proof … at best you can just keep on asking the right questions and adapting because …

“A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.”- Douglas Adams

I bet this quote was said thinking about how outside fools affect your design. Instead maybe we should think of this with our ‘inner fool’ in mind.

I think we often underestimate the ingenuity of our inner fool.

1855 and 2012 (or … an Open Letter to My Generation)

September 19th, 2012

Dear My Generation <us older folk>,

Ok. I feel like we need to have a talk. Not just a talk but maybe a ‘talk talk.’ You know what I mean. Now. I am going to avoid the “am I better off today” topic but suggest in an open letter to my generation that we may not be in an economic crisis but rather a cultural crossroads. And I may suggest that we need to quit complaining and/or blaming and step up to the plate. Anyway. It seems like we get so caught up in ‘how bad – we feel/perceive – it is today versus yesterday” we overlook this period in time may simply be an example of painful well-needed progress <oh, isn’t all progress painful?>.

“Progress? The history of all times cries loudly against it.” – Immanuel Kant

Note #1: Versions of this thought were recorded in Egyptian hieroglyphics.

Note #2: The idea that we are bad, and getting worse, feels remarkably comfortable across cultures.

Note #3: My generation seems to be crying loudly at this time.

This thought is also true for each generation’s belief, or nonbelief, with regard to our views on human nature and its prospects. Most cultures have a myth of a golden age from which we are in decline, but in the absence of evidence on whether the state of nature was violent or utopian or truly golden or gold plated.

Note #4 <or rather a question>: so … is much of our current angst about the world simply a reflection of the fact attitudinally we change, progress, is painful … as well as difficult to see while within the moment?

Ok.

What made me think about all of this?

I had some beers the other night with a bunch of guys in my generation <old white guys … I am also an old white guy>. Prior to beer I was fairly optimistic with regard to the world and when I left I had a sense of several of the following:

- Armageddon is upon us <at least the old white guys>

- The world is crumbling around us <and it is mostly Obama’s fault>

- America is a pansy in foreign policy <we should be killing, crushing, smothering someone … yet to be identified but it should have already been done>

- The Islam slur video on youtube is simply an expression of freedom of speech

- Cats & dogs are living together <but cannot be married>

- We are doing nothing but complaining, bickering and blaming someone else

Personally I find it difficult to discuss progress when most people I hear think we are headed to hell <in a hand basket> and want to complain someone should do something about it or just blame someone for it.

Regardless. I am gonna try. Because I need to tell some things that are on my mind to my generation <us older folk>.

The truth is that all times are changing times. Times of moral and mental transformation whether we like it, or want it, or not. When what is viewed as simplicity by looking in a rear view mirror looks like chaos when viewing through the front windshield. What everyone knows is true becomes only wht some people used to think.

In the end? It is unsettling. For all our delight in innovations and impermanence we also long for the unalterable. We cherish old stories for their changelessness.

Oh. And media is doing its part to feed this frenzy. As retired General Wesley Clark said on a Sunday interview … “isolated multiple incidents involving the few being highlighted by the media creates perceptions of overall chaos.”

But the media is a different post for another day.

Now, I am not suggesting we shouldn’t look around with concern … albeit I would rather call it a ‘crossroads’ rather than the more popular ‘C’” word … a crisis. Because, yes, things are changing, but, yes, they are always changing.

That said … I am reminded by Rousseau: “let us begin by setting aside all the facts for they do not affect the questions.”

The question is why we are so certain the world is going into a shithole <or into chaos … or … in a crisis … pick your poison>.

Attitudinally I suggest this is partially what Gregg Easterbrook calls “the progress paradox.”

It suggests that frustrations rise with our expectations, and make us feel worse while we are actually getting better. Political interests, and media, deliberately exaggerate bad things. But it doesn’t explain the joy we seem to gain from seeing our glasses as half empty.

It is difficult to explain but I am not writing to do so … only to make the point that while we gnash our teeth about what is going on today … we have this in common with any culture and any generation you would like to query <you may need a medium and a crystal ball to ask some>. Every age produces prognosticators who declare it is worse than what came before. They might turn out to be true but within the moment it is always difficult to say whether one is declining or progressing.

It is a see saw of challenges and new innovations.

Robert Bork suggested <in an otherwise unreadable book of despair>: “every new generation constitutes a wave of savages who must be civilized.”

Despite being poetic he has a point. We learn from history and we ignore history.

Each generation wants to create a unique identity … which means you begrudgingly assume things from past generations /history. All that said the true thought is there to be found … for moral clarity for each generation we need to conserve the bits of decency left. For it is within a sense of decency we can see the progress within the seeming chaos.

Part of the difficulty in doing so in times like these is that we tend to feel better when we assume the worst.

Huh? Yeah, But It would be too easy to suggest optimists may spend their lives being disappointed while pessimists spend theirs being pleasantly surprised <although I do believe there is an element of this>. Plus. If you buy this then it suggests my generation is simply a generation of pessimists … and I refuse to believe that.

Optimists or pessimists, good or evil … frustrated or just simply believe “these are the worst of times” I will take a minute to let my generation read two items from the mid 1800’s. I included these thoughts to show some words that I believe resonate today. In fact, take the dates off and they could appear in NY Times next week:

“The dream that this young land, fresh from the hands of its Creator, unpolluted by the stains of time, should be the home of freedom and the race of men so manly that they would lift the earth by the whole breadth of its orbit nearer heaven … has passed away from the most of us , as nothing but a dream. We yield ourselves, instead, to calculation, money making, and moral indifference.” – 1855 magazine writer

“it is an affair of instincts, we did not know we had them: we valued ourselves as cool calculators, we were very fine with our learning and culture, with our science that was o no country and our religion of peace … and now a sentiment mightier than logic, wide as light, strong as gravity, reaches into the college, the bank, the farmhouse, and the church. It is the day of the populace; they are wiser than their teachers. The interlocutions from quiet looking citizens are of an energy of which I had no knowledge. How long men can keep a secret! i will never speak lightly of a crowd. We are wafted into a revolution which, though at first sight a calamity of the human race, finds all men in good heart, in courage, in a generosity of mutual and patriotic support. . We have been homeless, some of us, for some years past … but now we have a country again. This affronting of the common sense of mankind, this defiance and cursing of friends as well as foes, has hurled us, willing or unwilling, into opposition.” Ralph Waldo Emerson 1861

The late 1850’s into the 60’s was a time when the men and women, an extraordinary cast of characters in leadership & influencer roles, find themselves at a crossroad of new ideas–about medicine, commerce, economics, technology and justice. It was a time in the world where proponents of the old ways fiercely battled those with progressive minds.

A time when the intrigue, the ideas, the questioning and tension raise the level of global change.

Sound familiar?

So.

A couple of points here:

Every generation feels like it is worse than it was before.

Every generation struggles to link past analogies to the present <because we inevitably always err on the side of thinking today is significantly different than yesterday because of ‘progress’ innovations>.

All that said let me share some bigger overarching thoughts relevant to the overall angst I believe my generation is feeling … because our beer conversation reminded me of several things:

- In America, in particular, we constantly struggle in the hollow space that lies between a self-interest mission and an idealism mission. Kissinger suggested America will always be tugged in 2 directions with its foreign policy.

1. Domestic ideals: A strong sense of what is best for America (within its boundaries as primary focus and secondarily its actions outside its border).

2. Mission of ideals: A strong belief that part of our mission is to encourage and support our “freedom of choice” ideals (regardless whether there may not be a direct self-interest reward). How about calling this ‘supporting the progress of our ideals internationally.’

A thought for my generation. These two things are not always aligned and yet our actions may still be right. Regardless. We are a country with a strong set of ideals of which are not defined by dollars and cents. The dollars and cents have always been defined by the ideals. Yes. Let me say that again to my generation … the dollars and cents have always been defined by ideals.

There is good well earned money and then there is … well … money. Notice the people who stretched the rules to make their money defend it as “money is money.” They are wrong. It may all look the same but it doesn’t feel the same. I say that because it is up to my generation to remember the ideals … and the fact we are NOT the world’s peacekeeper … we are the world’s ideal protector. Inside and outside our borders we stand up for the little guy <or gal>, the medium sized guy and the big guy wherever and whoever they are to protect the ideals. And I mean wherever and whoever. We refuse to let ideals be bullied.

I am a business guy. So let me try this on for size. If it isn’t about ideals then aren’t we just a commodity? My generation needs to put their wallets and any bias toward some religion in the drawer for a minute or two and check their ideal pulse. Cause if there is no pulse we are doomed.

- We constantly struggle with the perception reality gap of minority actions and majority truths (and I have a longer post coming up on this). Despite how it sometimes feels we are not driven by the lunatic fringe which is in the minority. The minority…the radicals, the psychopaths, the greedy, the morally inept … is just that … a minority. As a subset of the minority/majority paradox we constantly struggle with discerning the lunatic fringe from the voice of progress in the fringe. And the lunatic fringe is often sneaky making it difficult to discern. Think about Ron Paul or even Jesse Ventura. Or almost any radio talk show host (right or left). One moment lucidly insightful next moment loony crackpots.

Regardless I would suggest to my generation that we get our heads out of our collective asses and realize we are smart enough to not be fooled by some sound bite or inflammatory statement as some foolhardy fact but rather think … yes … think. Progress takes work and thinking. Therefore, the foolish voices of rage within some silly minority faction nor the silent majority of the sheep are relevant to us because in thinking our way through it ultimately we will be able to offer a clear voice of reason.

- We constantly struggle with immediacy and patient thoughtfulness. We burst into a desire for immediacy and decisiveness (which we sometimes confuse with immediacy) to right a wrong or to get something done. And yet we are unforgiving in the retrospective “blame game.”. We seek to blame. We seek the quick response. We seek self-interest. We seek hope. We seek dignity and decisiveness in our actions. We want decisive quick leaders in a complex (sometimes confounding in our attempts to unravel it all to find truth).

I would suggest to my generation we are of an age where we have run the gauntlet of hasty foolish decisions and wasted opportunities dithering over this & that. In our wisdom we should realize that while our leaders may be ‘better’ than we in some form or fashion they are also derivatives of us … having run the same gauntlet. We are smart enough to know that some decisions should be made quickly and some should be made patiently and that typically the person who knows the most <which would not be us by the way … it is them> will make the best decision possible. Will it always be right? Of course not. But the blame game is wasted energy … for us & them.

- We constantly struggle, morally, between how to act on what is versus how we believe it ought to be (I have an upcoming post on this called redefining mortal clarity). I am not really sure it was that much better when we were young but I sense things were fairer … people played by the rules more often and people did the ‘right thing’ more often. Regardless of what I sense, or don’t sense, what I do know is the foundation of a moral clarity is “we” … not I. Because at the heart of moral clarity is some decision of self sacrifice, i.e., what I am I willing to sacrifice <a me thing/benefit> in this situation so that I honor the “we” <either in ideal or actual benefit>.

I could have suggested to my generation that the struggle is between I and we but instead I took it to a higher level and suggested we explore our collective moral navels <please remove lint> and decide what we want to be teaching our future generations.

- We constantly struggle with looking backwards and forward progress. We are at an age where it is sometimes simpler to look back than look forward. We assess all the progress that has been done in our lifetimes (and desire to maximize it in some ways) rather than dream of the unseen progress to come.

I suggest to my generation that no matter how fond you are of some memory or ‘how it was’ or ‘how we did it’ you cannot go back. Ok. You can … but you ain’t gonna get anyone else other than some old folk to join you. Progress is forward. We don’t have to throw out the baby with the bathwater but we need to stop slowing everyone down looking backwards. It’s done. Move on. Help progress or just get the hell out of the way.

Ok.

Interestingly all of what I typed <aspects of it> may be why every generation believes it is not as good as what was before. In reaction we seek the decisions made and not the process that led to it.

So, my generation, we need to take a step back and quit whining for someone to show up and magically clean our house <assuming you actually own one> for us.

We may prefer clean <and clarity> but the world is a messy place. It always has been.

My dear generation … regardless of how you feel on this topic <we are going to hell or every generation has felt like they were going to hell> we ultimately are forced to focus on progress and moving forward. It is inevitable. And all this blaming and dickering silly backwards gilded age gazing is irrelevant. In fact it is wasting not only energy but also what we actually have to offer to progress. We are the Prophet (Idealism) archetype <Straus/Howe archetype> generation of wisdom to future generations.

the caption is not mine but the future is in the picture

Yup. Future generations. Sorry, my generation … but, no matter how narcissistic we may be, our reward, and the inevitableness of progress, is not self-interest.

It is our Children.

Practically speaking children give us a stake in the future <and a desire to see it doesn’t end up in hell>. Whether we want to believe progress is possible … in the end … you cannot possibly raise, or educate, children if you believe it is not possible.

So, my generation, maybe it is time to grow up.

It is time to battle calculation, money making, and moral indifference.

It is time to remember that which we desire … be the home of freedom and the race of men so manly that they would lift the earth by the whole breadth of its orbit nearer heaven.

It is time to insure we do not regress but rather progress.

Please.

Sincerely,

One of the <older folk> Generation.

getting out of the hole

August 24th, 2012

“It is easy to go down into hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back again, to retrace one’s steps to the upper air – there’s the rub, the task.” – Virgil

So.

There’s nothing like great literature to help you think about life.

I think this is his way of saying it sure is easier going down then up.

With anything.

But that’s the thing. No matter how far down you go, even to what feels like hell, you will have the chance to climb back out.

It takes a lot of strength of character, and most likely a shitload of persistence and resilience to do it, but it can be done. Yeah, it can be done <despite the fact it can get pretty dark in that hole>.

The quote also reminds me of one of my favorite West Wing scenes.

Leo tells Josh a story <In Episode #32 Noël>:

“This guy’s walking down the street when he falls in a hole. The walls are so steep he can’t get out.

“A doctor passes by and the guy shouts up, ‘Hey you. Can you help me out?’ The doctor writes a prescription, throws it down in the hole and moves on.

“Then a priest comes along and the guy shouts up, ‘Father, I’m down in this hole can you help me out?’ The priest writes out a prayer, throws it down in the hole and moves on

“Then a friend walks by, ‘Hey, Joe, it’s me can you help me out?’ And the friend jumps in the hole. Our guy says, ‘Are you stupid? Now we’re both down here.’ The friend says, ‘Yeah, but I’ve been down here before and I know the way out.’”

(the west wing clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQJ6yqQRAQs)

I imagine I added this part to the Virgil thought because sometimes retracing your steps out of hell is … well … more than just a task.

Sometimes it is just a different kind of hell in itself.

And sometimes you need help.

In fact sometimes you need someone who has actually climbed back out.

Someone who has reemerged from the gates of dark Death. Someone who knows how to retrace your steps.

Now. This is a difficult thing to do. Asking for help as well as deciding who to trust. Because not all people who have actually visited hell and made it out are created equal. Just because they shared the experience does not make them the right ‘helper.’

So.

I can’t help you out on this one other than to make this observation. I believe everyone has to make this type of judgment, and decision, all by their lonesome.

Life has a nasty habit of testing almost all of us at one point or another.

And I also believe Life took a shitload of classes in varieties of hell just for … well … the hell of it.

Just to complete its education, to insure as it guided us through time we experienced all the good and bad we should, Life makes sure we visit all the places we should visit before we are done with this wacky thing called life.

I have used this quote before and a good friend of mine shared the infamous Winston Churchill quote “when in hell keep going” which is maybe the most important advice <obviously because if you stop, and stand still, hell will not go away so you stay>. And ‘keep going’ is possibly the most important thought because as Friedrich Nietzsche said … “And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.” Because if you fight the darkness of the hole by standing and fighting you run the risk of becoming the darkness itself. The abyss gazes back at you which means that when you begin to understand something you take a piece of it with you and it changes you.

But. That said.

Life isn’t, and shouldn’t be, a single’s match. At minimum it is a double’s match <at minimum to double the joys and halve the griefs> and at its best it is a team sport. Not to suggest visiting hell is a sport but hell is part of Life’s game … just one inning, quarter, period, portion, piece … and getting through it is easier, and sometimes necessary, if you are not doing it alone.

So, yes, you should keep going … but … well … maybe look around for some help at the same time. Because getting out of the hole is difficult and having some help cannot hurt your chances.

what if it can’t be fixed?

August 8th, 2012

So. In business I am a self proclaimed renovator. That means I like to fix thing.

This also means I cannot build shit from scratch.

For me it’s all about improving and/or fixing. Interestingly I have a small group of friends who are fixers (while meeting a variety of business people over the years I haven’t really met many what I would call true fixers). I don’t believe the ‘fixer’ ability is really that unique nor special nor even that it takes excessive intellectual capacity but I believe the true fixers remain a relatively small group because there is an inherent slightly warped perspective .

Anyway.

I just talked to one about her job <and quitting it>.

And we spent some time talking about fixing … and what if we couldn’t actually fix something.

Now. This is a quasi-epiphany like discussion.

Because fixers believe they can fix anything.

It doesn’t matter … whatever needs fixing we believe it can not only be fixed but that we can fix it. And I truly mean whatever.

We aggravate a lot of people (who aren’t fixer personalities).

Because we are also pragmatic respectful-cynical optimists.

To believe anything can be fixed you have to have gobs of optimism. Relentless optimism. This isn’t ego. This is simply belief that nothing cannot be fixed.

Ah. But there is equal amount of pragmatism. Because you also have to be practical, logical and ruthless with regard to tearing apart whatever needs to be fixed to put it back together so it is fixed.

And those two characteristics bookend respectful cynicism.

A fixer is cynical, and respectful, of every component and part and piece and person of that which they are fixing. A good fixer recognizes parts need to be fixed to completely heal the whole. Ah. But some parts don’t need to be fixed. Just reconfigured with the new fixed parts. Therefore a fixer is cynical of all that has come before and currently is … while at the exact same time respectful of all pieces and parts. Rarely does a fixer find what needs to be fixed was created by a blithering idiot. Business is strewn with brilliant people being asked to do things beyond their own brilliance. The odds are you are fixing some unintentional consequence rather than some intended misguided behavior.

Respect that which is.

Be cynical of what is.

A fixer dances this dance better than a winner on dancing with the stars.

Beyond the personal fortitude and characteristics … fixers eventually need help (although it pains them to admit … oh … and the recognition typically only comes with some maturity).

Fixers never blame anyone else when things don’t get fixed- only themselves. It comes along with the whole “able to fix anything” mentality. It is a reflection of the personal responsibility to fix.

Anyway. The recognition of need for help is important <which is why you don’t see a lot of older fixers … not recognizing the help factor affects mortality rate>.

Because although you get better at assessing “fixability” with time and experience once you are actually in the ‘fix game’ the focus is (laser like) is on fixing. And if you don’t have someone else around to clean up behind you or maybe cover your flanks it can get dangerously blinding toward the end game (without regard for an escape path).

Okay.

Let me take something back. We don’t aggravate most people. Most people just don’t like us. Regardless.

If you accept the optimism and pragmatism and respectful cynicism then you will understand this next thought. This means we will go as deep into the hole for as long as it takes to fix the innards. And keep going and stay until it is fixed.

There is an inherent danger in this. In fact. Lots of fixers die down in the hole. They just get sucked so far into the black of the hole they cannot see the way out. And worse, the imaginable, what if we can’t fix it? We often don’t know when to try and stop fixing (a by product of the fact we just cannot believe it can’t be fixed).

When my friend and I talked we laughed (a little uneasily) about the unfixable to fixers. Admitting something cannot be fixed to a fixer rocks the foundation of everything we stand for. How do we deal with it (so we don’t spontaneously combust)?

Well. First. We justify things by saying “we cannot fix it ourselves” (we need others to be aligned). And in many cases this is actually true. We share this thinking grudgingly. True fixers believe all you really have to do is to show the way and others will inevitably recognize “the way” and will follow your lead (doesn’t have to be true following it can simply be replicating desired behavior). Why did I make that point? True fixers like to lead but that isn’t what they are all about. Its about …well … fixing. Anyway. The truth is that some things cannot be fixed solely by a fixer.

Second. As we gain experience and face fixing problems with significantly more depth and breadth we recognize there are truly aspects of “alignment” necessary to make the “fix” work. And therefore seniority, titles and responsibility are a means to an end. Most fixers would accept the title of “waste management apprentice” as long as limitless responsibility was attached to it. Fixers don’t attach self worth/esteem/actualization on titles or money but rather the ‘fix.’

Ok.

I say all this because the big discussion with my friend was on a counter offer when faced with her resignation (note: Now. I admit. I am not a counteroffer fan – as a giver or receiver … I kind of feel it is a lose/lose deal. Well. Both may win short term -employee stays and gets what they deserved in the first place- but long term the employer is unhappy they were forced to do something and employee is aggravated they had to force their hand … anyway …).

But the big discussion centered around “is what they are offering going to enable you to fix” as well as “would anything be able to fix” and finally “what should you outline as your ‘if I were to stay here is the only scenario’ counteroffer.”

All with an eye toward the fixer nirvana … fixing something. And we had the incredibly difficult moment as we reached an “I don’t think you can fix it discussion.”

She didn’t like to hear it.

And if I wasn’t a fixer (talking to another fixer) I am not sure she would have really listened.

Yet. In the end we both agreed no counteroffer was not worth considering unless it enabled the ultimate source of the resignation impetus – the inability to fix.

Ok.

I wrote this for a couple of reasons.

- Self-reflection as a fixer-renovator.

Strengths (or maybe not a strength but rather simply ‘what you do’) follows the general rule in life … balance. Because whatever it is that you do … it comes at the expense of something else. It is silly, if not foolish, to believe you are good at everything or the thing you are good at makes everything else unimportant. As with everything in life it is all about tradeoffs. I tend to believe that is why there is a relatively small circle of fixers. As with anything not many people are willing to sacrifice some pretty important things to focus on a specialty like fixing (which can come at a fairly high cost).

- Reflection on what you may be good at.

I imagine I like writing about focus and recognition of what you really like to do … and the good and bad that comes along with such a recognition. I am a really really lucky man (ok … possibly just an overgrown boy). I know what I am in business (not sure I know in everyday life … still perpetually learning).

The good and the bad. And the risks that come along with the rewards.

And I admit that I was really fortunate as I passed through middle management.

I always had someone who would send me down the rabbit hole and let me go as deep into the dark as needed and make sure that I never got too lost in the dark as well they also “fixed” (or enabled) some of the really necessary ancillary stuff so I could fix. And, in hindsight, they also had the ability to recognize what could be fixed was fixed and pulled me out before I killed myself on the unfixable <note: not everyone is as fortunate>.

But. And this is a big but.

I am a fixer through and through. Even now.

Even though I know some things are so dysfunctional they cannot be solved by me my initial thought is always … it can be fixed and I can fix it. And I am no different than other fixers.

I say that last point just to say … despite the fact I am relatively aware of all this I am not sure it makes anything easier in the end.

Other than the fact I have drawn a clear line in the sand with regard to what I will do and won’t do … and what I will compromise and what I won’t.

I hope that is a good thing. It may not be but it is a decision I am okay with.

10 thoughts on advanced client leadership

August 1st, 2012

So.

Having been involved in managing groups which provided services – thought leadership as well as tangible projects – to companies <albeit the “advanced” adjective could be debated> I have been involved in many discussions on what it takes to have a healthy partnership relationship and how to effectively guide teams as a leader.

Ok. I admit. I cannot remember where and when I was involved in this list of “things” we discussed with regard to leadership in a business relationship therefore if I am failing to give someone due credit please accept my apologies.

Now.

While this list was developed with advertising/marketing relationships in mind I would suggest that there are some valid points for any type of business relationship within.

All that said … here you go. 10 thoughts on how to build and maintain a business supplier/provider and client/company relationship along the lines of an effective partnership:

- Multiple agendas.

When meeting with companies and leadership always develop several agenda items. Beyond the stated agenda, always develop other “hidden” agenda items, such as:

- Meet someone you haven’t before met. Just tell them who you are and that you wanted to make their acquaintance. It may be the CFO, the head of Purchasing, R&D, whoever.

- Touch base with someone with whom you have not talked to recently. It may be the CEO’s assistant, it may be a junior client, etc.

- Lay seeds for a future meeting or lay seeds for an idea, e.g. “We are starting to think about your trade problem. We will be scheduling something soon to give our analysis and recommendations.”

- Schedule a breakfast, lunch, or dinner with someone whom you want to discuss an idea, or get to know better, etc.

- Drop off a relevant article or some competitive tidbit.

- Introduce someone in your team to someone they have not met before, especially junior people.

- Assess & feel the vibe.

Whenever you enter a company’s building or office you get a vibe. That vibe could be excitement, anxiety, tension, or any other feeling. Feel it and find out its origin. The answer could provide an early warning signal or it could represent some unexpected opportunity. Trust your feeling. This vibe often speaks louder than any words a direct contact you may have will actually verbalize to you.

Oh. Word of caution. Paranoia is not one of the ‘vibe’ words I used. Paranoia blinds you from the real vibe as well as it can create perception of an unreal vibe. Anyway. Paranoia has no place in leadership.

- Proactive thinking.

Enforce the regularity of putting initiatives in front of a client contact until it is burned into the souls of your people. This has a twofold benefit: (1) it constantly places you in some other ‘mental space’ than ‘order taker’ and (2) this may be the single best tactic for holding onto clients.

The ideas don’t all have to be large ideas which are expensive. The key is regularity. It is nice to tie rewards, and punishments, to this activity.

- Check in.

You should periodically schedule a check-in meeting with the senior company contact. And it should be a peer-to-peer meeting. I like the meeting to be held over dinner <or food>. There is typically no rush to get anywhere, the mood tends to be relaxed contributing to a more informal, even revealing conversation. I recommend that the subject of “How are we doing and what more can we do for you?” be raised over dessert and coffee. By then, you will have a real good gauge of the mood and know how to get into the subject. Of course, the subject could come up naturally, in which case you just go with it.

- Think long-term.

Always think long term <even on immediate short term projects & needs>. The senior leader must be mindful of how every action you make will affect the long-term relationship. For example, in the advertising world if the agency does not stand up for the creative, the agency is ultimately conditioning their client regarding creative (the client can dicate creative to the agency) Similarly, if the agency stands up for the creative, even the small stuff, the client gets conditioned that the agency stands up for its creative.

Another example is if a client asks the agency to forego profit on a job so “we can bring it in under my budget,” recognize that doing so tells the client that you will cave on price/profit in the future. Do not ever do it <ever>.

- Fold your tent.

Sometimes, hopefully not often, your antennae tell you that the conditions are just not right to present whatever it is you want to present. Any number of reasons could create that vibe. Unexpected bad business results, an extraordinary calamity with an employee, total pre-occupation with some other major activity <like a buy-out, a merger, a huge board meeting>. Your instincts tell you the thinking or work will not get a fair hearing.

Do not present it.

Just be real honest, “Look, with so much going on around here right now, this is not a good time to do this. Let’s re-schedule.”

You are protecting your thinking.

This may be one of the most difficult things to teach let alone do. Think of it as taking a step backwards to move forward.

- Replace yourself <or planned obsolescence>.

Not only is it your obligation for the protection of your own company, but it provides you with a mechanism to get promoted and, maybe most importantly, to become better at your own job. The people may not be ready today, but you must keep it in your mind that either someone on staff is that person, or you must find someone outside. This recognition helps you in your development plans with your key employees. What does he/she need in order to be ready to replace me? Employees get highly motivated by the attention to their careers that this approach represents. Great companies do it with their own products & services. They call it planned obsolescence. As soon as they build something they envision a time they can make it obsolete with something else. Sound silly? Nope. Because if they don’t someone else will.

- People Development.

There is always a lot of talk about Performance Evaluations. That is fine but it is … well … what it is. Inevitably I find that the evaluation top performers most value relates to development (“what should I be working on in order to grow?”).

I recommend one central idea be shared with an employee. Otherwise, they will lose track and not focus on changing specific behavior. If you can say it in a sentence, that is good. If you can use a few words, even better. If you can say it in a word, then you have a real chance for the employee to really spend time to improve that behavior. Here are some development ideas:

-“Thank you. I’m sorry.”

-“Strategy”

-“Options”

-“Act” (verb)

-“Poise”

-“I/We”

- Terminating employees.

This is as difficult and as simple as it should be.

Difficult because no one truly likes to do it.

Simple because you just do to others what you would want done to you.

Of course, you must have created documentation with regard to performance issues and conversations with the employee prior to acting. But … some general ‘rules of the road’:

-Tell them in person.

-Be direct, brief, and clear … upfront.

“<name>, I am going to terminate you, effective immediately.”

If this sounds harsh, consider how agonizing it would be for the employee to hear a speech when they know what’s coming.

-Keep it short. Provide details of the separation agreement, logistics about vacating office, turning in keys, etc. Do not provide reasons. Do not respond to comments made by the employee. Say nothing.

-Wish them good luck.

- Terminating clients.

This is also never a pleasant task (unless they are really monsters) but it must be done in a manner that reflects class and professionalism (even if they are monsters).

-Put it in writing. Be direct and to the point.

“Pursuant to our contract, we are terminating our relationship, effective immediately.” Whether you want to provide reasons is up to you. But keep them on a high professional level, e.g. “creative differences, change in direction …”

Always assure the client that your agency will continue to provide service in the same manner as always for the duration of the phase-out period. Add that you would be happy to assist in any way possible to help them find another service provider. Assure the client that the turnover of materials and any briefings the client deems necessary for us to conduct with the new company partner will be handled in the highest professional manner.

And wish them good luck.

Totally professional.

-If at all possible, deliver the written document in person. It provides a classy way to bring a relationship to an end, even if it’s uncomfortable. Like with the written letter, make the official communication brief, clear, and to the point. Then more informal conversation can take place. Ask the client to call you directly if anything in the changeover process does not go in the way the client requires and you will deal with it personally and immediately.

-Make sure your team goes above and beyond to comply with the client’s wishes in making the changeover.

-And make sure that your team provides an even higher level of service than has even been done before.

-However, also make sure that you are briefed on any new projects that are assigned so you can decide how or if your company will handle them. And make doubly sure that the agency is not vulnerable in any way financially during the wind-down/phase-out process. If you have to withhold work while you wait to be paid, do it.

Ok.

I am sure we could develop a 20 things to do list or some other number derivative but suffice it to say these are probably the basics. Not all relationships can be partnerships nor should they all be. But in all cases I would suggest there has to be some aspect of respect. Without it it becomes … well … demeaning. Or subservient. Or whatever semi-negative word you would like to use. And if that happens I can guarantee pretty much one thing … the relationship will end sooner rather than later.

No one wants to be subservient in the long term even if you are making money. And it will show <even if you put your ‘happy face’ on>.

Sorry.

No epiphanies in this post. Just sharing some basics.