===========

“I desire the things which will destroy me in the end.”

Sylvia Plath 

=========== 

“All sins are attempts to fill voids.”

Simone Weil 

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

Well. We all know at least one person who is always trying too hard. Or maybe they always seem to be overcompensating for something. Or even that they know they are ‘not as good as’ and spend far too much time trying to convince everyone they are at least better than maybe we know they are at something.

We like these people because we like the overall sense that someone is dissatisfied with the present person and seeking a better person.

We don’t like these people because we don’t like the overall sense of desperation and the trappings that often come with it.

We look at these people and … well … we think about ourselves and the crazy shit we do.

Let’s face it. Life makes us do a lot of crazy shit.

Okay. It doesn’t actually “make” us. It just full-throatedly encourages us to do some crazy shit.

It does so because it makes us desire  a shitload of things that can chip away at the better version of ourselves. And by better version I don’t mean external stuff but internal stuff … soul, integrity & character. But life has a nasty habit of encouraging us to think more about external stuff than internal stuff.

The size of your bank account.

How you look and what you wear and whether you sport Gap or Brooks Brothers.

The size of your house and whether you have gold drapes or Pier1 window hangings.

This kind of crap can screw you up let alone destroy you. You can get so caught up in what Life is whispering in your ear as what is important over time that is all you can hear and see.

Life becomes almost a parody of itself.

‘Less is more’ becomes the mantra of everything but to you, personally, where ‘more’ just seems to look less & less. Life can twist you into a pretzel trying to match up with all the external trappings of what it suggests you should desire. And as you get twisted all it really does is squeeze out character & integrity & principles drop by drop as Life twists harder and harder.

And as you get this squeezed out of you, well, you will naturally get thirsty.  Therein lies the big Life choice: what do you drink?

What do I mean?

Remember that kid you knew growing up who was always the bully, always the exaggerator, always the one trying so hard to show everyone how great they were? Well. At some point they realize that they are thirsty. Either thirsty for more or thirsty for what is getting squeezed out of them.

Now. That said. Don’t think Life is standing by silently.  All the while Life will whisper sweet nothings in that kid’s ear telling them what to drink to stay on their path to a ‘better person’ <and it is most likely the sweetest, least healthy alternative>.

Look. At some point we all get thirsty, even that young bully, and your Life gets energized by what you choose to drink <and I could suggest you get addicted to what you drink at a fairly early age>.

That said.

What I do know is that almost all of us end up being constantly nudged to believe we neither have enough nor are we enough.

And it is within those ‘not enough’ spaces, the voids if you wish to call them, in which we commit our gravest sins.

We commit our sins most often as we overreach.

Okay. We are tempted to overreach — in our words, our resumes, our successes, even our recaps of our ‘what we did today’ lists.

Some overreach more than others, but, we all get tempted. And, just as I noted above, it is explainable and understandable. When Life is trying to constantly tell you ‘not enough’ you will constantly be trying to showcase ‘more than enough.’ That is a natural response.

And this is where people separate themselves into two basic generalized groups:

those who define how they matter <enough> by an internal balance sheet

versus

those who define how they matter <enough> by an external balance sheet.

I am not suggesting it has to be 100%, internal or external, because most of us figure out how to commit as few ‘sins’ as possible and try and manage what they desire in a way they don’t ultimately get destroyed by their desires. Most of us figure out our ‘best version’ is pretty good; maybe less than some but more than others.

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

“And so we all matter – maybe less than a lot, but always more than some.”

John Green

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

But some people truly do end up in the 100% column.

It is quite possible someone like the Pope is close to the internal 100% judgement, but I imagine a lot of people actually slide close to this Life self-framing. It comes with some external expenses, but a shitload of people are willing to sacrifice those things because they know the gold curtains fade, the money can be lost and the houses can burn down.  External trappings can only provide so much comfort.

On the other end of the spectrum are the hollow people. They look glitzy. They sound confident <if not arrogant or blowhards>. They have all the trappings of success. But their sacrifice is whatever internal compass that can guide goodness or true fairness as well as empathy & compassion. They have sacrificed counting internal cues because external cues are all that count.  All the while they are trying too hard, seem to be overcompensating for something and spending a shitload of time trying to convince everyone they are at least better than maybe we know they are at something. They fill their spaces with sins and laud them as virtues.

All that said. We all know at least one person who is always trying too hard.

This is the person who desires the things which will destroy me in the end.

This is the person whose sins are attempts to fill voids.

This is the person we know, & often wish we could change, but is quite possibly the most unchangeable person we know.

We all have voids.

We just need to be very very careful that what we fill that void with doesn’t destroy us in the end.

Ponder.

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

“It was the in-between time, before day leaves and night comes, a time I’ve never been partial to because of the sadness that lingers in the space between going and coming.”

Sue Monk Kidd

—— 

“Ambiguity of language is philosophy’s main source of problems.

That is why it is of the utmost importance to examine attentively the very words we use.”  

Giuseppe Peano

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

Fear of being misunderstood. If you type that into google you get about 159,000,000 results in 0.42 seconds and only one, yes, one result is about the version I am talking about. The version today is not being misunderstood as a person, but, literally, not being understood when speaking or communicating something. That said. I did find the term ambiguphobia which is applied to the pathological fear of being misunderstood. It has the same word root as “ambiguous.”

Ambiguity.

If you elect to believe the world is often ambiguous, complex not simple, that cause & effect (98% of the time) is nonexistent, and truth is more often conditional not absolute, you are doomed to have a fear of being misunderstood. This fear may be constant or intermittent or maybe even like a flux capacitor, but it exists in some form or fashion.

I thought about this after listening to a Jason Fox podcast where he kind of flippantly mentioned he had a fear of being misunderstood and read a piece he linked to at Ribbon Farm “The Tragicomic Exasperations of Expertise.”

Here is what I believe.

If you elect to believe the world is complex and simplicity is elusive, you spend a lot of time in the wretched hollow between:

Certainty versus uncertainty

Absolute truths versus contingent truths

Pragmatism versus dreams

Short term versus long term

Safety versus risk

Old beliefs versus new understandings

Fixed versus unfixed

Fluid versus solid

If you reside in the complex universe, you will find your cozy cottage resides in this windswept, stormy grassy hollow. And I would suggest you also spend a lot of time in the kitchen of the cottage mixing ingredients seeking the perfect potion to make the complex understood. I would also suggest this is the wretched hollow – continual experimentation of ingredients.

“<things> get better when exposed to external stressors and change.”

Dr. Jason Fox

That said. If you elect to believe the world is complex, let me suggest two thoughts for you to ponder about this wretched hollow in terms of ‘fear of being misunderstood’:

Wretched hollow version 1: where ideas go to die

If you have decided to reside in the complex universe, suffice it to say you have decided to be in the thinking & ideas business. While your skillset may have some aspects of ‘doing’ and results, you have put a stake in the ground that progress is dependent upon people thinking about shit and in that thinking will better navigate a way toward success.

In other words you have inextricably linked thinking to progress. This is important because in this version of the wretched hollow this is where ideas go to die if you are misunderstood.

In other words. You are in the thinking and ideas business (a version of the ‘Progress Business’) and if you are not understood your thinking and ideas die. Uhm. No more business and certainly no progress (or at least your version of it).

This is a pragmatic fear of being misunderstood. The product you want to sell, not being understood, is not bought.

I will note here this is where I believe business people, experience, has an advantage over academics & thought leaders. In business if you cannot make uncertainty certain enough or the invisible esoteric thinking visible enough, you die. You become a superfluous thinker who doesn’t know how to get things done or, in general, no one knows what to do with what you say & think. You are simply mental masturbation.

Wretched hollow version 2: where ‘self’ goes to die

Doubt, Imposter Syndrome, confidence, even arrogance wander in this wretched hollow. Fear of being misunderstood haunts not just your ideas and thinking, but you. This is the world you have elected to be in. Others have chosen detail, you have chosen definitions.

By choosing the path of definitions, versus details, you have, psychologically, purposefully placed yourself in a constant tug of war between all of the things I just stated. Your only real contribution to the tug of war is to continuously eat up more and more knowledge in the attempt to put more weight on the positive side of the tug of war. Unfortunately, knowledge weighs less, proportionately, than doubt/uncertainty, or even ignorance, so even as you become more smart, wiser, & better at articulating the Sumo wrestler sized doubts (the actual fear of being misunderstood) never lose any weight and keep tugging.

My point here is that electing to reside in the complex universe and making your business the business of thinking & ideas is a non-stop, never-ending tug of war. So. You are in the game or you are not. And if you are worth half a shit you will find that you never lose the tug of war, the other side just tugs a little harder on occasion. But. And this is a big but. The moment you stop pulling the fear of being misunderstood changes to death of the universe you have elected to live in and even the business you have elected to be in. I know that sounds harsh, but ‘self’ has some pretty dark places and if you give up the rope it is really really hard to not only climb back out of the darkness, but also get a new strong grip on the rope in the tug of war. Just ponder because even if you do not agree with me in totality on this point even at a lesser degree it has repercussions to fear of being misunderstood.

Let me end this version of wretched hollow by pointing out that if you have elected to make thinking & ideas your business, and you struggle to make people understand your thinking & ideas, you will inevitably start questioning the value & meaning you provide. Period. Full stop.

“Aiming at brevity, I become obscure.”

Horace

Lastly.

Mixing the formula.

That’s the deal, isn’t it? Finding the right amount of certainty, tangible understanding, to freedom (uncertainty) ratio? It’s the proportionate amount of traction points (I call them lily pads of certainty) to provide structure to hold up the uncertain, freedom and adaptability of thinking, in people’s minds (leading to them actually doing something). I say that because that’s where the fear of being misunderstood centers itself – will I mix the right formula this time?

This is where Life gets tricky.

All people inherently need some successes or, well, you go into some pretty dark places. So your natural instincts arc toward ‘being understood.’ That means offering up simplicity, maybe some tasty soundbites and, often, some fairly vapid generalizations attempting to tap into some common perceptions. That means you incrementally shave away at complexity which, inherently, shaves away truths and impact/effectiveness <you have slipped down the slippery slope of the bastardization of occam>. That means, while you have elected to reside in the universe of complexity, you are selling out the value of that universe (I would argue that diminishes self but that’s not my point today).

I will say (part 1) the people in this space with the most success not only constantly gain knowledge, but use it in a ‘play, pause, rewind, fast forward’ way. What I mean by that is the formula cannot be rushed and neither can complexity understanding be completed in a formulaic way. In other words it not only takes an ability to assemble the right fragments, but do so with pacing to engage cognitively.

“Be still amidst the chaos and active in repose.”

Indira Ghandi

I will say (part 2) that the tricksters, and ignorant, who casually ease round simplistic pegs into uneven hexagon complex holes exponentially outnumber the experts. And you know what? People, in general, like round pegs.  Smooth, simple and easy to grasp. This does not mean people are stupid just that tricksters are masters of the illusion, and delusion, of progress and the doyens of detail. In general, they thrive on detail cloaked in fortune cookie wisdom. It’s simplistic, not simple, and its horrible for us, society and business.

And maybe that is where I should end. The fear of being misunderstood is really about knowing, in your heart of hearts, you have chosen the rockier path as two roads diverge and, well:

I shall be telling this with a sigh

Somewhere ages and ages hence:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

Fear of being misunderstood is all about fear of choices – have I made the right one, or ones, and in doing so have I made myself clear of why the roads are what the roads are and why as they diverge we should walk on this one today.

Fear of being misunderstood is all about making the choice to making the complex understood.

Fear of being misunderstood is all about the choice that progress is actually made through the complex rather than simplicity.

Fear of being misunderstood is all about fear people do not understand the choice you made.

Regardless. There is a positive side.

Progress is not a linear process. Mastering complexity or at least wrangling complexity insures not only progress, but antifragile progress and progress with value. I will never suggest fear is a good thing, but I will say that when you get it right, when you share the thinking and ideas and it is understood, and your fear of being misunderstood is absolved for at least that moment – it is a great feeling. And it’s a great feeling not because you have been understood, but rather because by being understood energy has been created, or traction provided, for progress to occur. Ponder.

===

(1) Why has economic advance become and remained so compelling a goal to all of us as individuals, even though it yields disappointing fruits when most, if not all of us, achieve it?

Fred Hirsch, Social Limits to Growth

===

“But, in the end, even pirates understood that true freedom still required governance amongst themselves.”

===

“I am making out a case for the sort of person who is in sympathy with the fundamental aims of Socialism, but who in practice always takes flight when Socialism is mentioned. Question a person of this type and you will often get the semi-frivolous answer: ‘I don’t object to Socialism, but I do object to Socialists.’ Logically it is a poor argument, but it carries weight with many people.”

George Orwell

===

I find myself in a number of conversations about capitalism in which I have to explain the essence of capitalism is capitalizing. To be clear there are two sides to this capitalizing coin. One side means we are growers and when we are positively capitalizing, we are seeing opportunities and innovations to make the world better and do things that help make life better and capitalize on them.  Literally and figuratively, this is a huge thought and I would argue that falls more on the side where the balance on ‘collective good’ is proportionally higher than self-interest good. The other side of the coin is more a zero-sum aspect. Extracting and exploiting to capitalize on market opportunities. I would argue that is more on the side where the balance is on self-interest good is proportionally higher, if not solely, than collective interest good. I would argue the current business world resides mostly in the latter.

Which leads me to nouns and verbs.

I begin here because what that means is I have changed the discussion from a noun, capitalism, to a verb, capitalizing. This is incredibly important because while many people want to deconstruct capitalism as a system, I want to deconstruct HOW humans do capitalism. In other words, how they choose to capitalize within a system fostering business and innovation. If you believe things can be transformed through capitalism, then maybe you should invest some energy exploring the capitalizing aspect. Well. that’s what I think. I don’t begrudge rich people for being rich, I just crucify the rich over how they have capitalized on their opportunities to gain their rich status. The reality is there should be two main things people should talk about when debating the merits and flaws of capitalism:

1. Individuals who use the system to their objectives

2. Businesses, institutions, who manipulate the system to their objectives

I stated the two things that way to make a point. Capitalizing always has an objective. Capitalizing is using, manipulating, managing, abusing <whatever word you choose> the system to meet that objective. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out to the holier-than-thou Purpose folk that Purpose is an objective <within capitalism> and what really matters is how the business goes about the business of capitalizing, toward that objective, that really matters. As a follow-up to that sentence let’s also note that the individuals doing that how and the institutions modeling themselves to do that how are human beings thinking through the ‘how to capitalize’, i.e., its is not the system we should be redesigning, but rather have your design eyes on the humans working with the system.  What I am fairly confident in saying is that most companies have not come around to the idea that after years of making money from unethical, or hollow behavior, and unsustainable practices, and do not truly believe they have to dramatically change what they are doing to fit the demands of a ‘changing world’. Oh. They may change some of the words around the objectives and they may even make efforts to change the production & process aspects of doing business <digital transformation would be the prime example here> but basically their version of how to capitalize on market opportunities, extracting & exploiting what they need to attain desired growth objectives, will not dramatically change. That said. I imagine my larger point is that capitalism is capitalism, but capitalizing is never just capitalizing. What I just shared matters because capitalism has certainly vastly improved our lives and our means to live, but has also fed a certain human insatiability.

Which leads me to the capitalizing battle between self-interest and collective interest.

“The cold truth is that the individualist creed of everybody for himself and the devil take the hindmost is principally responsible for the distress which Western Civilization finds itself.”

Charles Beard in early 1900’s

Some guy named Sandel wrote “what money can’t buy … the moral limits of markets” after pointing out:

• the more things money can buy the more the lack of it hurts.
• buying and selling can change the way a good is perceived (he used “giving children money as incentive to read a book may make reading a chore rather than a simple pleasure”).

This all leads to an overall attitude that endless <and double digit> growth is essential to maintain and improve our quality of life. While I will not go into the detailed debate about growth, that attitude is simply not true <it is the typical efficiency versus effectiveness argument> with regard to reality. This is a perception/attitude problem.

Today’s capitalism has veered toward an individualistic orientation – a ‘me’ accumulation game. And this is where we inevitably dive into self-interest versus collective interest. It was Tocqueville who suggested America embodied “self-interest rightly understood”. I would argue that over time the tension between individual & collective interests has bifurcated into a warped either/or. What I mean by that is industrialization encouraged I’s (individuals) to begin believing the company <which is actually a profits-sustaining non-human entity> was the “I” and business took that idea and embedded it in a culture of “we are in this together” and encouraged everyone it was a zero-sum game business world. So “I” got warped and then it became a bit of a “business is war” world instead of a 4 Musketeer world < all for one and one for all> society. I am not going to suggest some utopian vision, but we are talking about capitalizing and in a capitalism world in which everyone was capitalizing the right way not only would there be profits for all <not equal, but for all> there would also be no such thing as systemic issues so there would be minimal poverty, no healthcare crisis, no retirement crisis, no senior care crisis, no childcare crisis. What I mean by that is part of capitalizing in a capitalism is the hard decisions and sacrifices that society, business and individuals have to make – not at the sacrifice of profits for Purpose, but rather because the collective good is in the best interest of the self-interest of the individual <ponder that thought for a bit>.

We need to make some of these hard decisions because capitalizing chases dollars, not needs, leading to a moral scarcity with an abundance of purchasable choices (some of need, many of want, and a large percentage with questionable real benefits). Yes. Capitalizing, limited in any morality of collective good, ceases to build some common values into everyday value and everyday lives and, in fact, diminishes little by little what is embedded with time and the system encourages corrosive individualistic orientated behavior where individual behavior is associated with individual advantage. This means in a zero-sum world society gets eroded one person capitalizing at a time. But there is even a worse consequence. The absence of social values makes it a transactional consumption world in which the only regulations/boundaries are ‘fairness consumption guidelines’ not actual control of the market with an eye toward societal needs/values. This means capitalizing is driven by institutions focused on matching ‘hedonic tendencies’ motivated by individual aims. To be clear, this does not mean individuals are immoral (or even amoral), but that in this capitalizing mindset morality is, for the most part, in the hands of the individual and not the one producing things for the individual – buyers choose, but sellers shape through choice architecture (with inordinate power). The issue here then becomes (a) the size of the institutions exhibit hollow moralistic behavior suffocates anything any one individual can choose and (b) historical hollow behavior embedded over time warps an individual’s view of what a moralistic choice is. And even then, I have to point out that the root of all these macro societal issues is that how one individual behaves matters. In fact, it is almost all that matters. So. If that is so, and the individuals have become more ignorant than the system itself, how does a market behave well? I am certainly not suggesting everyone is ignorant, but in an individualistic oriented society, attached to a zero-sum belief, the probability of individuals behaving less than optimal WITHIN the market increases significantly. So maybe rather than work the system, we should work the people.

Which leads me to today’s flawed version of capitalizing.

“Capitalizing” as a verb, has been hijacked by the fact Americans simultaneously lost the vision of a common greater good, the capacity to see the union as larger than the sum of its parts, and, the belief that a common good was what makes America great.  It is not a great leap for me to suggest that it seems like business is an age of cultural, moral and ideological vacuum <beyond making money/profit> which means that society has nothing to fall back on other than, well, money or accumulation to fill that void and, well, money chooses how it wants to live. As a consequence, instead of thinking of the future (with any meaningful thought) nothing exists or matters, but the present. This is a derivative of an individualistic ideology in that a collective cares about the future, but the individual focuses on optimizing/maximizing the present. The materialistic considerations of this existence provide, at best, tepid comfort and at worst, a cold hollow comfort. But that is where the state of ‘capitalizing’ is at the moment.

===

‘In the day we sweat it out on the streets of a runaway American dream …’

It’s a ‘death trap,’ a ‘suicide rap.’  I want to guard your dreams and visions.”

Born to Run

Think about this generalization about the ‘winners’ in capitalism – they didn’t get that way from being generous, but via ruthlessness. In unrestrained capitalizing, competition is king, and to outdo your competitors and become the most powerful involves having the cash to invest in things like research and development, expansion, marketing, lobbying etc. as well as cutting corners, paying employees the minimum, maybe some stock manipulation and unethical behavior topped of legions of lawyers to push the absolute limits of what you can get away with to grow. Because if you don’t do it, someone else will and they become the ‘winner’ instead of you. I imagine I am suggesting that the business issue of the day is that there is no such thing as an ethical capitalizer. Yes. I know that is a generalization, but directionally speaking I feel fairly comfortable with that statement.

Which leads me to the verb: capitalizing.

Capitalizing is active, a coherent accumulation of actions. I have purposefully focused on individuals rather than the system, or system changes, because in this case the capitalizing system (the incentives, constructs, feedback loops, etc) is crafted by humans. So. Whatever people make they can unmake.

I admit this is tricky. One could argue we the individuals are stuck in a bigger system we can’t control nor really know how to navigate successfully. Basically, we are a reflection of the system institutions in society that create us or at minimum shape us. But I inevitably turned back to what Donella Meadows asked and limits of growth “How good a human nature does society permit?” to which I add “how good a human nature does business permit” for I believe if business permits the best of human nature, society will inevitably arc toward a better nature itself. That, in a nutshell, is about capitalizing in a capitalism.

My belief is that human nature is inherently being conscious of the collective, but the ‘capitalizing narrative’ suffocates that consciousness. So, I would argue this is the first step is effectively integrating self-interest into collective interest. If you are conscious, aware, of the whole – needs, wants, desires – you have the ability to insert your self-interests within the collective consciousness wherein you, and we, benefit. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out, hearkening back to my earlier point #1, there are less than moral people who use this exact same equation to manipulate or exploit the conscious of the collective to solely benefit their individual self-interests in capitalizing. I would also be remiss if I didn’t point out, hearkening back to point #2, there are businesses who will actively manage their ’capitalizing’ to suggest they are making the collective better when even if you squint you will never see the truth in that claim. Look. Capitalizing is inherently a void in which individuals and businesses fill because there is no rulebook <substantive ways of doing capitalizing the right way> for everyone other than maybe ethics, dignity, integrity and a number of things which we would like to be common but are actually ‘accepted across a spectrum of behavior’ items.  Vacuums, or voids, are doomed to be filled. This combined with the fact that extreme individualism comes at a cost to the collective (individuals owning and consuming more shit creates more bad shit … not just business revenue). So, the less meaning an individual has the more they will consume to fill that space (even though it isn’t an equal tradeoff). Meaning, while having an infinite value, only demands some finite things to fulfill, while consumption is theoretically infinite and the void it attempts to fill is infinite in that it never can attain the highest value. In fact, that unbalanced tug of war can often lead to creating a sense of meaning despite a massive amount of empty consumption as we pluck out some meaningful out of the numerous meaningless, i.e., we build a casket for humanity with splinters of meaningfulness. I say that because capitalizing demands good human nature in order to craft the consumption/meaningfulness ratio society needs and, yes, I am suggesting capitalizing can effectively ‘distribute’ meaning. If we don’t fix, or address that, it doesn’t matter if we embrace anti-capitalism or anti-growth or anti-anything that exists today. Ponder that.

In the end. The capitalism system is unquestioning. It encourages all individuals, not just the executives, to be equally ignorant, indifferent, relatively oblivious to the meaningful consequences other than what is measured and slow to not only embrace any real changes but even to have the curiosity to explore any. But here is the god news – humans. As humans move across the capitalizing landscape, they inevitably do, well, landscaping. The landscape may want to fight back, but humans being humans relentlessly change the landscape. This has exponential positive dynamics if we look at it in a non-zero-sum game way in that in that scenario we tend to cooperate more (that collective interest thing) and things get better through cooperation, in other words, 1 + 1 = 3 (cooperation also mitigates risks). This is an important thought to end with because the truth is capitalizing is at the core of growth for individuals (it creates the spaces for potential to progress), business (it creates the profits to reinvest and innovate), community & culture (smart expansion) and society (it creates the opportunities for betterment). The question isn’t whether we should be capitalizing, but rather how we elect to capitalize. Capitalizing, cooperation and collective interest. The answer resides somewhere in there. Ponder.

======

author’s note: capitalizing effects everything from how an organization should be designed to how an organization defines its vision, from how communities interact, how laws and rules are constructed and even how societies exist, therefore, while this piece tugs at some of the foundational issues the real solutions will reside in the builders – the people who will build the framework for how we work and live.

===

“Americans believe in straight lines. They believe that all you have to do is get out there and get the job done one step after another. If you don’t do that, you are either lazy or incompetent.  American people seem to think that life is like a mission. That’s how they approach sports and war and sex – even love. That’s what they think when someone’s credit goes bad or there is an accident on the road.  Somebody veered off the straight and narrow. Remember Einstein. He said the connection between A and B was questionable at best and there is no such thing as a straight line.”

Craig Johnson

===

Life is neither straight nor narrow (although it sure is a lot easier to think that way).

I think we all know this.

But I think we all forget it as we judge others.

Sometimes you can be hard working and extremely competent and still have some random ‘life’ accident. And be hurt. And be hurt bad enough that it becomes difficult to get back on the road.

Sorry folks, but that is true.

Life has put you on a diagonal path and sometimes you just get lost.

Also.

Because life isn’t always a straight line having an objective & a mission & a goal isn’t always a guarantee of success.

Nor is it always a measurement of success.

And maybe more importantly it isn’t a measurement of failure.

Well.

Both of those things, in isolation or combined, sure suggests navigating life is tough, doesn’t it?

It seems to make a lot of ‘extenuating circumstances’ in measuring life.

Yup.

Sorry folks <again>. But that is life.

Add in the fact that your own straight line you envision just may not be the only line to follow … oops … actually … it is NOT the only line you could follow. Well. What else can I say.

Life isn’t a mission. And it is rarely a straight line.

Nor should we always judge failure, or success, on whether someone hit some goal or objective.

Or whether they fulfilled a mission.

Oh. And not all missions are equal.

And, yeah, bad things do happen to good people.

Once again.

There are no straight lines to success or in life.

Maybe the real thought here is that all those curvy winding roads may be more difficult to navigate, and you obviously cannot go as fast as a straight line, but they can be far more interesting.

Maybe the real thought is life isn’t about lines and getting from A to B is rarely a straight and narrow line.

Maybe the real thought is we should just give people a break because while we may think we see a line, there was none and we all kind of make a lot of living Life up as we go.

===

“And all of them were caught in something larger than themselves. Some of them hated the mathematics that drove them, and some were afraid, and some worshiped the mathematics because it provided a refuge from thought and from feeling. If a bank or a finance company owned the land, the owner man said, The Bank—or the Company—needs—wants—insists—must have—as though the Bank or the Company were a monster, with thought and feeling, which had ensnared them. These last would take no responsibility for the banks or the companies because they were men and slaves, while the banks were machines and masters all at the same time.”

Steinbeck in Grapes of Wrath

===

“A constant focus on trying to find ways to trick users into engaging with products rather than giving them a reason to.”

Ed Zitron

===

I certainly have a dubious relationship with measurement. I tend to believe business measures more out of fear than anything else. That said. Not measuring anything is stupid. But today I am just talking about how measurement shapes society and how society goes about things and the danger to all of us being measured.

What do I mean?

This leads me, first, to discuss how measurement shapes awareness.

Society is strewn with perception-driven hues. The problem with that is we, the people, are increasingly embracing an increasingly finite view of everything. It was William Blake who said “if the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees thro’ narrow chinks in his cavern.” Measurement narrows our sense gating channels that we naturally have so that our perceptions reflect a very small part of the world around us. This is where measurement comes into the picture. We tend to focus in on the small world necessary to achieve whatever particular measurement drives our awareness or drives something important to us. Yes. I am saying that measurement actually creates limitations. Basically, measurement can make a closed system of a naturally open system. Kind of a bounded rationality to bound awareness.

Measurement doesn’t allow the natural leaking of humanness <unpredictable & irrational that leads to innovation and improvements and learning> in that upsets the dream of symmetry, linear and expected. The truth is that this predictability is doomed to fail and there is an inevitable disruption to conventional wisdom if not the status quo in totality. Yeah. The measurement disrupts measurement. Despite the fact conventional approaches within a measured system, most often based on the linear analysis of cause and effect of ‘best practices’, will always fail and, yet, society continues to demand simplistic, more measurable, linear answers and solutions. Rather than embracing the unpredictability of a complex world and positively expecting continuous transformation <in a wide span of change or evolving process> society gets more and more anxious as symmetry is not only attacked, but broken. My point here is that not only is society’s awareness diminishing, but its desire for measurement is encouraging an overall “awareness objective blindness” shaping an increasingly fragile view of life and the world.

Which leads me to the second point that measurement actually shapes reality.

Counting makes things visible and visible things always count. What this eliminates is the fact that every new object clearly seen opens up new versions of perception to us. Instead, measurement is how continuity is built into the system which guides society. This also suggests the invisible really isn’t important. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that money is easily counted therefore money becomes the measure of all things but that is a different piece for a different day.

Measurement is inevitably crafted from history, for a future outcome, and history has an incredibly solid structure of which one component is memory. Institutional misguided purposes may reign, ineffective leadership may encourage chaos, but measurement withstands the all that attempts to destroy the historical structural arc. My point here is that ‘power’ <institutions and people in control> know this and use measurement for the purposes of controlling society/people. Just ponder how this idea trickles down to the existing realities in education, entertainment, sports, social media, business and even communities. For every angst people have about a society gone awry there is very likely a measurement behind it.

Which leads me back to how measurement can hollow out humanity as it shapes humans. Measurement and its methodology, and its cousin methodology, has become a mercenary for hire within society. What measurement also does is dehumanize outcomes and output. What I mean by that is while humans have an impact on what is actually measured, they appear to have little accountability for the impact of their actions in attaining that measurement. Measurements logic is simply the measurement itself. What is astonishing about our measurement systems is how little personal decency or ethics plays a role in the reasoning of measurement. Simply, measurement shapes outcomes not decency. In fact, measurement is detached from the “how” of the objective to be attained. In this measurement world creation may demand an architect or a professor or anyone with an obsession to the detail needed to accumulate what will be measured, but who that architect or professor actually is from an ethical perspective is significantly less important. This society will inevitably find experts in measurement, not experts in morality because the measurement itself IS the logic and reason. And while what I just shared may appear to harsh a critique, at minimum, measurement invariably rewards outcomes over any real common sense or even offers a head nod to proportional application of individual morality or even substantive meaning <the outcome is expected to make workers feel meaning>. In other words, to a point I will come back to later, there is a general lack of value of content over outcome.

The impact on the individual is captured in this thought from Robert Bly: “A person suffers if he or she is constantly being forced into the statistical mentality and away from the road of feeling.”

This is what a measurement society shapes. Suffering forced into a constrained mentality to meet a specific task rather than feeling for the opportunity and possibilities of emergence.

What this means is that it does not really matter whether some technology or ‘thing’ – project, initiative, task – preserves something or destroys something in order to meet a measurement. The measurement is the justification.

Which leads me to how measurement encourages us to ignore ‘content’ in the pursuit of what is measured.

While what should matter is what it is observed to do, what it creates or destroys in order to achieve something, the reality is society cares almost exclusively on the measurement objective. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that a society not wary of promises made to us by the designers or the ones with the material interest in the measurements is doomed to embrace a number of measures, and measurements, that will send us more and more paths hollow of moral and ethical behavior in our pursuit of ‘measurement success.’

The essence of learning whether human, machine or technology is developing the ability to detect, recognize and eventually reproduce patterns – not measurements. The outcomes are an outcome of the patterns. The patterns are important because they are the ‘content’ from which possibilities arise. Measurements minimizes possibilities while patterns offer trampolines for possibilities. This is especially true as systems in which society thrive become more and more complex and more and more interconnected where finite measurement may simultaneously encourage short term success AND failure as in the measured goal is reached at the expense of society’s benefit. Ponder that a bit. If society embraced ‘the content’ and sought out patterns, inevitably people, and networks of people, would stop seeking to meet specific measurements, but rather seek to optimize moments and situations within a construct of a grander positive vision. It is through this vision that the individual activity actually acquires the ability to optimize the gradients of optimal behavior/actions/morality to progress in value creation (for the task or for the organization/business or for society) which may, or may not, meet some specific measurement.

“The purpose of a system is what it does.”

Stafford Beer

Which leads me to the larger crisis of how measurement has infiltrated society.

A measurement crisis occurs when society loses touch with reality, and society, because it has institutionalized a systematically distorted measurement infrastructure. The measuring, as a focus, absolves people of morality and humanity. Regardless of the need for deep structural transformation the reality is measurement ricochets between the system, people’s lives business, social reality and society. All of this measurement tends to address the process of production or service delivery thereby reducing standards for the procedures and practices of business/everything by establishing norms for their social patterns through numbers and measurement and even identifying structure. Quality of actions and behaviors arc toward standardization and measurement of process and not the content. This spawns a society built around obsessive data gathering and metrics which are then used to objectively measure what is called quality and ensure it is being delivered. This is simply a race to mediocrity from not only a process standpoint but also a hollowing out of human, and humanity, substantiveness. This does doesn’t mean measurement has doesn’t have value just that measurement can be structural cages <built by people in power seeking to maintain power over>. The reality is measurements are, fundamentally, structures. Measurement practices enact realities. They serve as lenses and function to represent aspects of the world in order to garner some consensus and thereby shaping individual and collective perceptions of reality. They can also function as technologies and tools to enable the construction of new realities – either functionally or socially. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that measurement is intrinsically related to power and control. Those who have the power to create and institutionalize measures and standards control the culture the behaviors and, overall, society. This is in part because standards and measures are unavoidably normative. They say how things ought to be how practices and products and people should look and behave. This means as a consequence instituting measurement is an act of power because doing so means exercising control over people and things. The truth is people humans are controlled through measures and standards. Generally speaking, we like them. Not only do they help us understand our perceptions of reality but they also help us reflect in terms of our endeavors and their value or maybe what is valued by the system itself. Which leads me to measurement induces reflection. We see ourselves through our measures and standards. We are what we measure. The danger in this is when measurement encourages society to lose touch with reality because it is institutionalized a systematically distorted measurement infrastructure. What I mean by that is measurement becomes addictive to those seeking power, and control, and mathematics – the foundation of any measurement – divorces behavior from the questions of morality and integrity which SHOULD be the at the core of the justification for any behavior – measurable or not. measurement simply becomes the guardian of bad ideas and bad behavior. Measurement simply creates a certain voraciousness without thought.

“…the holy men sat in an atmosphere reeking of antiquity, so thick with the dust of ages that you can’t see through it–nor can they.”

Gertrude Bell

This means societies, or maybe more distressingly, people with ideologies, intoxicated by a particular theory of how things should be will usually spawn a system of false measures. They will use measurement to trick people into not only doing things but actually believing that is what ‘reality’ is supposed to be. Measurement instruments and techniques will be built that appear to deal in realities, but instead deal and what is wished for and desired by the institution <or people in power> itself thereby simply becoming control mechanisms. The measurements are used as truncated representations of the complex dynamic world so that people can take them as sufficient understanding of reality when they are in fact insufficient and often misleading. This is worse than flying blind. It is flying blind when you think you are seeing clearly. In harsh terms this suggests designing people through the engineering or building of behavior and mindsets – through measurement. It suggests that the growth processes of individuals, functionally and psychologically, and society in totality, as things of manipulation to be worked on and shaped just as you would the needs and the objectives of a business.

Harshly, this treats society under the guise of “if you do not measure it, you cannot monetize it and if you cannot monetize something then you cannot technically see if an economic investment has worked.” This summarizes the main problem facing, well, everything with regard to investment in anything <including humans and humanity> that everything is required demonstrate that money is well spent.

“Man is a rationalizing animal not a rational one.”

Robert Heinlein

Which leads me to why measurement is so appealing.

It constrains time into a finitely recognizable space. Or maybe differently said it creates a finite space into which we can cram recognizable things. Yes. It’s a comfort zone.

So, yes, time is now a space. Technology, through digital destruction of normal physical presence means that culture is now organized temporally. Social media feeds’ transition from chronological to algorithmic sorting was a manipulation of time and relevance, now primarily determined by someone else, is now the main criteria for occupying valuable real estate in your attention field. And while recency, the freshest information gets priority, plays a role this is where measurement steps in. All information, however significant, must eventually be pushed aside to make room for the new but measurement actually defines significance <even if it is not significant>. This means we tend to jump onto the first informational life raft that can contribute to attaining the measurement objective when feel like we are we drowning in all this information <which is almost all the time>. Technology, as Marshall McLuhan suggested, was an extension of the body. But the corollary is that the body can only extend so far and technology can also demand the amputation of something, in this case, several functions – mental as well as tasks – simply to survive in this environment or, as a corollary, to thrive in whatever measurement zone that exists.

This doesn’t mean we, as individuals, cannot control the rearrangement of functions, but we would be lying to ourselves if we didn’t note the rearrangement arises from the environment/context itself all driven by some measurement we have agreed to. I say this because typical measurement in society actually constrains the ability to rearrange despite whatever ‘instructions’ the environment may provide.

Which leads me to end with the point remains that not only does measurement shape society, but there will be people who actively seek to construct that shaping.

To be clear. There is no political message lurking in that sentence. Societal signals are apolitical and non-ideological therefore measurements are more about simply managing awareness and shaping reality based on, mostly, whatever warped view we may have on what is needed for, or what we perceive is the best for, the future <all based on a very finite view as noted at the beginning of this piece>.

Our society is so deeply shaped by metrics we actually have begun not only navigating everything by measurement, but defining success by the metrics, i.e., we signal and then measure against that signal. The most likes, the most sales, the most growth, the most things, the most followed, all define how we score each other as well as what we do. I would also note that not only do they shape, but they help define the pace and cadence of how we navigate life. Metrics can speed up, slow down, and simplify not only decisions, but decision-making — all of which are the building blocks for shaping society. The metrics create the definitions for all of this and definitions are simple yet central reflections of society so, yes, measurements are de facto definitions. And in this danger lurks. Measurements, just as designed systems tend to be, are constructed from an assumption of correctness. They are built backwards from this assumption. The danger lurks within the fact that the structure, whatever it may be, to meet the measurement goals is unable to assimilate any anomalies or emergent aspects, no matter how positive they could contribute towards an unmeasured success, because they would not assist in reaching the measurement objective. Yeah. This also means that imagination is sacrificed at the altar of a solid stone construct of measurement.

We use ranking and scores to orient ourselves, but performance metrics are also a filter through which we experience the world and our position within it. They are a measuring stick that we use to evaluate and judge ourselves and others. To be clear. We are doing this not because we, society, is stupid but rather more out of survival instincts. Almost everyone perceives the world becoming more and more complex and uncertain therefore our natural tendency is to embrace measurements as they encourage a perception of some level of certainty. They are grips to hold onto. The danger is that much of that measurement is not only ‘future flawed’ <not a particularly useful contributor to a better future>, but superficial therefore the meaning we give to the world is filtered through a massive measured popularity contest in which everyone participates, but the prize is unclear. Ponder because we are the ones being measured and there is someone deciding what should be measured and not all measurement will shape the society we want.

===========

“I totally remember what it felt like to be so full …full of promise, full of dreams, full of shit.

Mostly just full of yourself.

So full you’re bursting.

And then you get out into the world, and people empty you out, little by little, like air from a balloon. You try like hell to fill yourself up with fresh air, from you and from other people.

But back then … it was so damn effortless to feel full, you know?

All you had to do was breathe. “

Jonathan Tropper

=========

There is certainly a point in most of our lives when we feel full. I don’t have a specific age to point to. I cannot even point to a specific time in Life <and someone is lying if they try and tell you something specific>.

For some it is 6.

For some it is 16.

For some it is 26.

For some it is 36.

But. Suffice it to say that there is a point in almost everyone’s life where you are full to bursting and you burst out into Life.

The amazing thing is up to that point it most likely didn’t take any work. Yeah. As natural as breathing you were inflated. You are full of everything & anything that suggested ‘possibilities.’

Uhm. And it is just about at the point you are at bursting, you begin deflating.

From that point on it is almost a battle of attrition with regard to how you view your possibilities. Shit. I could argue that from that point on it is a battle of attrition with regard to your esteem, meaning & sense of self. 

And here is where I really thought the quote nailed this thought.

People.

It is People who empty you little by little.

Not Life, ‘people.’

That is the truth <the truth many of us just don’t think about>. We far too often say Life is the enemy of possibilities and that it relentlessly attacks us or relentlessly places obstacles to what we want & desire.

But it isn’t Life.

It is always people who deflate.
To be fair, people can inflate, but more often than not people deflate. And deflating doesn’t have to be mean spirited or even well thought out attacks on what is ready to burst out from you.

It can be the pinprick of a ‘no.’

It can be the pinprick of a question.

It can be the pinprick of ‘are you sure?’

Well. The pinpricks that deflate are so numerous that … well … deflating is the pinprick version of a ‘death of a thousand cuts.’

Here is where it gets really tough. What got you inflated does you absolutely no good in defending deflation. Because you are doomed if all you do is try to re-inflate. A pinprick remains and you end up working harder and harder to try to not only re-inflate, but simply to maintain your buoyancy.

It is a fool’s errand to try and re-inflate.

Okay.

Maybe it is foolish only until you have mended some of the pinpricks and patched them up <mentally & psychologically>.

Now. I could suggest you try and eliminate the people with the fucking pins, but that is also a fool’s errand. It is foolish because there are more of them then there are of you. There is a relentless onslaught of prick people <sorry … I just wanted to type that>.

What I suggest is, first, recognize how you are slowly being deflated.

Acceptance is the first step.

What I suggest second is to build an internal mending kit. Accept the fact you are gonna get pricked, accept the fact that you cannot build an exterior which will turn away the pins <because that means you will be a hardened asshole oblivious to constructive criticism or real input> and accept the fact you simply have to mend yourself. Continuously.

You may be reading this and think I am full of shit.

To those people I suggest you sit back and think a moment. Think about what it felt like to be so full … full of promise, full of dreams, full of shit.

Don’t think about when that was <because that is irrelevant>.

Just think about how it felt.

I bet it felt fucking awesome.

I also bet you don’t feel that way now or anymore.

And, if I am right, don’t run off trying to re-inflate yourself, just start mending the small pin prick holes today. Cause if you do that … well … you are back on the path to bursting with promise, dreams and shit. Ok. Maybe not all the way to that, but certainly reinflating some possibilities.

Ponder.

=======

“A story is not like a road to follow … it’s more like a house. You go inside and stay there for a while, wandering back and forth and settling where you like and discovering how the room and corridors relate to each other, how the world outside is altered by being viewed from these windows. And you, the visitor, the reader, are altered as well by being in this enclosed space, whether it is ample and easy or full of crooked turns, or sparsely or opulently furnished. You can go back again and again, and the house, the story, always contains more than you saw the last time. It also has a sturdy sense of itself of being built out of its own necessity, not just to shelter or beguile you.”

Alice Munro

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

My house is my story. And it is always on fire.

“We all live in a house on fire – no fire department to call, no way out. Just the upstairs window to look out of while the fire burns the house down with us trapped in it.”

Tennessee Williams

Well. If my story is my house, well, I tend to believe we all live in a house on fire. For years I have debated what the Williams quote really meant to me and then I found the ‘house is my story’ quote and I had my answer. Now. I am no literary expert nor am I particularly insightful with regard to inner meanings, therefore, my thoughts are tainted <or skewed> by my attitude toward Life and living.

That said. Me? We don’t need no water, let the motherfucker burn.

Oops. My attitude … my thoughts.

Well. I actually think a couple thoughts.  Inner fire. Outer fire. In other words. Our story is surrounded by fire. Within and without.

The inner fire.

This fire is inner curiosity.  A passion for something. A spirit and capacity for something  — it doesn’t have to be something big … just something. And it is always burning, uhm, and it can burn you up if you don’t set it free. It is a restless fire. I will make a generalization here, but, suffice it to say that we all know bitter people. People who have strong opinions, but are fairly close minded. They are burning up from the inside out. In the close mindedness they have squeezed the fire of life so tightly it fries them. The rooms in the house are burning and they have no place to go.

That’s why I rarely get angry with close minded people or bitter people I know that most of them are simply burning up from an inner fire that curiosity just hasn’t set free.

By the way, as a corollary, this also means that I don’t really believe the inner spark goes out in most people.

Why? The people that have lost that inner fire have simply lost hope <maybe I am naïve but I hope that they are few and far between>.

—

“Do not let your fire go out, sparked by irreplaceable spark. And the hopeless swamps of the not quite, the not yet, and the not at all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish.

And lonely frustration for the life you deserved but never been able to reach.  The world you desire can be won. It exists.  It is real. It is possible.

And it is yours.”

Lucas Scott on One Tree Hill

—

I think the inner spark always burns. That there is a fire within everyone.

Uhm. Yeah.

Everyone.

That inner fire is burning all the time, some people get burned up, others spread the fire, but that fire is there always awaiting to be rekindled if it is diminished.

“In everyone’s life, at some time, our inner fire goes out. It is then burst into flame by an encounter with another human being. We should all be thankful for those people who rekindle the inner spirit.”

Albert Schweitzer

Ok.

The outer fire.

This would be the house we live in burning down around us.

I believe the house we live in, Life, burns all the time. Because our story lives within a forest always burning.

Life isn’t easy.

People live.

People die.

And in-between the fire always burns.

Here is the challenge with your story being your house and the thought it is always burning. Sometimes in the comfort, the safety, of our home our story feels safe …  and we don’t even feel we are getting burned.

This is dangerous because in the end we kind of helplessly watch the fire slowly consume us.

I use safe and comfort and suggest stagnancy or standing still within the walls of what you know as an example of how you can be consumed by the fire.

Well. Because comfortable complacency does not mean you are safe.

Why? Well. The house is burning for gods sake. The fact is that this fire never goes out.

We can never stamp out this fire. It rages off and on, but is always burning. Safety within the home of what you know is temporary. Inevitably the fire will consume you by squeezing out what make life interesting and worthwhile. As a counterpoint to inner fire, it suffocates the fire within with the fire coming from without.

Your story burns. Your story ends up being a burned out shell with everything within extinguished. Just ashes where a raging story once stood.

Anyway.

I admit. I like the thought of my story being my house and that it is always on fire.

And while I am not a woman the following point resonates with me:

—

She lives her life like a flame; a dance of purposeful chaos … her enchanting light can guide you and quell your fears … she’s hot; warming those who respect her and burning those who don’t.

She is a flame with an unforgettable glow. A weak man will try to dim her luminance… but her soul mate will take pleasure in fanning the blaze.“

Steve Maraboli

—

A flame with an unforgettable glow. Whew. What a story that would be.

Therefore. Let it rage <I say>.

Story.

House.

Fire.

It is a life truth that we make choices that resonate throughout our lives … but how your story is told … and maybe how it dies … may be the biggest truth.

Aw. That’s too deep for today.

All I am fairly sure of is that the Life is burning around us. And what about your house?

Well. It may not be burning.

And me? I think of words from Julianna Hatfield:

“I wrote and wrote like the house was on fire, like words and chords and melodies were going to burn up and disintegrate into the air if didn’t capture them fast enough.”

Juliana Hatfield

I love that thought.

I will write my story like the house was on fire.

I will think thoughts before they disintegrate into ash.

I will live life like the house is burning around me.

I will hope I have a fire never quenched.

“Some men, like a tiled house, are long before they take fire, but once on flame there is no coming near to quench them.”

Thomas Fuller

Because if our Life is constantly on fire … whew … what a view we have from that upstairs window as it all burns.

My story.

My house.

My fire.

“The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire. We don’t need no water, let the motherf–ker burn.”

<“Tear the Roof off the Sucker” – chant often blended with ‘The Roof Is on Fire’ by Rockmaster Scott & The Dynamic Three>

My story. My house.

Let the motherfucker burn.

Now there’s an attitude to live by.

What’s your story?

Ponder.

=====

note: Imagine this was a ‘personal branding’ article. Whew. That would blow up some personal branding experts.

“The difference between involvement and commitment is like ham and eggs. The chicken is involved; the pig is committed.”

Martina Navratilova

===

Doing what you said you would do. I imagine this could be called “keeping your word” or maybe even “commitment”. It may not matter because ultimately it is all about tying intentions to actions. Words to actually ‘doing.’

And this is an important discussion because it affects outcomes, NOT just perceptions.

And it gets tricky.

Of course, theoretically, you can never give your word unless you are sure you can keep it. Or you can have an attitude that says you can give your word, but that “life happens” and sometimes you can’t keep it … and this is fine.

Ok.

Here is my opinion.

Timing and situation matters.

And your track record matters.

So.

Upfront?

Perfection, baby, perfection.

If you give your word, you are beholden to keep it. You have put an intention out there and must hold up your end of the bargain. Tough shit if life gets in the way. No excuses. You either follow through on promises or you:

1.       Don’t earn trust from others

2.       Give permission to others to not follow through (or give permission for excuses)

First time through the chute (and by first time I am suggesting “enough time to establish a behavior pattern and belief system”) you are setting expectations.

Anything “less than” erodes both faith and integrity.

Done once you have made it exponentially tougher to prove otherwise.

Done more (or enough) and no credibility is earned and, at its worst, you appear dishonest.

This is a simple equation. Words = Intent. Intent = Actions. Therefore, Words = Actions.

And who can argue with math.

I guess I am writing about this because I perceive (I don’t have any huge research study to back me up on this) that we in the business world are struggling with this concept. And I cannot figure out why.

Yes.

I do understand that an issue is often “here is what I think I said (the leader) and here is what I heard (the people).” And, yes, that is a huge issue. But, in general, I find people are becoming quite flippant with promises or “words associated with doing” and just not following through. It seems like there is a lot more hollow-speak or hyperbole-driven rhetoric strewn throughout businesses – most often delivered in a conference room or at some podium.

I imagine I struggle to understand because it seems that it really shouldn’t take a lot of thought.

And to me (who writes a lot about leadership, behaviors & mindsets, and guiding and aligning organizations) this whole idea is a massive building block for creating a unifying vision behind leadership, really strong partnerships and great affinity in relationships of all types.

So.

Why do I have this perception?

Well. Maybe if we all note how often that the exception (someone who actually always does what they say they will) actually draws attention that is certainly an indication.

Yup. It’s true.

When someone says “I’ll get it done” and they do, people notice, especially if they deliver consistently. For some reason people seem to be trying to gain respect or perceptions of commitment in other ways when it seems (at least to me) that putting action behind your words is the simplest way to show commitment.

“Commitment is what transforms a promise into reality. It is the words that speak boldly of your intentions. And the actions which speak louder than the words. It is making the time when there is none. Coming through time after time after time, year after year after year. Commitment is the stuff character is made of; the power to change the face of things. It is the daily triumph of integrity over skepticism.”
commonly attributed to Abraham Lincoln or Shearson Lehman

And I wonder why ‘doing what you say you would do’ is slipping away from us?

Simplistically the excuse is time. Sure it’s tougher right now to ‘match words and actions’ with fewer people doing more. But (and this is a HUGE but).

This concept needs to be addressed (or assume higher priority) maybe because of these thoughts:

1.       Because organizations today cannot afford to be ‘not aligned’ behind a vision <most often delivered through people>. Streamlined organizational actions are essential to maximize organizational energy.

2.       Because executing well is essential when resources are low. There is no time or money for do-over’s or extended schedules.

3.       Because partners are being thinned and stretched themselves and this value stands out as the type of person/partner you want to keep on your team.

So.

All that said let me say something pretty simple (and probably sounds stupidly silly). This whole issue needs to be thought of from the top down. Because the organization starts with its leader(s).

“I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts.”
John Locke

Yup. That sounds basic, but I believe we are investing so much energy (at the top) on insuring that those at the bottom are ‘doing what they say they will do’ that the top is forgetting that they need to meet the same (if not higher) standards.

And this whole ‘trickle down & across’ thing benefits all. It helps create a culture of ‘evidence’ (proof we say what we do) without slowing the organization down. And that means people are enabled to “do” within a system. But doing starts at the top. There has to be a commitment to doing. Delivering on what words are used (which means that of course you should be careful what words you use but that is a different article).

This whole ‘words-to-action’ concept extends to outside partners (vendors) also.

Anyway.

Let me take a minute to look beyond the business application aspect of this and focus on organizational leadership, vision and alignment.

This whole thing is really about trust.

What is a person if you cannot trust what they say? Words unfulfilled with some action become empty promises to people. “I will call the client” (and never does). “I will share a plan of action by next week (and doesn’t).” “I will be at that meeting (and misses it).”

Yeah.

Many leaders often have great intentions and also often fall into the trap of “I have too many things to do” philosophy (“and people will understand I am a busy person and just couldn’t get to it”).

“We judge ourselves by our intentions, but others judge us by our actions.”

Lee J. Colan

Actions are where intentions hit the road. Actions behind words show integrity.

And, ultimately, leadership is about integrity. The integrity to stand by your word. If you elect to not do what you said you would do, people start questioning your integrity. While intentions express a desire to do, actions express commitment. By the way … people don’t follow intentions (over time).

In order to be a leader a man must have followers. And to have followers, a man must have their confidence. Hence, the supreme quality for a leader is unquestionably integrity. Without it, no real success is possible, no matter whether it is on a section gang, a football field, in an army, or in an office. If a man’s associates find him guilty of being phony, if they find that he lacks forthright integrity, he will fail. His teachings and actions must square with each other. The first great need therefore is integrity and high purpose.

Dwight D Eisenhower

Without trust leaders cannot meet the largest challenge of any leader – connecting the real to the possible.

Without trust you cannot get people to do what you asking them to do to fulfill this vision you have outlined.

Without trust people will become cynical.

I do find it humorous (in a sad way).

We blame today’s youth for a “what have you done for me lately” attitude, but the reality is that attitude has always existed in the establishment of leadership. And their whole attitude is often driven by our (at the top) inability to follow through. Or setting odd expectations in our own heads on what those actions will mean to people.

Never, rarely or inconsistent follow through on words leads to an organization lack of trust in leadership. Only consistent follow through of words with actions symbolizes the great led organizations. And often in those same organizations you find a strong self enablement to “do” culturally. And even more often you will find that “what have you done for me lately” group not being so vocal and actually assuming some responsibilities of their own.

Anyway.

I babbled a lot but remember this if nothing else:

“Remember, people will judge you by your actions, not your intentions. You may have a heart of gold — but so does a hard-boiled egg.”

Anonymous

Bottom line.

When you have verbalized intentions and aligned them with consistent actions people will follow. The other people in the company, people who report to you, people within the organization and your outside partners will all listen when you have something to say and come to “count on you.”

Yeah. Doing what you say you will do certainly comes with a burden. But. That burden is the price of leadership. Ok. Maybe it is a burden of character.

Oh.

One last thing on the whole “words to action” idea.

Let’s call this “the time warp” issue.

Or the “time and space star trek continuum”.

The other side of this equation resides in the doee (the one asking to have something done).

So.

Someone asks for something.

Uh oh.

Sometimes in the mind of the doee there is a star trek episode in their head where time stands still and a shitload of things happen and then the clock starts again and all that shit has been done.

The time continuum hits and the doer didn’t even know it happened.

They asked the question (with the intent of trying to make sure they could actually meet what they promised).

• Doer: “Do you need it right away or can we have some time?

• Doee: “oh, no rush, I can have it later. Even tomorrow is fine.”

• Doer: okay. (the promise to do has been made)

Uh oh (part 2).

The difference between I can have it now and I am okay with having it later translates to hours in their head (if not minutes).

• Doee: you didn’t do what you promised.

• Doer: you said today (which is now tomorrow) was okay.

• Doee: yes. But it almost lunch and I don’t have it.

• Doer: uhm. I can have it today.

• Doee: but I have to leave for lunch soon.

• Doer: (thought bubble) gosh. If you hadn’t called I was half out the door myself.

I say all of this simply to say that Time is tricky in this whole math words = action equation.

The space between those two words is perceived differently by the leader (the person who generates the words) and the receiver of words (the one who heard the intentions).

And someone is gonna come rockin’ into my comments section and say “well, you need to be clear and be specific!” (and say it like there is an exclamation point at the end).

Well.

Yeah.

Sure.

I call bullshit on that.

No matter how specific or articulate you are a certain percentage of listeners will not hear exactly what you said. And that percentage grows exponentially as time slides down the slope.

What that means is the faster you tie an action to a word, the more likely you are to earn trust.

That’s it.

Is that always doable? Shit no.

Just be aware.

And always remember the equation.

Words = intent. Intent = actions. Therefore, words = actions. And all that = trust.

===

“Of these houses

Nothing remains

But certain

shreds of the wall.

Of so many

Who were close to me

Nothing is left

Not even that.

Of my heart

No room still stands

Where it lies

In the most tortured village.” 

Giuseppe Ungaretti

===

I love this poem.

Now. To be fair to Giuseppe, I found multiple translations of this work and this was my favorite and because he is dead I can’t ask him if I got the right one.

To me? I got the right one.

So. The poem and what I thought when I read it.

Memories are a mixture of good and bad, gains and losses. But these words are about loss, about a heart standing in a tortured village, with no room still standing. Your heart has lost all structure around it.

Well.

I have never lost to the extent of the poem’s author, however, we have all lost something in our lives or known someone who has.

And I mean lost something truly meaningful.

So meaningful that the construct for their entire existence appears destroyed. The frame of life is destroyed and you stand balanced between infinite nothingness and, well, staring into an abyss of self nothingness.

I say that because those real losses in Life, to me, are not really about pain, they are about emptiness.

A lack of … well … anything.

The loss simply can be found in some black empty hole holding neither pain, nor regret, nor joy <of course>, just emptiness. It is some space in which nothing exists. A black hole of emotions and feelings. It feels simultaneously finite and infinite.

How can this be?

Well.

The walls surrounding that which was are gone. Simply shreds remaining.

And not even walls remain of those who were, just empty space, nothing to hold any feelings inside.

Well.

Maybe it is because I believe what I just wrote that I have always struggled when people give advice that suggests you should accept and face the pain when dealing with extreme loss … or as a corollary … the infamously flippant remember the good and happiness.

Why do I struggle with that advice? Because I sense there is nothing to embrace.

There is nothing to face.

And there is often nothing to remember.

No walls remain.

No rooms are still standing.

I know this is my own opinion nor am I a doctor.

But I remember reading Simon Wiesenthal’s “Murderers among Us” <about hunting Holocaust war criminals after World War 2>. In one part I was struck when Wiesenthal stated one of the biggest struggles in bring justice to bear was that many of the concentration camp survivors did not want to testify.

Yes.

The people who you would have most likely envisioned wanting justice to be brought down like the hammer of God were the ones who were most likely to remain silent.

No walls remain.

No rooms still standing.

Their hearts standing alone in a tortured village.

That is how I finally resolved that in my own head.

We would have asked them to speak of emptiness. To explain a dark black hole of nothingness.

Anyway.

Losing something, or someone, meaningful is never easy. All I know from my own perspective is that I will imagine it is dealing with emptiness. And treat it accordingly seeking to rebuild something from which I could find some room, some meaningful room, to stand in.

For I imagine once you have done that you have begun rebuilding a home for your heart.

Until then your heart has no home, village or country.

Oh.

In one of Ungaretti’s other works he also wrote:

… my heart is the most tormented country of all …

Ponder.

—————————————-

“Some people are born mediocre, some people achieve mediocrity, and some people have mediocrity thrust upon them.”

Joseph Heller

—————

“We must overcome the notion that we must be regular…it robs you of the chance to be extraordinary and leads you to the mediocre.”

Uta Hagen

——————

Ok. One of the things that consistently amazes me in the business world is mediocrity.

Ok. Maybe better said business’s “comfort in mediocrity.”

I am exponentially amazed because if you were to interview 100 different business leaders about their organization and company vision nowhere within that entire interview would you hear “we seek mediocrity.” In fact I can almost guarantee there will be words like extraordinary, innovative, best, new and bla … bla … bla.

That said … mediocrity is a stellar example that you cannot believe what people say and what people say and what they do are often two completely different things. It makes you wonder a little that if everyone’s attitude is so expansive why is their actual behavior so minimal/restrictive?

One writer suggested the reason is ‘vainglory.’

“Vainglory,” an anachronistic term meaning an unjustified and excessive pride in one’s own achievements or abilities is one of the primary forces animating and shaping contemporary culture.

Yeah. I buy that theory.

Probably because I have seen it run rampant among successful entrepreneurs who now run their own companies.  Well.  Let me qualify that by saying they may represent the biggest ‘vainglory’ offenders (because large companies get mired in mediocrity too).

Ok.

To be fair (to those mired in mediocrity) it is possible the true effect of transparency in the business world is the creation of the ‘being safe’ attitude versus smart risk taking attitude & behavior. To be clear … I am not sure it’s transparency’s fault, but I am trying to be fair.

Regardless.

Companies beware. The truth is that death resides in the zone of mediocrity. Interestingly I think companies do beware.  It’s the leaders who are failing the companies.

So.

Maybe I should say … Leaders beware. Be fearful of mediocrity. And be fearful of playing it safe.

At the root of mediocrity?

Try this on for size. Criticism seems to have replaced oppositional debate as a form of business acumen. Inherent in criticism is diminishing without enhancement. Oppositional debate is contrarianism with the intent to enhance. And, frankly, I don’t have too much to offer here on why that is happening. If it were a generation thing I may have an idea but the people criticizing (leaders) typically grew up in an oppositional debate business world.  So I am not sure what is breeding this attitude & behavior.

But. Regardless. It’s happening.

And leaders are consistently permitting their organizations to get sucked into the world of mediocrity regardless of the criticism/debate thing I brought up. To me .. the worst is when a company with all the potential to succeed gets sucked into the zone mediocrity.  It is frustrating to see. And painful to watch as they continue in a doom loop of mediocrity.  Or maybe call it unfulfilled potential.

I can even identify some key characteristics of a company mired in mediocrity.

1. High churn of leader low-senior people (the ones who ache to not be mediocre and seek to take the calculated risks to break out).

They get frustrated. And they leave for greener grass when frustrated.

2. Low churn of low-senior people with middle age kids.

Oh.  They will bitch. Make some noises.

But they know if they feed the mediocre machine (and get a small win here or there) they will never get fired. So they don’t take the day to day risks it often takes to rise above the zone of mediocrity. Worse? They learn to live within it.

3. High churn of young people. Especially the good ones.

The ones who have some ambition or maybe not a lot of ambition but want to learn stuff.  They max out fast in the zone and hit a level of dissatisfaction quickly. These really hurt an organization because this group dials up the company culture of miserableness in a sneaky way. They aren’t really grumbling.  It’s worse than grumbling. They simply ask questions among themselves. The “why” question.  Why are we this way?  Why aren’t we growing?  Why wasn’t that idea discussed instead of the one that was?  Why, why, why and why again.  They sense that something is off kilter but they don’t know the answer.

They just keep asking the question.

And when all of that has swirled around long enough. When the repetition of mediocrity is solidly in place. After some time all groups and all employees and all people will get lulled into a sense of helplessness. They start believing they cannot fight ‘the man’ (it can be identified specifically as the leader or simply the organization as a whole) and so they lose sight, or the desire to actually sight, for a something better than mediocrity because of complacency.

In the end.

Being in the zone of mediocrity in the workplace is odd. A little strange. Something feels off, some in-office rhythm is missing, something is off kilter, off balance, out of place.

Its something you cannot really quite put a finger on.

And with all that it becomes … well … it becomes easy to get sucked into the zone of mediocrity. So what can you do? (other than bitch & moan & be mediocre).

If you are a leader? Lead. (but most people aren’t in leader positions).

If you are the rest of the world? Well. I cannot guarantee this will get you out of the zone all the time but you will feel better about yourself and more fulfilled as a person (and possibly be better armed to battle mediocrity).

Never stop learning.

The corollary to this is ‘never stop challenging the norm.’ And at this idea’s foundation is something called commitment. Never stop learning takes commitment. Because in the zone of mediocrity life is much much easier if you go with the flow and accept ‘that is the way it is done.’  Be committed to never stop learning.  From anyone.  From any place. At any time.

Develop a interest for something.

There is nothing like interest to create day-to-day energy <**note: I purposefully do not use passion because passion, generally speaking, is not sustainable>. This is much much bigger than ‘overcoming fear of failure’ or learning from mistakes or any kind of crap like that. This is about positively moving toward some unseen objective – fueled by an internal interest.  The best example I found was about Thomas Edison. It stated: Thomas Edison and the lightbulb. He failed more than 10,000 times. When he was asked what kept him going after so many failures, he said that he had not failed at all. What he had done was to find 10,000 ways that did not work.

Now. I will talk about resiliency next … but for now? That is high interest in something. Find something to rally around. It’s easier to fight the good fight if you care.

No quit.

This is possibly better defined as “character resiliency.”  This has nothing to do with trying and doing and day in and day out grinding it out.  This is bigger picture stuff. This is about not giving up on what you dream or imagine. Mediocrity of almost all things in life takes a boatload of resiliency to face and defeat. I threw in character but at its core this is resiliency.  Mediocrity is relentless and patient and sneaky. You cannot quit, ever, in your battle against mediocrity.

Ok. So. What happens if you don’t attempt the three things I suggest (or anything to get out of the mediocrity zone)?

Well.

If you don’t do this (and reside in the hellish zone of mediocrity), I have one word for you. Regret. Regrets are almost always about missed opportunities – failing to take the risks that could have led to a more fulfilling outcome.

Mediocrity is numbingly subtle.

Company leaders have to believe they are called to something bold and amazing. Even if it is simply engineering the best toilet.  I read somewhere three keys to fighting your way out of this mediocrity malaise:

1. I believe we each hold within us a vast reservoir of courage.
2. I believe in doing something every day that scares the shit out of me.
3. I believe in burning my ships and declaring myself all in.

Love it.

Leaders should have it up on their wall. Breaking out of mediocrity means being courageous, scared shitless sometimes and being “all in” when making a decision.

Ok.

But before anyone thinks this is some wacky uncomfortable hi-risk leadership point of view. Let me say it takes all those things as well as some blending. Yeah. A blend. Blending risk and safety is the key to success. Too much of either is just not good stewardship.  Foolish risk taking is as bad as mediocrity.  Somewhere in the middle is the zone of success.

All that said. I am coming to the close on this topic.

Mediocrity is a simple thing to identify (if you are honest with yourself). Mediocrity is driven by inertia. So, saying that, mediocrity ends up actually being a choice (it doesn’t come naturally).

I will try and end this by explaining the zone of mediocrity and that choice I just mentioned by using Yeats:

“Turning and turning in the widening gyre/ The falcon cannot hear the falconer.”

(note: gyre – a vortex, a circular or spiral motion, especially in ocean currents)

Yeats suggests that at any moment forces are raveling and unraveling, forming and disintegrating in polarity (or, as one writer explained, “gyres” superimposed on each other with the apex or narrowest point of one at the center of the other’s base). Therefore moments of opportunity occur when time shifts from the outer to the inner gyre – somewhere within the constantly raveling & unraveling.

Leaders are always a focal point for a company’s constantly spinning gyre of ambition and desires. So that leader has to recognize the possibilities inherent in change and the accompanying risks. No change, or progress, occurs in the face of all this raveling & unraveling only through the choice to be mediocre – and not make change (or worse … not take advantage of the forming opportunities).

Their excuse for mediocrity? (if there is an excuse at all). Mediocrity occurs because the problem is that unraveling/raveling is rarely neat and the leader risks losing what is most important – the center.  Or as

Yeats suggests:

“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold”

And there in lies the true foundation of the zone of mediocrity.

Those in leadership positions of power and authority who foresee the possibility of ‘things falling part’ remain frozen in models that no longer function, or adapt, in a new environment.  They fear losing what is at the center (which is certainly the closest to their soul & well being &, uhm, their comfort). So they refuse to embrace change and instead embrace mediocrity.

And in that, my friends, we end up in the infamous zone of mediocrity.

Do what you can to avoid it.

Do what you can to break out of it.

Do what you can to find leaders who seek to stay out of it.

Ponder.