==

“The real threat of AI is not killer robots or rogue star destroyers, but rather systems that lack accountability, or consideration of their economic impact.”

Mike Walsh

==

It seems fair to say that the future of companies’ success will be shaped, in some form or fashion, by algorithms. The key word is “shaped” because ultimately it will be humans who use the shapes and therein lies the greater responsibility a business has – to value, its own existence, and the customer.

Which leads us to algorithm maturity.

Algorithms are a dime a dozen, human algorithms not so much. A Human Algorithm is one that shapes itself to the contour of each person’s preferences, desires, wants and needs – to their benefit. This may sound impossible because 90% of the environment is unobservable to humans – but not so for algorithms. A mature algorithm views billions of historical data points each telling a tale of human behavior. That said. While we speak of data, we actually should speak of patterns. If an algorithm shadows a person online, it does so comparing billions of data points and interactions until it observes a pattern. Now. That ‘pattern’ may not be an entire journey, but rather a part of the journey. And that is where mature behavioral hubs truly matter. They find the lily pads of pattern connection and offer some insightful information to the user. This begets another pattern of which the algorithm, once again, is seeking cues and guessing, but ‘guessing’ by using cues to assess versus billions of data points.

This offers a bit of robustness to the experience modifications as it adapts to the randomness of every individual. This is where a robust behavioral data hub really offers value. 100% robustness hinges on insight that cannot exist – choices yet to be made. But with an experienced behavioral knowledge base, just like with people, the algorithm can adapt with each click & choice with a higher probability of tracking the individual shopper preferences. To be clear. Algorithms, early in their life, simply have to guess more often than an algorithm leaning in on a robust behavioral hub <that’s why we call them Human Algorithms>. That guessing leads to either underfitting or overfitting the data of which neither leads to an optimal experience. A human algorithm increases the probability of ‘right fitting’ data, through pattern recognition, which leads to ‘right experience.’

A mature, one with billions of historical interactions, robust database is important because AI doesn’t adopt human preferences it simply just learns to predict (apply probabilities) what the preferences of any given individual is. So, a Human Algorithm seeks to help humans achieve their preferences because in doing so any ‘sale’ isn’t really a transaction; its attained preferences. To be clear. Without the (1) robust database with long history, (2) history of behavioral learning, (3) viability of identifying patterns, and (4) a well-designed algorithm/AI the likelihood of ‘attaining preferences’ decreases significantly. Why? Once again. a less mature algorithm with a less robust data base simply guesses more often with regard to any preference on any given click and, as Brian Christian stated in “The Alignment Problem”, “when a computer guesses, it is alarmingly confident.” Several billion interactions stored to apply against any one human interaction always helps an algorithm “see” how to better meet preferences which offers value to the shopper <link to Value lift piece> and it guesses better – and rechecks its confidence on the next click.

Which leads to the design of a Human Algorithm.

To design AI that reflects an ideal shopping experience, we have to recognize the human imperfections/irrationality on occasion, that is part of everyone’s story. Let’s call it the irrational or randomness that can steer us into either a good place or a bad place. And while an algorithm shouldn’t decide what is best for a person it can, quite clearly, steer someone away from the worst or maybe nudge us away from irrational, or our worst, instincts and back toward our original intent. Research has shown in retail outlets that removing tempting unhealthy items from the checkout areas can help to reduce the number of sugary foods that are bought. This is also true in online shopping experiences. A human algorithm can actually create a ‘healthier shopping experience’, avoiding guilt which often turns into depression, which actually translates into a ‘higher enduring value’ transaction and experience.

While it would be silly to suggest any business algorithm shouldn’t be about ‘winning’, as in a sale, it isn’t silly to suggest ‘how you win matters.’ It is within that thought in which a Human Algorithm offers its most unique benefit. The truth is a well-developed human algorithm can be developed to assist, without manipulation, to positive outcomes without negative lingering consequences which would inevitably defray the end value over time. Behavioral shouldn’t be manipulative, but rather augment an individual’s thinking, desires and wants. Basically, a human algorithm should get closer to something ‘truthful’ to the individual shopper.

Which leads us to shopping should be the friend, not the enemy.

Shopping experiences, between the seller and buyer, shouldn’t be an adversarial relationship. It’s important for businesses to understand that, when customers visit their websites, the expectation factor is also very much at play. If you present your visitors with an experience that strays too much from what they anticipate, they will end up feeling a loss of control and will perform undesirable actions, like exiting the page entirely, in order to return the feeling of control to their hands. This ‘power of perceived control’ is important not just for customers, but the ethics of algorithm design. If a person feels pushed, sold or manipulated they will inevitably push back creating some friction in the interaction <it also triggers biochemical reactions>. The optimal shopping experience is actually one that is coherent, not consistent, i.e., the click-tale never strays too far from what shopper preferences are.

A human algorithm should seek to be a ‘proven beneficial algorithm’ (Human Compatible, Stuart Russell). The truth is the ‘proven’ part is not exactly attainable yet, however, beneficial intent is. A human algorithm is not about ‘pushing or nudging’, but rather shadowing human wants and desires. Each click tells a tale if you listen close enough and that is actually where the amount, and historical experience, of data matters. Shadowing demands a behavioral hub with billions of interaction experiences in order to effectively shadow a shopper.

Which leads us to ‘loose algorithms’ versus bounded algorithms.

Loose algorithms, paradoxically, are more fragile algorithms in that without enough pattern knowledge will more likely follow a linear journey. Basically any ‘immature’ algorithm is a loose algorithm. Without a robust behavioral hub to lean on, to put some pattern driven boundaries, a shopper can click their way down a ‘this or that’ path leading to either something not available (disappointment) or, worse, something they don’t want in the end (anger at a less-than-optimal shopping experience). Conversely, a robust behavioral hub offers a “bounded algorithm” which accommodates the random irrational meanderings of a shopper yet, given pattern experience, will bring a shopper back into a shopping zone in which satisfaction is more likely. A traditional algorithm doesn’t really care about what the shopper wants, it only cares about what the shopper clicks on. A Human Algorithm recognizes it is beneficial to seek the optimal balance between wants, desires, and needs.

Regardless. The responsibility of a Human Algorithm is not to keep the shopper on the right path, instead, the responsibility is to help them find their own path to purchase.

Which leads us to responsibility to humans.

Business, B2B or consumer, inevitably is about humans and algorithms are simply methods to augment human preferences and hopes.

Behavioral economics has uncovered a lot of learning about the human mind and choice making. When it comes to business responsibility the most concerning is the evidence indicating that many of people’s decisions are unintentional, or automatic, in nature. This implies that our own thoughts and behavior are not under our own intentional control but, rather, are strongly influenced by environmental factors.

These automatic processes have fundamental implications to how we behave in general, and how we behave online. One of the most researched aspects of this automatic process is called the Priming Effect. This is where exposure to one stimulus influences the way we responds to a second stimulus. Mental structures such as schemes and stereotypes are automatically activated on the mere presence of those structures – even with words. The brain activation works quicker among ideas that are naturally related and research has shown the Priming Effect not only influences our thoughts, but also influence our behavior. An algorithm, in the wrong hands, can use the Priming Effect to manipulate shoppers to transactions which look good in the short term, but only increase anxiety/regret in the long term.

The Human Algorithm optimizes value.

The danger of AI isn’t really whether some criminal using it will be successful, but rather that a business poorly designs its algorithms, is successful, and they lose control of that poorly designed system. A poorly designed system increases the likelihood of a lower value experience and outcome.

That said.

Designing a Human Algorithm demands a belief that technology augments people and what’s inside a person (preferences, motivation, attitudes, hopes, desires) and success is not just about efficient shopping journeys, but effectively tapping into shopping motivations and offering coinciding options tied to preferences. This algorithm leans into a robust mature behavioral database with enough historical patterns/interactions to create the optimal ‘fit’ experience which, correspondingly, creates the highest transactional value.

A Human Algorithm has the capability to offer the highest transactional value through a combination of structural lift from a mature robust data base, well designed AI, a coherent experience with an outcome aligned with individual preferences.

===

“It is optionality that makes things work and grow.”

Nassim Taleb, AntiFragile

thought: Maybe algorithms shouldn’t provide answers, but options. Maybe, more importantly, we become a little less comfortable with the need for construct and more comfortable with using algorithms as dynamic application of ‘movable construct’ at the right time and place.

=========

“Stop going to your #dark place.  The older you get, the more happiness becomes a conscious decision you have to make every day.

You can’t expect to automatically feel good when you wake up.  It’s something you have to work toward.”

Ryan O’Connell

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

“The truth is, I pretend to be a cynic, but I am really a dreamer who is terrified of wanting something she may never get.”

Joanna Hoffman

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

So. When we get up in the morning it is a decision … it is a decision to not stay down.

In fact.

Every day you decide to get up you have either consciously, or subconsciously, decided that Life was not going to keep you down.

In the grander scheme of things that sure seems like a pretty important decision.

And, yet, we don’t invest a shitload of energy thinking about it.

Most of us think of facing each day as a responsibility.

Kind of a basic survival duty.

I imagine we do so mostly as a sanity tactic.

For if you stay down … don’t get up … you are inevitably faced with the decisions you have made up to that point <as well as the fact you will not be able to pay the bills>. And, to refer to my first quote, this means as you get older you have more and more decisions you will have to face.

Time is rarely your friend with regard to contemplating your decisions.

I say that because, well, because here is what almost 99% of us do on a daily basis — we decide what we will cede in terms of what we know, or believe, is the right thing to do.

Yeah.

We compromise a little on ‘principles.’ Well. At least our principles.

Sure.

Most of the time it is okay because the organizational, the business, principles give us some slightly-to-more-expansive boundaries from which we can assess what we should do or not do.

But even within that “okay space” we are far too often trapped in the wretched hollow space of a decision of ‘what will you surrender today for the hope of the win tomorrow’ <and the tomorrow may just be something somewhere beyond the horizon>.

Some may call this ‘moral relativism.’ They would most likely be the intellectuals, philosophers and people who don’t really do shit for work in their Life.

For most of us everyday schmucks it is a combination of survival “if I don’t do this I will not get that” and dreamer “I will go ahead and do this because someday………….<fill in blank> “

As we face each day we realize that we are facing more than that day. We realize our actions can suppress our ultimate dreams or they can empower a dream to come to Life, well, not today, but some day in the future.

Now.

None of us really know our future and what it holds so the decision today takes on some sense of urgency of ‘well, this MAY be really fucking important with regard to my survival/dream so I gotta do what I gotta do.’

Whew.

Today can look really huge with regard to tomorrow in this case.

I chuckled <a little painfully> as I typed that last sentence.

I am reminded of what President Bush said in 2008: “abandoned free market principles to save the free market.”

On a daily basis we are faced with questions of “what we will abandon to save our future & our dreams.”

And we do what we feel like we have to do, using principles mostly not as a “stop or go” sign, but rather as some slightly nebulous guardrails we can maneuver around within.

And then we leave to face another day.

When taken on a daily basis it is relatively easy to face the day.

When viewed over a longer term it can become relatively difficult to face the next day.  Maybe that is why most of us get up and face the day each & every day – the alternative doesn’t seem so appealing. Maybe that is the ‘dark place’ that we know is there and avoid it the best that we can.

Here is what I know for sure.

Every day you face you have one authority — the authority over your actions and attitudes and behaviors.

You have the authority over what you will do and will not do.

You have the authority over your principles and morals and whether you will abandon them or not.

Uhm.

You should note one key thing on the whole abandoning thing.

Once abandoned is always abandoned.

There is no true ‘just this once’ abandoning of principles. Once crumpled principles are forever wrinkled.

And, yet, it seems like each day we are faced with some choice to surrender our moral authority and cede the principled battlefield under the belief that by doing so “the day will be saved.”

How wrong that thought is. For in surrendering that day we will have already been lost.

Anyway.

Maybe getting up every day has nothing to do with moral relativism and more about just doing the shit you need to do.

Maybe we really are just cucumbers with anxiety.

But.

Maybe it is a little something more we should think about on occasion. Because maybe we are really a dreamer who is terrified of wanting something she may never get and in our terror as we face each day we lose the one thing which makes our dreams look small – our moral authority & principles.

Ponder.

===

“It’s not what you actually do in life that you regret just the opportunities that pass you by. It’s even in what you choose to do the opportunities you do not let pass by. In those moments it is sometimes only that you are not courageous or brave but rather you have simply exchanged one fear for another. Afraid for what we were about to do and how you will do versus the fear of what we might not do.”

Craig Johnson

===

This is about choices and about how we always can make choices.

Always.

Even when you feel like there is no choice, you can make a choice.

We always seem to encourage people to be flexible and adaptive in life and yet most of us fight change, or maybe better said, the choices we need to make to make change.

It is easy to be on the outside looking in at people and chastise those who we view as resistant to change and, yet, we ourselves, hesitate to make the choices we ourselves need to make.

Let’s maybe call this “fear of choice.”

Ok. I tend to believe most of what Seth Godin says is fluff.  But (to give him credit) he has noted that effective entrepreneurs and leaders often perform the same tasks as the rest of us, except for a critical 5 minutes per day. In those 5 minutes they are somehow able to cut through the thousands of possible choices and select the one choice that creates value. That, my friends, is called “lack of fear of choice.”

For most people the same thousands of choices create paralysis. And not because they aren’t capable of making A (one) choice, but because fear of any choice creates hesitation if not total ‘no decision.’

I actually believe a significant troubling issue today is all these self help books and “soup for the soul” decisionmaking formulas. The trouble? Yeah.

Because all those books won’t make the key decisions for you or show you the way. Ok.  Maybe that was harsh, but ultimately only individuals cut through the thousands of choices that face each us day in and day out and go down a path. Uhm. And there is no formula (or soup).

Look.

This is about individuals and people and the choices we make in our own lives.

This isn’t like some explorer deciding to go left when everyone else says go right.  This is about us.  You. Me. The little people.  And the choices we make or don’t make.

And fortunately for me when I write about choice I get to use my favorite word – truth.

Because often truth is about facing fear.  Because in truth there is worry and doubt and angst and uncertainty.  Bottom line? Self truth can be scary.  But self truth can also be liberating and provide direction.  I know I have read somewhere that self truth provides clarity.  Shit. I don’t know about that.  I think we all can see these things quite clearly.  All the time.

In fact that clarity is what creates the fear.

Really seeing our own reality, our doubts, our uncertainty, our whatever, and facing it can be scary.

Shedding everything and facing what may be right in front of us can create fear.

To be clear. Not fear of what we see. Fear of what we should do when we see it.

Or maybe the fear we won’t do anything at all.

I imagine we have all come close to discovering the truth several times in life but, because of fear, we  didn’t face truth.  Once again. This is not about being afraid of the truth. This is about afraid of not being able to do what needs to be done once we actually face the truth.

Let’s be honest. Generally speaking, making choices suck. Because every choice creates a result. And sometimes it is difficult to know exactly what the result will be. But (and I say but). You may not know what the result will be, but i can GUARANTEE the result will be different then what you currently are experiencing.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm .. but that is about change.  And this is about choices.

So. With that.  Make some choices. Start by making the easy choices if you aren’t happy with where you are in life.

Stop caring what other people think.

Be who you are.

Be with people who like who you are.

Move.  And see who moves with you (without asking).

And make choices not because you think they are good, but because they are right – for you.

Because what should overcome any fear of choice is easy to see (if you look hard enough).

What’s that? It is hope.

Hope to be better. Hope to do something else. Hope to be in a better situation.

Regardless of how crappy you feel in your current situation.

Regardless of your fear of making choices.

Regardless of everything and anything.

Remember.

You should make a choice.  Or choices.  Why? Certainly not to overcome fear. Why? (I ask again) because making a choice leads you toward some hope.

Which leads me to the image to the left.

This is a 1947 book.

I elected to use this image because it is a book showcasing the unvarnished truth about one of the major trouble spots on the earth.

The borders of Poland were the giant hinges upon which Germany and Russia swung into World War 2. It is in fact their border which hinges upon Ukraine.

And maybe that is the thought for today – between fear and hope. The inner strengths and weaknesses, and choices made from those, of Poland shaped a world and world war.

It seemed fitting to use it. It seems fitting as you think about choices made, and choices to be made. Ponder.

“every day I am shuff-l-in” ….

I just heard this song again after years. At the time it was played, well, everywhere and every hour.

Anyway. I decided to write about this song and dance that comes along with it because cultural behavior is a fascinating thing to watch from the outside looking in. Especially when you look at the grassroots aspect of dancing and a particular dance that seems to capture the attention of everyone.  A dance can draw together any color skin, any age (albeit that can look bad on a dance floor) and any culture.

• The Macarena (bad).
• The shuffle (pretty good).
• The two step (ok)
• The Charleston (good stuff)
• The moonwalk (impossible for middle aged white men).

Doesn’t matter the generation.  There is always some “dance” (a move or a choreographed group move) that captures the imagination and soul of people that draws everyone together and even the worst (the most inept and uncoordinated) are enabled to be creative.

Party Rock anthem by LMFAO and the song dance was their upbeat version of the shuffle.

The song was a dancy addictive like song. The dance is something anyone can do.  They looked wacky but that made all of us okay looking wacky. And it looked fun.

The video is funny (the box head dancer is priceless) and shows this generation’s line dancing at its best.

The LMFAO ‘shufflin’’?

1. Half a Charleston.

2. Side to side (shuffle).

3. And a little MC Hammer.

4. and a lot of self expression

They even created an official tutorial.

Oh.

And then, at that time, there were even dozens of home made videos on youtube on top of the fold that teach you how to start shufflin’.

Regardless.

It all made me think about music and dance.

Its pretty crazy to think about  how a fad and a practiced move (even for non-traditional dancers) can create the “zone” – kind of a weird calm entering a typical chaotic party social scene. It creates a moment in which there is a sense of order. I would even suggest this kind of line dancing is an equalizer socially.

For one moment in time anyone can be cool.  Can be part of the crowd.  Can be creative and coordinated and part of the ‘scene.’

And the teacher  is a cultural icon  – in the form of a music video – and the whole action is a mixture of other ‘key elements’ from which it came from. In the end not everyone has to have the same step or groove everyone else has – you just are able to dance within the style with your own style.

So the beautiful part is that a dance is not owned by an individual (therefore the individual loses the inherent risk of looking stupid in creativity) and, yet, the dance is quite individual (self expression). There is  a subconscious acceptance of being inspired and being able to learn crucial to the art of music and dance and creativity which is ‘freeing’ in self esteem and self expression and probably the most important – self actualization.

This is nothing is new (not the dance itself nor the behavioral trend). Everything is learned through observation, inspiration or direct education. Even the most unique dancers out there will tell you about original influences – people or video or some inspiration that made a difference in their life and style.

Everyone starts somewhere.

And while I scoff at the Macarena and applaud the ‘good line dance’ I do celebrate this video and song in that one of the greatest things an artist in any art form can do is to help move things along and never let creativity die. Dance should always be about self-expression expression and in this case they captured the cool & the non cool people and offered an opportunity for all to be aligned doing something positive and fun.

And it is crap like this that energizes people.

Its a shared moment in culture.

Through dance and music.

And I love it.

I love the randomness of how it all comes down to the right song and the right ‘move’ and the right place in time.  It is an unplanned event, which creates incredibly positive, ripples as an effect on culture and attitudes and basic fun-based cultural behavior.

For one moment.  Short minutes (too short in my mind). People who have absolutely nothing in common will gather together and be aligned – in mind, in body and in spirit.

Now that, my friends, is cool.

In addition.

Beyond simply getting different cultures together in  a social environment dance can reach even farther.  It can reach out and align people around a cause.

One year I was watching the European MTV awards and was reminded how dance can bring the world together. That year Shakira won the free your mind MTV international award for creating the waka waka dance video supporting education for all children (and I have a full post on this topic).

Anyway. Over 200 million participated. Yeah.  200 million. No one in America paid attention, but Shakira (working thru the UN) created education initiatives (enhanced with something fun like this dance) throughout South America and emerging countries and rural geography where it is difficult to create the traditional brick and mortar education system. This is the Waka Waka dance.

This is a great example of how dance can contribute to a greater good … and have fun.

And to end this little thought I wanted to include the ultimate in uncool being cool just for 2 minutes simply because of the universal aspects of dance and music:

The Napoleon Dynamite dance.

Anyway. In a world that often seems incredibly fragmented if not divided, dance and music can bridge almost anything. Maybe we could all use more of that.

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

fearlessly-fiona:

“I’m an adult” I whisper as I try not to panic while I’m filling in all those forms that I don’t understand.

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

“Liminal” means “relating to a transitional stage” or “occupying a position at both sides of a boundary.”

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

Ok.

First. Liminal spaces are real spaces.

Liminal spaces are throughways from one space to the next. Places like rest stops, stairwells, trains, parking lots, waiting rooms, airports feel weird when you’re in them because their existence is not about themselves, but the things before and after them. They have no definitive place outside of their relationship to the spaces you are coming from and going to. Reality feels altered here because we’re not really supposed to be in them for a long time for think about them as their own entities, and when we do they seem odd and out of place.

Second. I plan on discussing liminal spaces as intangible mental spaces.

If you feel that you are anxiously floating in the inbetween perhaps you are in The Liminal Space. The word “liminal” comes from the Latin word limens, which means, “threshold.”

“… it is when you have left the tried and true, but have not yet been able to replace it with anything else.

Okay.

Mentally this in-between is a space in which we have lost context and, uhm, uh oh, our brains love context <and hate lack of context>. This ‘hate’ translates into discomfort, maybe some anxiety and absolutely an innate mental desire to get the hell out of that space and into some space where we can reengage some context.

Rationally we know these spaces are irrational and we can mentally stifle the anxiety … for a while. Because no matter how good we are at stifling it there will always be an underlying sense of uneasiness. In business you either figure out how to manage the anxiety or you are never gonna make it in the business world.

Why? Because a career is riddled with these moments and spaces.

All that said.

I think we, as people, enter liminal spaces in our heads all the time. I don’t mean every minute I just mean on a fairly consistent basis we lose some context and enter into some wretched mental in-between space where, well, we feel uncomfortable. We feel uncomfortable because we are mentally in some transition space from which we cannot envision what will be there <outside this wretched space> when we actually find the exit we can leave the space by.

Yeah.

Unfortunately, while we seek an exit to get out of the liminal space we also feel uncomfortable because <insert a ‘shit’ here mentally> the next step may actually place us into a tangible “unknown” place.

Not only does that suck, but we do not like that it sucks. It is a weird combination of tangible and intangible and  shitload of unknown.

It feels tangible as in you walk in some blank-ish vanilla type room and actually exit by some door which appear at some point. That part we may not like but we can semi-understand.

And, yet, at the same time this space is truly 100% intangible <lacking context> which creates a sense of instability and warped perception space. I imagine a lot of people flail about a bit in this space trying to not only find context or something tangible to hold onto, but also a frickin’ door to get out of this wretched liminal space. All the while we flail about in a space which naturally encourages some confusion and a lot of “things seem off” feelings. I would argue part of our angst is we seek some one-dimensionality in this space. What i mean by that is our natural inclination is to seek some linear path <this & that> to get us from what feels like it should be “here to there.” But the truth is liminal spaces, in their vastness, are multidimensional spaces in which the really important doors open up not on some simplistic one-dimensional pathway but rather as a combination of dimensional fragments put together in some way that unlocks an unseen door.

Which leads me to ‘Worse’. It not only feels wrong, but feels like something is going to go wrong. You cannot really put your finger on it <although most of us try desperately to try to put a finger on something> and it increases anxiety.

Sometimes that anxiety is high and sometimes it is just a bothersome niggling in the head, but it is anxiety nonetheless <and it is uncomfortable>. The anxiety occurs because reality is not really being altered, but it appears slightly warped. It is kind of like looking through an imperfect piece of glass – where things can look a little fuzzy or odd. Its kind of like time has warped a little and you are coming and going at the exact same time where in the blur of the transition your brain is suggesting “this is not good … this is not normal” and you desperately want to move on, but cannot find that frickin’ exit.

All that sounds horrible.

Oh. And it sounds particularly horrible if we are talking about the business world. The fact is that business people are more often than not judged on how well, and how quickly, they can navigate the mental liminal space.  We, in business, don’t really talk about it much but a lot of the shit we do is transitioning from the known to some version of known/unknown. That’s kind of what managers and leaders do. And it is certainly a main component of shifting from a young less-responsible employee to an older more experienced responsible employee/manager. Heck. Its change management 101.

Along the way the stepping stones are actually lily pads with differing expanses, dimensions & depths of water in between. You either navigate the transitions or drown in the liminal space.

Oh. And, yet, liminal spaces are also throughways to places of the imagination – kind of the construction sites of “what will be.”

We like that kind of shit. That’s ‘future’ and ‘hope of something better’ type stuff.

That thought helps us out a little. It helps because this isn’t the kind of stuff that gives any tangible context, but it does give us some fortitude to get through this space.

Anyway.

I admit. I love the whole concept of a liminal space and I do believe if more people not only learned to manage the anxiety & angst of a liminal space AND embraced the fact it was a valuable transitional space … well … we would be much more efficient & effective in business and in Life in gaining the more valuable “what could be’s” — which are what we all live for anyway.

Ponder.

===

She said, ‘I’m so afraid.’ And I said, ‘why?,’ and she said, ‘Because I’m so profoundly happy. Happiness like this is frightening.’  I asked her why and she said, ‘They only let you be this happy if they’re preparing to take something from you.’

Khaled Hosseini

==

Well <part 1>. The conclusion from that quote may quite be “trust nobody” and act on that. That would be a bad conclusion.

Well <part 2>. We seem to be having a ‘trust crisis’ in the world these days. That is bad.

It is bad because the consequence of a trust crisis is that we trust nobody and in trusting nobody we then begin to make individual choices, actions and decisions based on that thinking.

That, my friends, constitutes a crisis.

Let me be clear on this issue.

A trust nobody attitude is for the weak.

A trust nobody attitude is not a sign of confidence in one self but rather a sign of lack of confidence.

A trust nobody attitude is a cowardly attitude.

Let me be clear on why.

The ripple effect of not trusting anybody bleeds into every aspect of Life and in doing so it bleeds in terms of action and inaction <or the slowing down of action>.

==

“But it is impossible to go through life without trust; that is to be imprisoned in the worst cell of all, oneself.” 

Graham Greene

==

Let me be clear on a key distinction. There is a huge difference between trust nobody and question everything <and everyone>.

For example, I believe it was Pope Francis who said, talking about the world of business and its business leaders, “a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power.” when referring to business and business leaders.

This is not about trust nobody, but rather we should question everything <or be open to questioning>. He is simply suggesting not being naïve.

But. This does not mean ‘do not trust anybody.’

Look. We should question everything and anything worth questioning.

But that certainly doesn’t translate into trusting no one.

That said.

There is truly a relationship between questioning everything and trust because without trust not only do you begin thinking and acting more individually, you also begin to invest an inordinate amount of energy going down that endless rabbit hole called ‘questioning everything.’ This rabbit hole which seemingly offers logic and ‘reasons’ everywhere you look.

There appeared to be no logical reason. Oh. Logic is nothing more than a panacea to the ordinary people. More accurately … it is the tool by which the rulers, leaders, maintain the status quo. Every cause produces one or more effects. Every effect is the result of one or more causes. When you think of it that way … where is the logic? It is wherever you decide to find it.

In this ‘no trust/question everything’ rabbit hole we then use logic in some odd ways which inevitably serves as a crutch to the not trusting and we actually use logic to focus on one sliver of a conspiracy thought <sometimes a fact without context> to build non-trust.

Regardless.

I sensed this crisis beginning to peak in the early 2010’s and research began bearing out my sense.

Americans don’t trust each other anymore. We’re not talking about the loss of faith in big institutions such as the government, the church or Wall Street, which fluctuates with events. For four decades, a gut-level ingredient of democracy—trust in the other fellow—has been quietly draining away. These days, only one-third of Americans say most people can be trusted. Half felt that way in 1972, when the General Social Survey first asked the question.

Forty years later, a record high of nearly two-thirds say “you can’t be too careful” in dealing with people.

In addition.

A study found that Americans are suspicious of each other in everyday encounters. Less than one-third expressed a lot of trust in clerks who swipe their credit cards, drivers on the road, or people they meet when traveling.

Research also shows that the trust issue varies by culture and even geography, but I am not going to go into that kind of detail. Suffice it to say there is an interesting adverse trust creation between having a denser network of interactions which leads to more distrust of outsiders and, conversely,  those who have a weaker network of interactions which leads to a higher level of trust toward ‘outsiders.’

Wow.

In other words, the closer knit your personal life is, i.e., the more insular you are with friends & family, the more distrustful you are. Conversely, if you actually have fewer close friends and family you are more likely to be trustful.

Ponder that a moment.

Anyway. Does it matter that Americans <or any group of citizens> are suspicious of one another?

Yes.

In fact, behavioral research tells us why it matters: 

“The more trust people have, the more willing they are to make sacrifices to hold up their end to solve problems.”

Well. This is called ‘social trust’ and social trust produces good things.

It produces a society where it’s easier to compromise or make a deal.

It produces a society where people are willing to work with those who are different from them for the common good.

It actually produces <or promotes> economic growth.

Distrust, on the other hand, seems to encourage corruption. Conversely, it also encourages an absurd amount of energy trying to protect against corruption <or those who we decide we will not trust>. In other words, this trust issue gets us both coming and going. We invest more individual energy trying to get “what is ours” in a zero-sum world and invest more collective energy trying to build systems to make the untrustworthy less successful at corrupting the system.

At its lowest, most banal level, it diverts energy to counting change every time it is given to us and at the highest level it leads to the drawing up 100+ page legal contracts and building gated communities.

Regardless. Here is where ‘trust nobody’ gets really concerning. Some studies suggest it’s too late for most Americans alive today to become more trusting.

Research says the basis for a person’s lifetime trust levels is set by his or her mid-twenties and unlikely to change, other than in some unifying crisis … such as a world war.

The hope? <for those of us alive and do not want a world war>

People actually  get a little more trusting as they age <note: this factoid surprised me … I would have thought otherwise without research>.

That said. Beginning with the baby boomers, each generation has started off adulthood less trusting than those who came before them. And while ethical behavior, such as lying and cheating, are difficult to document over the decades it’s worth noting that the early, most trusting years of studies coincided with the Watergate scandal and the Vietnam War.

Trust dropped off in the more stable 1980s.

Which leads me to who should we blame?

Many social scientists blame 24-hour news coverage of distant violence – not in one’s actual neighborhood – for skewing people’s perceptions of crime <because crime has actually diminished over the same period of time>.

I would just say that all the media, all of them, in some way cannot be trusted not because they are biased <because they should offer a point of view> but rather because they are all now in the show business.

And then there is us – the people,

We blame our president for everything <but it is not possible for all our problems to be his fault>.

We hate and blame our politicians <but we created them and give them their positions>.

We hate Rush Limbaugh, Bill Maher, Hannity, Rachel Maddow <but we created and watch them>.

We hate the churches <and mosques> and yet believe our religions to the point of being helpless sheep.

Ah. Which brings me to religion and trust.

Organized religion does bring some underpinnings of shared sensemaking which does enable some levels of collective trust so it is true there can be a correlation between dwindling ties to religion and trust. That said. It seems to me that we have lost what religion is all about and in doing so have lost trust in religion. We have twisted it into something so dangerously inflexible it becomes a tool to, well, judge others, shame others <and sometimes ourselves>, to separate people rather than gather, be righteously pretentious and, maybe the worse, to control. It has become a tool in an “us versus them” narrative. Well. It seems to me that we now use religion for the exact opposite reason it exists.

Aw shit. You know what I say to finding someone or something to blame?

Nuts to all that.

We need to take responsibility for our part in why trust is in crisis.

“You may be deceived if you trust too much, but you will live in torment if you do not trust enough.” – Frank Crane

The fate of trust is in our own hands.

We will live a life of torment if we do not trust enough.

In the end.

Trust nobody?

That is the plight of fools and cowards.

You will slowly suffocate with every breath you take.

To trust is to live.

Ponder.

===

“People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought, which they avoid.”

Søren Kierkegaard

===

Now that it appears the psycho-pathological liar, narcissistically crooked Trump will soon return to twitter to reintroduce his unique level of toxicity to the world I decided it was time to thank him.

Yeah. In his general absence from public rhetoric Trump has made me grateful for a variety of things.

I am reminded of the importance of competency.

I am reminded of the importance of dignity.

I am reminded of the value of integrity.

I am reminded of the importance of preparation.

I am reminded of the fact democracy is fragile.

I am reminded of the understanding that the freedom we enjoy in America is unique … and always embattled.

I am reminded of the importance of listening without judgement and judgement based on facts.

I am reminded of the fact that conspiracies have no factual basis and, yet, can be confused as such in a mainstream way.

I am reminded of the unfortunate truth that truth itself can be suffocated if:

1. a lie is big enough, or
2. the lies are relentless.

I am reminded of the ultimate truth: one person can make a difference … for good or for bad.

I am reminded of the importance of decency.

I am reminded of how strong a country is and how much bigger it is than one incredibly flawed & misguided individual.

I am grateful that Mr. Trump has reminded me of so many things I believe we had taken for granted.

And while I am grateful for so many things I found an awesome letter, written during his scorched earth morally vapid 2016 campaign, from someone online who is also grateful for a variety of things:

=====

Dear Mr Trump,

It’s taken me a while to realize this and to admit it, but I’m grateful to you.

For the past few months I’ve spent a good deal of time lamenting your campaign and the poison it has so effortlessly generated. I’ve watched our country imploding, our public discourse become polluted, our political climate grow ever more corrosive, and wrongly assumed you were to blame.

It’s only lately I’ve come to understand that you haven’t manufactured our current national ugliness—you’ve simply revealed it.

By saying the irresponsible, mean-spirited, ignorant things you say so freely and so frequently, you’ve given other like-minded people license to do the same.

You’ve opened up the floodgates for our corporate sewage to flow fully. People no longer conceal their vile mess, they now revel in it, they broadcast it and retweet it.

You’ve made bigotry and racism socially acceptable again and that has been a kind of twisted gift because it’s allowed me to really see people; not as they pretend to be on the surface—but in the very depths of their wounded, weaponized hearts.

Over and over as your campaign has persisted, your supporters would tell me that they like you because you “speak your mind”. It wasn’t until recently that I’ve realized that you speak their minds. You’ve given credence to their prejudices and made those prejudices go mainstream.

Thanks to the terrible ground you’ve broken, politicians, pastors, friends, and strangers, both in person and on social media now regularly out themselves as hateful, intolerant, and malicious—and they remind me just how close they are to me, just how deep the sickness in us runs, and just how far we have to go together.

You’ve emboldened people to be open about things they used to conceal for the sake of decorum, and though it turns my stomach, I know that this is the only way we can move forward; to have that cancerous stuff exposed fully so that it can be dealt with. Our progress as a nation is predicated on authentic dialogue, no matter how brutal and disheartening that dialogue is.

In other words, you’ve let us know what we’re really dealing with here and while it’s been rightly disturbing, it’s also been revelatory. That’s the thing about that kind of harsh light: you’re forced to see everything. Beauty and monstrosity equally illuminated.

Now don’t get me wrong, I think you’re the least qualified, least knowledgeable Presidential candidate we may ever have had participate this far into the process, and if you somehow were elected I’d fear gravely for the world my children would inherit—should it survive your Presidency at all. I believe you’re reckless, bitter, and completely reprehensible; the very worst kind of bully.

But whether you win or lose, you’ve already allowed me the blessing of Truth; about me, about you, about other candidates, about our nation.

And in the process you’ve also shown me that I am not alone in resisting you and this ugly thing you’ve revealed about us.

You’ve generated an equally loud, equally passionate response to it and this is where I find my hope these days.

I find it in those for whom equality isn’t just a cheap buzzword, it’s the most precious of hills to die on.

I find it in those people who refuse to be silent in the face of our impending shared regression.

I find it in those willing to be more bold in defending the inherent value of all people.

I find it in the growing army of those who will not tolerate hatred as a core American value.

I find it in those who reject violence as our default response to dissension.

I find it in the ever rising voice of people who will not let malice and bitterness represent them in the world.

Today I find my hope in those who, like me, will not be complicit in allowing bigotry and intolerance to become a source of national pride, because we’ve seen where that leads.

Yes, Mr Trump, you’ve unearthed our hidden sickness and you’ve allowed it to go viral.

You brought every awful thing about us out into the open.

And for this—I thank you.

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

While I am constantly mortified by what Trump did to the presidential process, the presidency itself, democracy, America’s position in the world, and our constitutional rights & freedoms, I tend to believe one of the most egregious actions he did was by doing all of that lying  and destroying any semblance of the overall standard of respectful discourse a civilized society typically has.

But.

I am grateful he has come along and reminded us of  all these things by showing us what the bottom of the barrel looks like.

I am grateful for his avalanche of lies and half-truths, manipulations and peddling of fear because it reminds us all that truth and hope is actually a brighter vision.

I am grateful because his promise to recover the past in simplistic tripe it is ultimately shown as the fiction offered by ‘merchants of clever cheats.’

I am grateful he offers a simple formula “to make your target audience feel good by offering up what is a fantasy to them, but a horrendous injustice to others” because it permits those who know how to articulate the true complexity of reality to speak up.

And, mostly, I am grateful because you cannot solve a problem until you actually recognize a problem. And while he himself is a problem to be solved <which I assume Time itself will deal with> he has uncovered all the problems I have listed above which we should now put our big boy & girl pants on .. and solve.

I have said for years now with regard to Trump that there is really only one word to describe him and whatever he does – carnage. His only plan is to destroy everything in his way. and in his wake, as he sits in his lonely penthouse, i.e., carnage.

I even warned people that when he was finally gone from public office that the next president will be faced with dealing with that carnage.

And I actually thank him for this too.

Yeah. I do.

This will force a new generation of leaders to stand up, speak out and rebuild from the carnage.

This will force a new generation of leaders to, well, lead.

This will force a new generation of leaders to take what was broken and build anew.

This will force a new generation of leaders to embrace a belief that we are actually stronger together rather than apart, a group of people aligned is stronger than an individual focused on self interest and working together is essential to progress.

The strength of a country is defined in how it deals with its worst moments. Trump represents the worst, represented the worst and in his wake he left us with the worst. I say that because, well, he is coming back. Twitter is a megaphone for all his shit.

In closing.

Just a reminder of some Trump trash.

30,573 lies over his 4 year presidency. I begin there to head off any false equivalence, “all politicians lie”, because Trump was in a liar zone of his own.

Also.

-Trump university a sham and a scam and stole money from people

-regularly performed verbal fellatio on Putin

-Russia/ Putin considered him an Useful Idiot

-filed bankruptcy 6 times; sucks at running businesses

-indebted to Russian/ Chinese banks since US banks ceased lending to him

-couldn’t even turn profit running a casino; run out of town in Atlantic City

-claimed tax returns can’t be released due to IRS audit

-lied; IRS claims no rules against releasing tax returns

-lied about being a billionaire, value of his properties and wealth

-sued thousands of times for stiffing small businesses/ contractors/ workers

-said his own sacrifice on par with those of Gold Star families

-dodged draft by claiming bone spurs

-cannot remember which foot afflicted with bone spurs

-McCain was only a war hero because he was captured

-mocks NY Times reporter who has epilepsy

-gonna build a wall and Mexico will pay

-chummy with racists, White nationalists, KKK

-raised dumb sons who are chummy with White nationalists

-refused to repudiate David Duke/ KKK contingent of supporters

-surrounds himself with unhinged far-right advisors

-birther-in-chief

-directed campaign funds to his own businesses

-uses campaign media coverage as free infomercial for his new hotel/properties

-tells blatant lies and denies lies even with video evidence

-often flip-flops within hours or on same day

-needs handlers to keep him from saying crazy things

-has thin skin, keeps Nixon-like tabs on perceived enemies

-said maybe US shouldn’t honor NATO treaties

-said we should have stolen Iraq/ ME oil after Iraq War

-sued for housing discrimination against Blacks, lost but denies guilt

-lied about weight and height so as not be tagged as obese

-used charity money as slush fund to settle lawsuit judgements

-used charity money to buy tacky painting of himself

-said his ’80s man-whoring was his personal Vietnam

-cray cray right-wing Supreme Court appointees affect policy for next 30 years

-disparaged top Generals as dumb and embarrassing

-knows more about ISIS than the Generals

-possible sociopathic/ psychopathic/ narcissistic personality disorder

-posed as own publicist; bragged about imaginary sex life with celebrities

-borderline anti-vaxxer: lied about a child getting autism 1 week after being vaccinated

-constantly says global warming a hoax; denied it in debate

In the end.

Giving Trump a megaphone when he is a con man, fake, pathological liar, amoral bully, incoherent word salad deliverer, seems like it is not a good idea for society in general. But. Thank you Mr. Trump for reminding me to get my head back in the game.

——

цветы необычайной красоты

translation: “flowers of unusual beauty”

<note: these words are pulled from a random piece of Russian poetry … or maybe a very old song … I am not sure which … in which the full line is “and in the neutral zone … flowers of unusual beauty …” … it is a metaphorical reference to the beauty of fragile freedom that lies within the space between old West Germany and East Germany>

—-

Mashkawizii

translation: “strong … inner strength”

—–

The title of this uses two words – one Russian and one Ojibwe <Chippewa>.

That said. I tend to believe both inner strength and character not only lies within each of us, but actually represent the secret to Life <‘secret’ being metaphorical>.

Why? Well. I had to pick up a copy of The Secret in order to have a quasi intelligent conversation with a friend of mine <my thoughts on The Secret – , p.s. – don’t read if you like the book>.

Suffice it to say I believe, despite what the books says, there is no one secret to Life.

The secret actually is finding the key that unlocks your own inner strength, or inner character or inner passion or <to keep with the thought> the key that opens the door to your own flowers of unusual beauty. Yup. The secret is finding the flowers of unusual beauty that lie within your own walls and give them freedom to prosper in the light of day.

The secret is finding your ‘mashkawizii’ – the strength that lies within you. Now. This is a very personal individualist thing. It is not a formula and most likely not replicable <therefore I cannot write a book telling anyone what the ‘one thing’ is>.

Which makes this topic tough.

Because Life can be really really tough on us. Relentless in fact. And it would be nice if you could hand something to everyone and say “use this, it will help.” There is no one secret, but I would suggest inside everyone and, yes, I mean everyone, there is a flower of unusual beauty and strength.

No book will tell you the secret to unlocking it.

I kind of even doubt a person can tell you the secret to unlocking it.

Only one person has the key – yourself.

Now. I am not suggesting this is easy nor do I believe you always get it right the first time. Because sometimes it gets pretty dark inside as doubts & insecurities cluster around like shadows following closely on your footsteps as you look in the corners for what you seek. In addition it is kind of like a Rubiks cube of shifting thoughts and ideas inside you as you experience things. All of it makes this difficult, but I imagine secrets to life wouldn’t be easy if they were actually worthwhile to figure out.

Oh. This all gets complicated <worsened> because sometimes you find people who just don’t believe they have this inner strength or flower of beauty. I feel very very safe in giving this one piece of advice — if you run into one of these people … stop … and tell them they are wrong. 100% wrong.

It is there. They just haven’t recognized it yet. But. Everyone has it.

Everyone.

No matter how hard Life has been and hardened the walls of doubts, despair and disappointments within you, there will always remain … well … цветы необычайной красоты … a flower of unusual beauty.

Mashkawizii or цветы необычайной красоты it is within you and worth finding.

I call it character <probably because I am neither Ojibwe nor Russian>.

Now. While The Secret suggests happiness <or ‘attitude’> is the key to life & success I cannot guarantee that for you if you focus on my thought.

Nope. Sorry.

Heck. I cannot even suggest happiness, in & of itself, is the key to Life & success <because it seems more like an outcome than an objective>. But. What I can guarantee is that your “happies” will be more meaningful if they are a reflection of what is within because then your happy moments will always be full & have depth.

Oh. In addition. And I think I can guarantee <this is not a price back guarantee though> that your un-happies will be liveable. They won’t kill you. Maybe better said you will have the mashkawizii to be strong and hold on <without losing yourself in the process> until Life decides to move along to the next phase. This is a corollary to what I suggested on happy moments <they are more full>. This thought is in the darkest unhappy moments you will never completely empty because you’re not dependent upon anything superficial but instead relying on your ‘inner flower.’

But that is just what I think. And please do not tell me a book can give you the secret to Life.

That said. Because some people push back on how harshly I judge The Secret let me say this. While I just said I do not want anyone telling me a book can give you “the secret” to Life I will add <and I am very consistent on this> that while I do not believe people should foolishly and blindly pursue ‘get rich fast’ tricks to Life, I also believe that people need to do what they need to do to get through Life.

So, if The Secret gets you closer to where you want to go … use it.

Heck. Use any book <I suggest the Bible, Torah or Koran provides a nice possible foundation to start with> that helps you. Just be smart about whatever you gotta do to get your head straight and seek out your own ‘flowers of unusual beauty’ which reside within you.

Ponder.

 =====

“Genius is finding the invisible link between things.”

Vladimir Nabokov

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

Value creation, in an emergent-focused business, is not causal, it is correlative. In other words, to create value in a conceptual thinking world one has to accept everything has to do with everything else. Business, and value creation, is a succession of events that link with each other (whether we want them to or not). You must see the invisible to control your destiny. And this is where AI helps. It can bring the invisible into the visible world – concepts, doing and progress.

It would be quite easy to begin thinking that a future business could be so focused on conceptual thinking that ‘doing’ and productivity have a diminished focused. That would be incorrect.

In fact, in a conceptual world it will be exceptional doing, through substantive productivity, that will drive progress.

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

“The bravest sight in the world is to see a great man struggling against adversity.”

Seneca

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

“When you want to arrive at your goal more than you want to be doing what you’re doing, you become stressed.”

Eckhart Tolle

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

I am absolutely an unequivocal believer that business people overlook the power of focusing on exceptional doing and how it can actually drive progress and, uhm, even strategy.

I am absolutely an unequivocal believer that business people overlook the fact much of their vision & purpose platitudes are seen as bullshit and the key is the individuals as units of substantive productivity.

Sure. We talk about how strategy & vision is necessary to ensure a business can be successful. I will not argue that. But what about doing. Okay. What about exceptional doing.

Let me define ‘exceptional’ here because all businesses ‘do’ and their competitors also ‘do.’ And most ‘do’ with some overall purpose, most likely the purpose being “doing what we are supposed to do for my responsibility.”

Exceptional, in a Conceptual Age Organization, comes down to two terms:

• Enlightened individuality
• Substantive productivity.

Enlightened individuality.

Some people call this ‘finding purpose’ I do not. Some people call this “self management.” I do not. This is simply enabling a worker to know as much as they can in order to produce the best possible work (and outcomes). In other words, enlighten the individual to maximize their effectiveness.

——————–

“All you can really ask is for someone to do the best they possibly can.”

———————–

Enlighten is important because we ask a shitload of our working people without really empowering them to do the BEST shitload.

Sometimes we ask so much of our people it is amazing. And, yes, many people do not know what they are truly capable of until they are pushed to aim for something seemingly impossible.

I know I am a pretty demanding leader. I set an incredibly high bar for my team. But in the end all I ask is that they do their best. And if it isn’t enough, they we can say we didn’t succeed for lack of trying. And sometimes that’s as good as it gets. And sometimes that is when I have been proudest of people I have led. Ask the best of people and I believe most people will surprise you by doing a little better. Enlighten the people and their best doing becomes better. That is a fairly simple concept in my eyes.

That said.

In all the hype over purpose I wish leaders would maybe think of doing as actually about creating to destroy. Let’s maybe call this “iterative doing.” And that phrase may actually encapsulate what I call exceptional doing.

In this case ‘doing’ is not a stagnant state. It is a form or method of economic & organizational change and never can be stationary.

Maybe better said is that ‘doing’ is an evolutionary change agent. I say this because so many people talk about ‘doing’ as a ‘state’ yet that ‘state’ is ever changing in a blink of an eye. Far too often we describe an organization simply to describe it in a point of time <or viewing it in some past state>. If you accept that thought, and you accept that incorporating real substance into each doing action, well, that would imply every moment of doing not only feeds into an individual belief they are providing value but the organization itself will gain value thru each action.

Enlighten the individual and the organization progresses.

• ** note: A moment on ‘doing.’ We are doing people, in other words, the majority of people like doing things because it offers up tangible proof of usefulness. That said. Business, in general, has abused this attitude by simply suggesting we should mindlessly do more (and check things off of lists and meet milestones and all that ‘here is some fake finish line and go do shit to make it to that finish line” stuff … just so I can show you a new finish line). This bad business attitude ignores we want to discover things and learn how to do things our own way. There really is a substantive side to “doing.” The simplest way to make that point is to remind everyone that typically when we are told we cannot do something, we invest the energy to actually do it. Let’s just say our ‘doing ethic’ is so strong because at the unconscious level, we equate work with a significant part of who we are and we believe that if we work hard and improve our professional standing, we become better people. Jobs, and working, are a significant part of our lives and even with any “work/life” balance discussion it would be silly to not admit we seek some meaning in our jobs. If our job feels meaningless, then “who we are” is meaningless as well.  If we feel inspired by our job, if we believe that we are doing something worthwhile in our work, that belief bolsters our sense of identity. We are a doing people so when we get asked to do things stripped of any substance after some time, we feel stripped. Maybe not meaningless but for sure “less than.” I will add that for the most part we are doer dreamers. In other words, we do because we dream. It seems to me that if we aren’t incorporating dreams into productivity, we are missing an opportunity for an enlightened individual productivity. Yes. As noted at the beginning, everything is connected with everything.

Substantive productivity.

Maybe surprisingly I am leaning on Gilbreth’s “scientific management” concept in terms of maximizing individual productivity, but I am turning it 180degrees and instead of efficiency I speak in terms of effectiveness.

For decades we have continuously stripped productivity of any meaning or meaningfulness. We stripped work down to something that became, well, work — and nothing else. Therefore, workers never felt fulfilled and often even felt empty despite doing so much daily.

Instead of stripping things to make an individual productivity as lean as possible I seek to inject substance in terms of ‘maximizing individual capabilities.” But I do so without speaking of some intangible ‘purpose’, but rather empowering individuals to believe what they do matters, how they do it matters and that they make substantive contributions to the greater organization & greater good.

I say this noting that the fundamental impulse, that sets and keeps the capitalist engine in motion, comes from the new consumers, goods, the new methods of production or transportation, the new markets, the new forms of industrial organization that capitalist enterprise creates.

Substantive productivity contributes, or is the fuel, to this progress.

Here is where I struggle a little with the whole Purpose focus <despite its good intentions>.

The future is a result of the decisions you make in the present and Purpose tends to work like a strategist <starts with a vision of the future and works backwards to the present – outside in>. Theoretically that is good, but substantive productivity should actually work inside out.

Strategy works out the step-by-step moves to accomplish the ultimate aims. This means productivity matters as part of “start by putting seeing and doing ahead of thinking.” Too often we look backwards for solution/formula to future problems and we would be much better off envisioning the solution within its context, different than past context, & ‘do’ a solution built for tomorrow versus the past. This demands emergent strategic thinking envisioning how concepts morph to meet probabilistic future states for which substance productive actually fulfills in the present <creates a self-fulfilling future in one sense>.

From a labor productivity standpoint this means ‘substantive’ is found more in encouraging a fulfilled present, maximize the present, so that purpose is self fulfilling and not fulfilling some objective.

In the end. Maximizing the present and substantive productivity versus using past thinking and stripped productivity. When I type it as simply as that, it appears obvious the former offers more forward-looking progress & fulfillment for those enabling that future state than the later.  Maybe it is as simple as that.

Productive Velocity

………….. finite projects each focused on Velocity spur productive Progress ……..

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

“Don’t confuse a flurry of activity for progress. That’s a magician’s trick.”

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

How often do we see a company doing lots and lots of shit yet we don’t really see any progress?

That’s a business in love with speed, not velocity.

That’s a business which justifies return off of ‘doing’, not substantive doing.

—————————-

Velocity and speed are different things.

Speed is the distance traveled over time. I can run around in circles with a lot of speed and cover several miles that way, but I’m not getting anywhere. Velocity measures displacement. It’s direction-aware.

Farnam Street

—————————–

Meaningful velocity is about a combination of ‘doing shit’ (progress type projects, not speed/stagnant projects) and “shit with meaningfulness”. It is this combination which not only embraces generating value, but also the velocity necessary to consistently elevate value above competition and the sales associated with doing so.

The enemy of velocity are the ‘to do’ lists are endless with lots checked-off, but never get shorter and the people who are working long hours but what is done never seems to create any meaningful progress.

This is speed while being stagnant. It’s like a hamster in a wheel. It’s not only unsatisfying for the people in the wheel, but the business itself doesn’t gain any satisfying results (although managers are usually quite creative in result presentations to make it seem like shit is moving everyone forward).

Velocity is always about decisions. What I mean by that is there is never any lacks of things to do in a business but some just aren’t worth doing.

Velocity projects fall into 2 slots:

• value creation initiatives which increase velocity of value offered
• velocity initiatives which increase the velocity of the organization itself & indirectly enhances value.

Velocity is, and has been, a great concept. The challenge is in a world in which everything gets simplified to a point of meaninglessness this concept has been screwed. Velocity, in general, gets screwed because it often gets confused with growth

I would suggest business, since the industrialization age, has always had an unhealthy relationship with growth – “if you are not growing, you are doing something wrong.” This attitude actually encourages a flatness to business growth (if not false growth) and does not encourage the true pursuit of potential & opportunity or even progress. Most importantly this attitude ignores the fact most growth actually needs to gestate, have some stillness, at some point before blossoming.

Velocity is not speed nor is it growth. If a business confuses it with speed it will simply jump onto a hamster wheel and eventually wear itself out (but feel like they are making progress all along the way to death). If a business confuses it with growth, they will mismanage it. In fact, if they manage it like growth (consistent, milestone driven, incentive laden), they will never achieve velocity (only growth) and most likely get frustrated and, well, wear itself out. The point is that if you, as a business, do not understand what velocity is don’t aim for it. It’s a waste of time.

Regardless.

Multiplicative versus additive.

• ** note: this is not ‘scale’ (a term I dislike).

• Every business desires scalability. The implication is “something done well, replicated, will create not only efficiencies, but expected exponential value output.” The issue is that scale gets discussed one way when reality is scale is something else.

In a future organization, coherence rules (not consistency). Therefore, leadership needs to understand that if one seeks velocity the collection of ideas, people, process & systems must be viewed through an opportunistic lens.

** note: an opportunistic organization must master impatience and uncover the secret to opportunistic velocity – festina lente.

—

• Think small.

Businesses inherently like ‘big ideas’, scale, replication, consistency and construct. In other words, business loves evenness. Unfortunately for those interested in a Conceptual Age organization they will have to discard with all of those ‘likes.’ Velocity, more often than not, is found in fractals which release complexity expansiveness. I would suggest insights crack open velocity moments.

Velocity will almost demand a business go into the ‘insight business’ which means being able to discern between insights (not all insights are created equal), the ability to find insights (the linear fractals within complexity to unlock) and have the humility to NOT seek disruption, or disruptive ideas, as an objective but rather seek velocity. In my words, the business will go into the ‘return on choice’ (ROC) business.

• Think opportunistically.

Business, no matter what we may wish for in the short-termerism debate will always be a combination of short term and long term as well as predetermined strategy & emergent strategy. It is silly to suggest one over the other. In fact, it is the combination which actually maximizes people in that some people thrive in an ‘finite game mentality’ and others thrive in an ‘infinite game mentality’ and to maximize potential (productivity, meaning & profit) you maximize both. That said. If a business embraces this philosophically they then begin to view velocity in an important way – opportunistic (finite) velocity leaps which could blossom into infinite-like structural value gains.

Technology plays a vital velocity role in several ways:

• Assisting in identifying leverageable velocity insights
• Augmenting the velocity opportunities (additive to efforts)
• Exploiting the velocity opportunity (multiplicative efforts which tap into infinite aspects)

This is a multidimensional design issue.

Machine learning, generally speaking, is additive.

Deep learning, generally speaking, is the search engine between additive & multiplicative.

Quantum technology, generally speaking, exploits the multiplicative aspects. I will suggest that this is the epitome of human/technology co-dependency. Algorithms drive, humans direct (and then exchange places).

I will conclude on ‘opportunistic’ with the uncomfortable truth that opportunistic is tricky, sometimes not obvious and often uncovers itself in a one-degree difference as in “from 211degrees to 212 degrees.” You can spend your time and life sitting around somewhere between 0 and 211 degrees.  And it doesn’t really matter if you are freezing your ass off at 3 degrees or be hotter than shit at 198 degrees — nothing is happening (other than you are uncomfortable or maybe fooling yourself into believing something is happening). Shit ain’t happening until you reach out and figure out a way of getting to 212. That, in a nutshell, is speed.

Then something truly happens. Life boils. Action happens. That, in a nutshell, is Velocity. A real change happens in that you have shifted from speed activity to velocity activity. All in one measly little degree.

In the end emergent and velocity are inextricably linked. Without emergent activity a business deals in increments, not velocity. With emergent activity a business taps into velocity opportunities where value creation scales.

===

“We cannot departmentalize our thinking. We cannot think of economic principles and ethical principles. Underneath all our thinking, there are certain fundamental principles to be applied to all our problems.”

Mary Parker Follett

======

Ethical creation is the intersection between what one thinks and what one does in the pursuit of value creation. It is that liminal space in which a person, who has received stimulus – knowledge, business objectives, management direction, resource availability, etc. – and they are ready to make a decision or choice. Maybe its better said to suggest it is the space between sensemaking and choice making (apologies to Daniel Schmachtenberger because I believe this mangles his much deeper thinking on these topics). It is where what you end up creating is shaped by, well, what one views as right or wrong. The reason I see its importance residing between value creation and progress/velocity is because if an organization crafts a concept with high value, absent of ethical creation, and it moves on to the next phase and gains its likely velocity the concept shifts into high gear only amplifying its lowest aspect – lack of ethical value. In other words, velocity amplifies value whether it is created ethically or not.

To me this means the business of the future needs to embrace the idea that value creation has external consequences simply beyond sales, revenue and profit. With ethical value embedded its value carries an intrinsic benefit almost immeasurable in value. To be honest, most businesses never notice the absence of ethical value nor even recognize any value in ethical creation. To quote Futurama: “when you do it right, nobody notices.” Yet. Unnoticed, it has an impact in the home, community and society. Ethical creation is structural lift in which the value will not be found in dollars & cents, but rather a more ethical society which will end up seeking more ethical products & services as a reflection of who & what they are.

Now.

Let me be clear. I have never been a fan of Business Values statements or any simplistic desire to define ‘good behavior.’ My belief has always been to establish some principles and let people do the right things and they will invariably bend their behavior toward doing the rights things. My belief certainly lends itself more toward McGregor’s “Y” than his “X” in combination with Mary Parker Follett’s view on values and morality:

—

“Morality is never static; it advances as life advances. You cannot hang your ideals up on pegs and take down #2 for certain emergencies and #4 for others. The true test of our morality is not the rigidity with which we adhere to standards, but the loyalty we show to the life which constructs standards.”

Mary Parker Follett

—

Regardless. This does not mean ethics and ethical behavior should be ignored. In fact. I believe one of the outcomes of a well-implemented future business model is better ethical behavior.

So, let’s talk about “well implemented.”

From a human perspective I will not invest any energy explaining people’s desire to act ethically other than to say I believe 98% (I made that % up) of people in the workplace, left to their own devices, would act more ethically than most businesses act now. That alone would be progress.

This leads me to technology because algorithms play a significant role in the future organization business model.

While ethical creation is unequivocally a byproduct of human actions and behavior it would be absurd to neglect the role technology has in influencing or impacting human actions. As Marshall McLuhan said decades ago “a technology creates an environment” from which people will inevitably takes cues to think and do.

Yes. Technology plays a role. It plays a role because it amplifies. It is here that I will suggest that morality, ethics and empathy needs technology. Yes. I just said that. The destiny of all those things are dependent upon technology. If that is so then I imagine I could say society’s fate resides in the hands of technology. That may seem backwards in that all of these things reside in humans, not technology. Well. They do, but technology will either flatten, amplify or even extend the reach of all. I am certainly not suggesting that technology will guarantee morality or ethical behavior, but I would suggest improving ethical-ness of technology increases the likelihood that morality and ethical behavior becomes more pervasive (expansive) all of which are integral to a healthy culture.

That said. I will speak of technology’s role on ethics and ethical creations as an indirect consequence. At the core of the business model idea is conceptual thinking and at the core of conceptual thinking is better pattern recognition, better critical thinking/assessment and better knowledge (the more you learn the more ‘wise’ you get). The outcome of all of this is actually better behavior. It offers a person a broader perspective of things and consequences of not only what they do but what they think. It is the thinking version of “in and of society.”

There are dozens of thinktanks tackling the issue on ‘coding with conscience”.

• ** note: my personal favorite is The Ethics Centre in Australia. Simon Longstaff discusses ethics in this podcast with Mike Walsh: Ethics in the Age of Smart Machines  and the Ethics Centre  ‘Ethical By Design: Principles For Good Technology’ manifesto is a good place to begin the discussion

That said. Where I differ from many of these thinktanks is that they focus on the design and I am dubious this resolves the issues. Why?:

• Software is designed by humans who will all have some bias which will either overfit the code to some ‘ethical design’ or underfit based on the same criteria. In other words, any ethical design guardrails will be imperfect
• Imperfect code tends to amplify at scale
• Tools are designed to measure what the tools are designed to measure. In other words, well intended design is not crafted to measure bad intentional usage
• Algorithms focus on symmetrical resolutions and people are asymmetrical behavior machines or, as Brian Christian said: “When computers guess they are alarmingly confident.”

Ethics are not absolutes. Your ethics, or values, may not be mine <so maybe we should seek empathy toward other’s feelings and beliefs>. Yet. We must demand our algorithms have some absolutes in order to kill off the bad or evil we know exists. Maybe technology should be seeking what someone called “approximately moral.” This can be done in the actual outputting software (inputs to people), but it is possibly even more important in the ‘constraints’ software – the spies spying on the algorithm spies.

It is the latter point which I believe ethical technology’s hope resides. The spies spying on the algorithms. Just as diabetics have wearable tools to adjust blood sugar in real time, technology should have tools developed to attack and adjust the, well, tools. On a grander scheme, the internet as a whole, this certainly looks like a daunting task. On a smaller scheme, say a business level, it appears less daunting. Business behavior can be defined in ways to insure parameters on unethical use of knowledge and in actual practice.

I also believe the starting point for technology ethics is simpler than we tend to make it. Back in 2010 I designed an online global educational initiative directed toward 3-8 year olds and in it I suggested the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a reasonable foundation. Interestingly, in Flynn Coleman’s fabulous 2019 book, A Human Algorithm, she suggested the same thing:

“.. using established international human rights declarations as our model for how to preserve human rights as we incorporate intelligent technology is a good starting point.”

I like this because technology includes not just software design, algorithms, but data usage as well as all artificial intelligence, all of which should be seeking to not only not infringe upon people’s rights but actually seek to augment positive behavior (morality).

Others will focus on how to demand accountability for software design, I will focus on how an organizational Knowledge Sharing software system, through algorithms, can encourage ethical behavior because, inevitably, if I am suggesting technology augments people than we should seek to augment their better business angels, i.e., responsibility, accountability and empathy with regard to consequences of choices & doing something outside the auspices of the actual business and creator.

To be clear. No algorithm will ever solve any human ethical dilemma. Period.

But an algorithm can certainly influence how one thinks about that ethical dilemma. This does not absolve software engineers of moral responsibility, it simply does not ignore the fact people are responsible for sensemaking, choice making and the consequences of things they actually do.

In other words, everyone at every level has a responsibility and of everyone is ethical, or acts within an agreed upon ethical framework, that in totality we increase the probability that ethical decisions are made and ethical doing is achieved.

I admit. I get tired of all the negative discussion with regard to artificial intelligence. I believe, developed well and used well, it feeds positive progress – not just for business, but for humans and humanity.

It seems like people don’t speak often enough about the positives of algorithms and what they can make (isolated crowd or tribe aspects) it can actually unmake. It is possible to take apart larger unhealthy ideologies, or beliefs, so that new more healthy ideologies or ways of thinking can be constructed. Algorithms can be used in a variety of ways and if we elected to create a conceptual thinking community/organizational/societal mindset embracing ethical creation at its core, it can be done – even in a competitive finite ideology world.

That said. I view a checks & balance system as not only a check on bad use of AI, but rather also an iterative positive progress mechanism. I envision a looped ethical creation system to constantly check, and place constraints, on unintended negative consequences or unethical output or use which actually frees up the type of conceptual thinking that benefits people, business & society simultaneously.

I believe this is a reasonable way to think about this mostly because:

• One need not be prescient to envision future unethical behavior
• One capable of envisioning future unethical behavior has the ability to design to manage/constrain it
• One only needs to see constraint design as an ongoing progress commitment

• ** note: “Don’t fear superintelligent AI”: Grady Booch, Tedtalk

—

“I do not think we have psychological and ethical and economic problems. We have human problems with psychological, ethical, and economic aspects.”

Mary Parker Follett

—

Ethical creation, therefore, is never dependent upon one check, but rather people, humanity, AI, output and results, are looped and iterative in terms of its feedback. I believe this thought demands some emphasis because humans really do not have a chance against the onslaught of algorithms. They are often smarter than us but, more importantly, all are embedded with behavioral trigger mechanisms to tap into our mental models to encourage us to do whatever it is they desire us to do.

• ** note: what if, for businesses who seek a more measurable evaluation of ethical creation, an algorithm were designed to measure activity based on a score developed from Triple Bottom Line, Freer Spreckley, components? I envision an open source measurement feedback code which can be slightly adapted to each business’ focus/vision/purpose. For example a business focused on environmental responsibility will weight those components in its Ethical Creation value assessment versus a business which desires to focus on use of specific material resources.

I do believe the key to ethics in technology is to recognize it as a connective decision or initiative and not a specific task initiative.

I say this because I envision the conceptual thinker of the future will be connected not only to those in the group, but the organization, the cloud (knowledge and data of other unmade, ethical or unethical, humans) as well as community and society (as one’s concepts become reality). Things made cannot be unmade from an ethical standpoint – they ripple out almost infinitely. Let me say it another way. Buyer beware is unacceptable in a future business world grounded in algorithms. It cannot be.

Somewhere within my writings I have reminded everyone that the cloud, and access to knowledge, doesn’t make people smarter. While the cloud represents an almost limitless pool of ever growing knowledge and data I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that the cloud, in and of itself, can be just as stupid, if not stupider, than any one individual. More knowledge, used poorly, simply makes one stupider rather than smarter. The collective knowledge is only as good as who uses it. This is also true of ethics.

Individuals, and small groups of people, within an institution (augmented by the cloud collective knowledge) get more ethical iteratively (even if they misuse knowledge because they learn from mistakes). Conceptually they actually get more ethical than the cloud due to understanding of context.

Now.

Let me remind everyone of a slightly contrarian assessment with regard to morality I said earlier before I move on to business being in, and of, society: Morality needs technology. Yes. I said that. Technology is not going away so discussing morality in the absence of technology is a fool’s task. This means, without technology continuing to progress, morality will bend toward bad rather than good. A static technology machine will most likely degrade humanity rather than improve it – morality included. If I could ever argue for ethics in technology, this paragraph would be it. Think about ethics and morality as you ponder Marshall McLuhan’s words” “we shape our technology and our technology shapes us.”

In the end (part 1: technology).

Ethics in technology is a given. We should stop discussing and start doing. The one thing business could teach the technology ethics people is that it will never be perfect and success is rarely found in what is initially created or offered, but rather how well what is developed improves as it faces new unforeseen contexts. Embedding ethics INTO software development, algorithms and technology, at minimum, embeds ethics into value creation at a structural level. From that point on, ethical creation is in the hands of the conceptual thinkers – the people.

In the end (part 2: people)

“Ethical is a polysemous word in that it can refer to process, outcomes, and values. The process refers to the internal procedures that are adopted by the firm to guide decision making on product/service design and development choices. The values aspect refers to the value set that is both adopted by the organization and those of the public within which the product/service might be deployed. This can include values such as transparency, equity, fairness, privacy, among others. The outcomes refer to desirable properties in the outputs from the system such as equalized odds across demographics and other fairness metrics.”

State of AI Ethics, Montreal AI Ethics Institute

We can discuss ethics and technology until we are blue in the face, but I will always, inevitably, come down to people. People doing the right things. Creating the right things in the right way. It was, once again, Mary Parker Follett who can guide us toward the right future using her own words as she described ‘Right’:

1. We do not follow right, we create right;
2. There is no private conscience;
3. My duty is never to “others” but the whole.

“Morality is not the refraining from doing certain things – it is a constructive force” (Mary Parker Follett). Far too often we view morality and ethics as limiting. We should not. ethical creation is freeing and a constructive force. We should stop thinking of principles as things meant to tell people what to do or how to act or even manipulate them, but rather to offer touchstones for agreed upon behavior that benefits value creation – to the individual (ethically and in meaningfulness), the community and society.

Give people some guidance for how to act in choice making situations or ethical dilemmas, not because they determine outcomes but to use as an energy to guide all elements as they face ‘the law of the situation’ (contextually what I best in that time and place which will endure in a positive way in terms of consequences).

Ethical creation for business should be a given. Ethical creation benefits people, business, home, community and society. Ethical creation increases value as it progresses and gains velocity. And, maybe most importantly, ethical creation, well done, actually embeds meaning, and meaningfulness into the people actually creating the value.