Hugh McLeod

‘.. striking a balance between humans and machines … on one side biased and arbitrary human organizations and on the other, soulless technocracy based on unfeeling machines. There is a path.”

Mike Walsh

——————-

Technology, in and of itself, is an incredible tool for progress. When viewed in an ideal, or idealistic, way it is a democratized disseminator of knowledge, information, and connector of people. Technology, in its ideal form, lets call it a ‘static state’ is an energy for positive progress. So, if it is not within the ideal state we have to wonder why. The answer is not actually that difficult – humans, people. Humans ‘re-design’ technology to manipulate. I could argue that technology has simply amplified manipulation (someone is always attempting to manipulate you & your thinking and very often in a deceptive way) but the amplification has become so sophisticated we are being manipulated in ways it is difficult for people to unravel the manipulation (it takes an incredibly high sense of awareness). This isn’t to let humans being manipulated completely off the hook, just to say society, in general, has better things to do than question everything within the 30,000 decisions they must make, on average, every day. The truth is that humans have wired algorithms to reward our worst instincts/behaviors in, well, every domain.

** note: We would be ecstatic if people explored multiple sources online before forming their own opinions, but the reality is that the power of information distribution has fallen into fewer hands with more power to control the actual distribution of information. I would suggest this issue is only amplified with the increased use of handheld technology (smartphones/pads) to do research. I say this because smartphone research is increasingly likely to be “question/answer research” rather than “exploration research.” The former has its uses but is also more likely to not actually offer the greatest truths.

For example.

Why shouldn’t there be an algorithm that instead of sneaking in the infamous “you may also like this” (which tends to drive people farther down the misguided thinking rabbit hole) the algorithms offered up a “to better understand this topic you should read this.” In other words, algorithms that fight the natural gravity of shitty thinking.

To be clear. This, at its core, is not about technology. It is about humans creating things for humans to create a better society (and, yes, I could argue that I can be a raging capitalist and still endorse this idea – albeit it would make me work a bit harder to fulfill my profit goals as a raging capitalist).

Look. I’m not scared of technology; I’m scared of humans. I love technology. Its given me access to more knowledge and more knowledgeable people than I could have ever imagined.

But scared of Facebook? No. I’m scared of the people writing the algorithms & software and I am scared of the people who are either not self-aware enough, or have the critical thinking skills, to fight back against the humans writing the algorithms (I foresee this as an ongoing conflict).

“Knowledge, in principle at least, is infinitely expandable.”

Toffler 1991

The internet has enabled the quirky to unite globally. What may have been one or two people in a vicinity, loners in their particular focus in Life and thinking and likes/dislikes, have become clubs and groups and a swarming team of fish swimming in their own direction enjoying the fruits of the sea of information and things available online. The difficulty is that there are other humans crafting currents within that sea so that swarms congregate in certain areas and do certain things (and think certain things). Humans manipulate the sea so that the fish can be captured (by business) or driven to certain places (for business). The truth is that many of us either drown in the violent sea of information or get lost following currents of information.

It would be an understatement to say that technology has affected society. That said. I don’t believe it is all bad, I do not support the dystopian view of the effect of technology on people & society and actually a proponent of Grady Booch’s point of view: “New tech spawns new anxieties, but we don’t need to be afraid an all-powerful, unfeeling AI.”

I, similar to Grady, tend to focus on how artificial intelligence will enhance human life. This is not to suggest that technology has not contributed to economic inequality, social issues and some aspects of division. But I do not believe we are at the end game with technology, but rather the middle game.

The relationship between technology and society is not simple, nor complicated (it’s about amplification and access), but it is complex. Its complex not because technology is difficult understand, but rather because people are involved. Software is designed with theory in mind and those theories go beyond simple economics or even politics but directly impact the type of society, social change and civilization, we seek to have. These theories, embedded in things that influence/manipulate us, impacts how we view, and do, work as well as even our lives.

Now. Now that I have stated this is about people, I will now suggest that morality, ethics, and empathy need technology. 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 technology increases the likelihood that morality and ethical behavior becomes more pervasive (expansive).

While morality and virtue are developed over time <via repeated decisions to choose what is right and to forego what is wrong> this means technology, currently crafted to manipulate us, can also be crafted to engage our ethical senses. Theoretically this means lots of small decisions being directed in the present to a longer term greater good for society.

** note: I believe it was Daniel Schmachtenberger who suggested ethical behavior was better in smaller tribes because it was more difficult to be unethical (transparency). This would suggest for this idea to be successful, technology engaging ethical senses, that there would need to be some transparency so that people couldn’t ‘game the ethical decision’ to their benefit rather than the collective good.

All That said.

Technology, in and of itself, is nothing. Without people, without people generating content, it is a passive tool regenerating itself to its own purposes. Yet. Once humans become involved technology begins to amplify – amplify divides, fragments, groups and tribes. It is within the fragmentation aspect in which we begin to pause on the benefits of technology with regard to society. The fragmentation, the phrasing of ideas, ideologies, values, norms and actual ideological commitments just begin to blur the greater truths associated with each. Fragments get emphasized to strengthen pieces of views all the while blurring larger issues.

In addition.

Technology has a nasty habit of increasing wealth inequality. It’s impact is additive to lower income gains and multiplicative to higher income gains. As technology improves “better” is not equally distributed. And just to return to morality and ethics for a moment. I would suggest that as technology improves (as improvement is judged in the present) there is a reverse distribution than wealth. What I mean by that is as technology improves low income morality & ethics get better in a multiplicative way while high income morality is additive. In other words, those with less wealth and less money own the higher moral ground while those with the money (and inevitably the power) reside in a lower moral ground.

That juxtaposition of things creates stress to a societal structure.

I am not suggesting that technology should be the tool which corrects inequities, but it would be foolish of us to ignore the fact technology amplifies both good and bad and is a tool which can affect inequities.

It was McLuhan who said, “we shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us.” Once I again I point out without people technology is basically nothing – it needs designing, data, content, input, behaviors, attitudes, actions and, yes, even decisions to curate. 

I find it interesting that as we move into discussion on a world of technology, society and progress of civilization there are two loud voices in this discussion – one dead and one alive. Alvin Toffler and Daniel Schmachtenberger. I find them both equally interesting because they both explore the issues civilization is currently facing due to technology. Toffler discussed this from a speculative frame of reference while Schmachtenberger is discussing it from an experiential frame of reference.

** note: I wish they could have had a podcast together discussing this topic

It was Toffler, in 1981, who stated that technology will create a new civilization that “challenges all our old assumptions” by inspiring, or dictating, a painful process of social change. Toffler suggested civilization has its own atmospheres:

1. 1. Techno-sphere: an energy base -production system -distribution system

   2. Socio-sphere: inter-related social institutions

   3. Info-sphere: channels of communication

   4. Power-sphere: relationships with outside world -exploitative, symbiotic, militant, or pacific

   5. Super ideology: powerful cultural assumptions that structure its view of reality and justify its operation

As technology squeezes each of these layers there is an inevitably stress on the power, and distribution, of knowledge.

“the coming struggle for power will increasingly turn into a struggle over the distribution of and access to knowledge not just consumption. Power seekers’ will use this struggle to further their power ambitions. While mass could have been seen as sweeping generalized manipulation of attitudes and beliefs technology is using fragmentation to have those with power divide and conquer.”

** note: power, and power dynamics, and the power of conserving institutions, is a topic in and of itself.

Knowledge, therefore, is the fuel for change, whereas technology is its engine creating the liminal space within which the social conflict occurs – people shocked by what they see as destruction of everything they know (and actively attempting to consolidate past fragments they see value in) versus people embracing positive change and empowerment thru the fragmentation. I say this because it is not a conflict of technology or enabled by technology, but rather of people – one within people’s minds and how they think. This means knowledge and technology are the two powerful ‘tools’ in facilitating changes in society.

This is where it gets tricky. Information should be intrinsically beneficial to society and, yet a fragmented flow of information and communication results in increased knowledge AND fragmentation.

Technology plays a role in where we go from here, but first, people need to think about the future they desire which, typically, rests on the most fundamental assumptions we make about reality. In the present competitive view of the world, we often think that the most capable are those who are the most competitive, and accordingly that competition creates and secures long-term viability. On a societal level, we have essentially adopted a zero-sum dynamic behind most of the things we do. This separates everything, and everyone, into a binary 0/1, yes/no, good/bad, this way/that way design world (software, algorithms, business individuals and even countries).

This current design belief has only made the divide between winners and losers constantly grow. Polarization leads to radicalization (of ideas, opinions, behavior) and, well, society does not benefit.

We do need technological advances, but our humanity and society must develop at the same speed as technology develops. As our technological ability to impact the world is radically scaling up, our human ethical choices as to how to implement that power must scale up accordingly. But the present reality is that our humanity is lagging our technology.

“The key dynamic is to move forward towards a more profound experience of ethics, and also aesthetics, in a way that increases our collective capacity to connect and solve the common problems on the existential level that we face.”

Tom Atlee

In the end.

As usual, the future will be defined by humans, not technology or any innovations.

Technology design needs to embrace less destructive manipulation and more ‘enlightenment.

People need to design algorithms not based on brain exploitation to the detriment of people (and society).

People need to make content not based on brain chemistry exploitation to the detriment of our whole society.

People need to be educated to become more effective at critical thinking and embrace a more thoughtful worldview.

People. We can keep talking about technology as if it were a person, but it is absurd to do so. It is not a person and, in fact, the problem I not technology, it is people. The future of society, let alone everything I imagine, resides in the minds and actions of humans and the quicker we accept that the quicker we begin taking steps to shape a future we like.

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

“A ship in harbor is safe, but that’s not what ships are for.”

John Shedd

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

“The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.”

MLK

===

 The arc of history is irrelevant to most of us. Ok. Maybe better said is that we are relatively indifferent to the arc of history.

Most of us get up, drink our coffee and get going doing what we need to do that day. In doing so we cannot see any fucking arc, we just see what is in front of us. The arc can only vaguely be seen when we look at the news or talk with friends or maybe see some high falutin’ presentation on trends that supposedly impact our business in terms of sales and shit like that.

And we wonder why the world can seem so cold sometimes? Geez. That is our view for the most part. It is our daily grind (responsibilities) interspersed with some outside news filtering in for some perspective.

I would suggest any arc seems like it can almost be a straight line rather than any arc we can see. It can sometimes seem like a straight line of no change, or, a lot of bad shit with small drops of good shit mixed in.

But that’s not reality. The reality is that time and … well … our lives … do arc.

Just like when you are a ship in a harbor thinking about leaving the horizon looks flat and finite. And, yet, once you leave the harbor you realize that the horizon was simply a reflection of where you were and where you stood and that the reality was the world, the universe, arcs and bends to things you could not see from where you once stood.

Yeah. Sometimes that is hard to see.

Yeah. Sometimes we don’t have any time to think about it.

Yeah. But we should … at least on occasion. Because the arc occurs whether we see it or not. You have to be able to figure out how to get done whatever has to be done or the arc will show you what has to be done <or at least the context within which you will make your choices of what you will do>.

Look. I buy the fact that the arc of time bends toward justice. But I think it neglects to point out that people inevitably define the arc. It neglects to point out justice, or ‘good’, is not simply part of the ether, but resides in the hearts & minds of people. Well. What that means is the arc resides within us. All of us. Not just someone standing up in front of us trying to tell us what the arc is or should be.

I sometimes think we mistaken society, a country or a civilization is like a big tanker and we hire someone or elect some to jump onto the bridge of the ship and lead it out of the harbor. That is not so. You would be mistaken to think that. Each one of us is a little ship. We are a fleet of a variety of ships, boats and scows restlessly bobbing in the harbor from which we can actually leave or stay as we wish.

When we hire a leader, or elect someone, we – we little fleet of ships – are actually seeking a flagship. Someone who dares to leave the harbor and lead us over the arc of the horizon. Lead us beyond the current routes we take, lead us beyond the fishing grounds we have always used and lead us to new lands that maybe we had only heard of before.

But. We, we little fleet of ships, also control the voyages because within the hearts & minds of each of the captains resides justice and what is good & right and decide to follow, float or seek freedom.

Therefore we control the arc and bend of justice. No leader does.

I will suggest, consciously or subconsciousnessly, people tend to follow, or guide, based on justice therefore the arc will bend — sometimes too slowly — toward the goodness which resides in humankind. Just like a ship in harbor looking out from a harbor that goodness can sometimes be difficult to see when looking at the horizon but, I can guarantee this, if you leave the harbor it is easier to see.

===

“As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too.

Words are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: you liberate a city by destroying it.

Words are to confuse, so that at election time people will solemnly vote against their own interests.”

Gore Vidal

===

“The greatest enemy of clear language is insincerity.”

George Orwell

===

Well.  I thought it was time to pull out my thoughts on political correctness. Let me begin with the poster child of political correctness – Merry Christmas. Well. I am not really sure when Merry Christmas got hijacked by Happy Holidays, but I wish I had been there to repulse the hijackers. Look. I am clearly sensitive to responses to Merry Christmas and am more than happy to pull my Happy Holidays greeting out of my seasonal greeting joy bag when appropriate but, in general, most people recognize that I like Christmas in spirit, not spiritually, and I am simply wishing everyone a little bit of the magic we call Christmas during this time of the year. But, frankly, political correctness has made it significantly harder to authentically spread joy by demanding people to actually think about what they will say (I imagine this could be good – be thoughtful before you speak – or it could be bad – takes the spontaneous out of the joy wish). In the end. Where political correctness got us during the holidays is either spew soft joyful platitudes or defiantly stabbing people with a Merry Christmas.

That is where political correctness has taken us. To be clear. I think everyone believes the idea of political correctness has gone too far.

That said. My thoughts today are about that political correctness has beget an even more heinous idea – ‘anti-political correctness’. It has become the flag bearer for anything that anyone wants to say which can span from tactless ignorance to blind ignorance to, at its best, true common sense clarity <called “talking simply” by many people>.

The trouble we are running into is all three of those are amalgamating into one big blob of things being said.

Basically, anti-political correctness is becoming the go-to answer for anything people may object to. What I mean by that is you can now say the stupidest thing known to mankind, someone can point out that it is stupid <even in a tactful way>, and the answer is almost always “I am tired of political correctness standing in the way of truth.”

Basically, we are now facing the backlash to an overextended political correctness from people sick of being told that they have to admit things that they don’t really believe <or think>.

Individuals are realizing they are individuals and that they don’t have to play by the same rules as a large corporation or the ‘pretentious few who try and speak for the many.’ Speaking out has become independent of anything other than “I”, i.e., what is in MY mind, and feel like they will say whatever the fuck they feel like saying. In other words, many people are standing up and saying “I am society so why can’t I speak for society” <as if that was as easy as I just typed>.

Well. Let state the obvious point. Among the many cases in “the problems in the world today”, political correctness isn’t standing in the way of truth; stupidity <or irresponsible thinking & speaking> is. But, and this is a big ‘But’, overreaching political correctness does create a problem and it HAS created a problem in some people’s minds and it is now being released <and some of our leaders are taking advantage of it>.

Look. I am absolutely with many people who suggest political correctness has become a bigger problem than the problem it was intended to try and address. However … maybe … just maybe … instead of ignoring the original good intent of political correctness <encourage tact and sensitivity to others’ feelings around issues of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, physical abilities/disabilities … among other things> maybe we go back to its original intent and just keep the ground rules a little simpler and stop its invasion into the minutiae of Life and what we say.

We need to keep the ground rules simple because this effort to not offend has spiraled into a type of verbal censorship, certainly has generated conflict and sometimes seems to infringe upon some fundamental freedoms.

We need to take a close look at this <without completely rejecting it> because what constitutes offensive or unacceptable speech has bled into the minutiae in everyday Life approaching simple everyday actions bludgeoning Life into a … well … wussified world.

We need to “fix” political correctness because we do need some harsh truths. We need some ‘edges’ in the world view. We need to discuss them, express them and debate them. We need a little, well, enlightened conflict.

All that said that doesn’t mean that under the guise of some sense of individual sincerity <“I truly feel this way”> that good taste and respectful of what others think & feel has to be sacrificed <this is the balancing act> – everyone should show respect for your audience and any audience you are speaking about.

Words carry some responsibility beyond “what I feel.”

Yet. Political correctness has become a nomenclature for “not being able to speak what you feel” so words start getting thrown around without any thought beyond … ‘this is what I feel.’ Well. Sometimes what we feel is not what we know <knowledge is different than feeling> and what we feel may seem like truth, to us, but it is tainted by everything we do not know <therefore is nothing more than an opinion> and, frankly, sometimes what we feel should be kept to ourselves.

Let’s be clear. We got to this point because many of us were afraid to speak something for fear it offends someone rather than for fear it may actually be stupid, ignorance or just wrong <I say this because this creates misguided thoughts in one’s head on how to correct the situation>. Therefore, by overcoming our fear of offensiveness we simply roar our way into stupidity, ignorance or wrongness under the guise of simple speak or simply speaking our mind.

This also translates into the belief that all of a sudden those who decide to eschew being politically correct have decided they are smart or smarter than everyone else or , at minimum, as smart as everyone else. So smart that they can say whatever they believe and simply point to ‘I refuse to be politically correct’ when challenged over any stupidity they may be spewing.

====

Commenter: JoeAmerica • 4 hours ago

Get off my back libtard, you can’t control my speech.

====

It becomes words of stark harshness because there is no version of modesty, respect or dignity in the harsh backlash to political correctness.  And why should there be any concern for those things when you are simply stating common sense? <that is the logic>. And you get the added bonus of sticking it up the pretentiousness of, well, everyone who has even a tinge of respect for decorum or what someone may truly be offended by.

====

“Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred.”

Jacques Barzun

===

We now have organized hatred, anger and frustration. And these organizations <and some leaders words feeding on those organizations> use words that can shame, ridicule, and humiliate … delivered not with the intent to  deliver the shame or ridicule, but to show “my point of view & thoughts should be heard!”

Anti-political correctness has simply tapped into a pent up sense of relief that people can debate and talk in simple terms. Corporate speak and political language and marketing bullshit sayings and even tmotivational speak is dying.

No. It is being killed.

To be clear. All this ‘non political correctness bullshit is not just ‘simple talk’ <therefore the path to solving this issue isn’t simplicity or ‘dumbed down’> it is simply monologue stripped of political correctness.

It is addition by subtraction.

Do I like it? Of course not.

Do I understand it? Yes, I surely do.

It needs to be addressed for the good of society and what is going on in our heads.

Someone can get a grip on this without having to be plain-spoken <which implies ‘dumbing down’>, it can be managed intellectually and smartly because, frankly, the people who are most frustrated with political correctness ain’t dumb.

=====

“Democracy was supposed to champion freedom of speech, and yet the simple rules of table decorum could clamp down on the rights their forefathers had fought and died for.”

E.A. Bucchianeri

=====

Here is why they aren’t dumb.

This is what they see. They see that we are in a bad place with political correctness because if we have to constantly censor any conversation pertaining to race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or physical ability/disability, then it seems like we will simply bury the issues and perpetuate that what exists in the minds of people without taking the opportunity to confront them. This means in the effort to protect everyone’s feelings we have essentially lost, or willingly sacrificed, the edges and imposed the wretched middle on everyone.

This wretched vacuous middle hinders progress with regard to understanding different perspectives, viewpoints, feelings, and doesn’t really permit the discussion of real life experiences in the harsh light of reality but instead in muted thoughts of what should be discussed.

Anyway. Here is my real fear about this whole political correctness shitstorm.

Inclusiveness versus exclusiveness.

While the intent of political correctness was to make a more inclusive society and rhetoric it is now creating divisive rhetoric in which society is splintering.

While I could argue that it was pious arrogant intellectuals who created the overblown political correct environment we are chafing against, it is the everyday mostly white middle aged people who are now clearly anti-political correct.

=====

The angriest and most pessimistic people in America are the people we used to call Middle Americans. Middle-class and middle-aged; not rich and not poor; people who are irked when asked to press 1 for English, and who wonder how white male became an accusation rather than a description. You can measure their pessimism in polls that ask about their expectations for their lives—and for those of their children.

On both counts, whites without a college degree express the bleakest view. You can see the effects of their despair in the new statistics describing horrifying rates of suicide and substance-abuse fatality among this same group, in middle age.

The Atlantic

======

Regardless what you read about the anti-political correctness crowd <mostly embodied it seems by those who follow Trump around these days> they are not stupid, dumb nor ignorant. Some may have less education than the population median, but since when has education always been a reflection of true smarts <never>.

Yes. It is a mainly white population that is making up the anti-political correctness crowd, but we shouldn’t ignore what they are saying or feeling because of their skin color. Why? Because they have a point.

They are angry & frustrated with how political correctness has infringed upon their lives.

Now … when people get angry or frustrated they say things that they regret <or more likely they just don’t get articulated in the best possible way>.

I think this is pretty much a Life truth.

A lot of today’s frustration with what seems to be overreaching political correctness is being captured in a loud voice fighting back without any debate wordsmithing training other than what you may get sitting at the bar with a group of your friends yelling at each other.

That said. I think it is the responsibility of those in leadership positions to recognize the frustration with political correctness and permit frustrations and anger to be heard and respectfully listened to — the frustrated masses deserve that.

What they do not deserve is to have their anger flame fanned and encouraged. People deserve to be heard and offered solutions not someone simply agreeing with them and offering platitudes.

I think the leaders who will end up being the most successful in this ugly stage of political correctness will be the one who leads us to the proper respectful place – where we respect the fact that not all people believe in the same things, that all people have the right to believe in different things and say different things, that simply having a different point of view doesn’t mean you are an outcast, ignorant or stupid just that you view things differently and, finally, that there is balance.

It will be within balance that we will finally encounter inclusiveness and not divisiveness.

Let’s handle this discourse with some respect & dignity. Everyone deserves that. I don’t need a leader talking down to me and, frankly, I don’t need some leader suggesting my frustrations are the source of the problems of the world or my country.

Political correctness hasn’t created shit for problems other than it makes discussing things more difficult. Simply pointing that out isn’t a leader’s job. A leader offers solutions in a respectful way. They offer solutions to a group of people no matter what point of view they have. They speak TO the people without demeaning the larger view of ‘what we should be’ as people.

In the end. Political correctness has created some problems, but it is not a problem (despite what some politicians suggest). It hasn’t directly created what some idiots call “the cancel culture”, but, indirectly, anti-political correctness yahoos are actually canceling out voices. The intent behind political correctness actually does have good merit – forcing society to face some harsh truths. What I would now suggest is we talk about some of those harsh truths rather than cancel them out.

** note: This does not mean everyone can say whatever they want wherever they want. Lies or, worse, heinous activity, shut not be permitted a platform. Eliminating their platforms is not political correctness nor is it censor, it is consequences for bad behavior.

This is not censorship. This is consequences.

==========

updated from December 2015

—

“You have to break rules to break free.”

Tinker Bell

===

“The best way to predict the future is to create it.”

Alan Kay

—

A new year is always a reflective moment and a pandemic certainly does amplify the urge to reflect. Coincidentally, whenever asked about the effect of Covid on, well, everything, I say one word: amplify. It has simply amplified everything – uncertainty, change, technology (some people call it ‘digital transformation), existing business vulnerabilities, Life vulnerabilities as well as business strengths, opportunities & risks, etc., as well as certainty.

Yeah. It has also amplified both uncertainty and certainty.

The pandemic shone a spotlight on the fact uncertainty is not the sole owner of fear & risk that even certainty contains aspects of fear. And a lot of fear.

I can know exactly what I want to do, I can know exactly what certain steps I need to take, I can even know with certainty what my quest looks like, and fear will still dog you every step of the way.

Let’s be honest. Certainty was not supposed to feel this way.

While we like to say ‘change is my constant companion and friend’ it is quite possible fear will shed its superficially bad perception cloak and take its place in public vernacular as “fear is my constant companion and friend.”

Look. I am not suggesting everyone curl up in a fetal position overcome with fear, but what I am suggesting is 2021 will be the acceptance of the fear of the known; the fear of certainty.

We are certain we will survive (because what is the alternative?) or, as my friend Murray Calder is teaching me, we will not survive and, yet, the quest goes on. Why? Because what is the alternative? And maybe that is the biggest lesson of 2020. The quest goes on, despite the fear, whether you are staring at certainty or uncertainty.

** note: Please note I am not suggesting one can become fearless, in fact, I think a fearless person is a lie. I am also not suggesting becoming ‘unfeared.’ I believe we have learned un-anything, let alone unfearing, takes a lot of energy and some sometimes-absurd contortionist reasoning.

I do not suggest embracing fear just as I am not suggesting ‘not fearing’ nor am I suggesting uncertainty is better, or worse, than certainty, but rather maybe just accept it all. Why? Because as a corollary to ‘the quest goes on despite the fear’; 99% of us have a 100% daily survival rate.

If a pandemic year has taught us anything, that last sentence & thought may be it.

Which leads me to Tinkerbell and moving forward and how people should accept fear is a valuable companion.

Peter Pan and Tinkerbell are volatile companions. They fight, they scoff at each other – maybe even show a little contempt for each other -, they make each other angry and jealous, but when it comes right down to it, they would each die for the other.

** note: The book version of TinkerBell, one of the most recognized characters in children’s literature, was certainly one of the feisty imperfect spectacular ‘doer’ type of people.

Considerably different than the Disney version.

Considerably more interesting than the Disney version and, more importantly, a reflection of the fact the world is not a Disney version.

They recognize they aren’t always perfect; the world isn’t always perfect and while sometimes they drive each other crazy they also realize those very characteristics that make each other crazy are also often the ones that make the other love them so much. They also recognize that the combination of their characteristics increases their likelihood of survival.

And while Peter Pan may have embraced not growing up, TinkerBell embraced “you have to break rules if you want to break free.”

The pandemic put a spotlight on rules, boundaries and norms. Some were needed and, well, some that existed before the pandemic simply became useless within the pandemic. We reflected on so many rules, so many things society tells you to do, so many things business tells you to do, and began to realize if you want to break free, if you wanted to find some success, shit, if you wanted to survive, you have to decide what you want to do – and be. In some way 2020 encouraged us to find our inner Tinkerbell.

The rules of the status quo, the rules of what we viewed as ‘certainties’, became silly cages to stand in. In fact, many of us began to realize fear was a silly cage. We saw uncertainty was actually the norm and certainty was also to be feared. What do I mean?

We stood in March and we knew, with certainty, it would be shit.

We stood in March and knew, with certainty, we would survive (we just didn’t know how).

We stood in March and we knew, with certainty, we would have to do different things.

There were a lot of knowns and, yet, many of us were shaken; even some fear. On other words. Fear was a certainty. And. Certainty was fear.

Uncertainty wasn’t the cage, certainty was. This, upon reflection, freaked us out. It freaked us out because the certainty cage has always been a comfortable cage for us. It has always barred us against the nastiness of the outside world. All of a sudden, the cage we accepted as a comfortable cage (or maybe not recognized we were in), the way it was supposed to be, some of the ‘certainties’ in Life, shit, even the uncertainties we normally accepted (including “life cannot be planned”) became simply wisps of smoke from the dumpster fire of 2020.

Suddenly we were free.

It may not have looked like freedom in March , but freedom it was.

And maybe, just maybe, we learned to think like a bit TinkerBell with this freedom.

She wasn’t always nice. She was feisty. She was willing to break rules. She had an imagination. I am not suggesting you shouldn’t be nice, but freedom does mean some shaking up of things, some discomfort and some conflict. Look. I am suggesting we need to ‘break some norms’, break some of the Life rules of emergent living (and, no, I do not mean not social distancing or wearing masks, etc.; but rather break some of our expectations of how Life is supposed to be lived), and break out with fear in hand.

Maybe break out our inner Tinkerbell.

It’s about flying.

It’s about finding and embracing the magic in Life.

It’s about recognizing the world has dark places, but still be willing to venture out

It’s about being nimble where evil <or ‘the bad’> tends to win thru stolid unmoving sturdiness.

It’s about not always being nice, but being true of heart.

It’s about being smart, not strong.

It’s about breaking some norms in order to be free.

It’s about using your pixie dust.

Far too many of us see a dark world and instead of imagining what could be simply hold on to something in the past because it <a> seems better and <b> seems safer (as known). It is our way of ‘unfearing certainty.’  I would argue we do not seek certainty, but rather seek unfearing aspects of our lives and, as a consequence, miss out on the magic in life.

Now. In the absence of a pandemic, in and of itself that seems like a good idea, but as everyone is doing it and as everyone decides to hold on to their ‘own thing’ we simply stay in our own little NeverLand.

** note: Peter Pan’s author made Neverland these places that are found in the minds of children and each is “always more or less an island” not the same from one child to the next.

Its not a good idea for two reasons.

• The pandemic pretty much blew up anything we had been holding onto that could possibly be ‘unfearing’ life
• That kind of thinking actually encourages is to become islands, avoiding adventure <except in our own mind> and not sharing adventure, and a pandemic clearly showed us to survive this ‘adventure’ you need others. Your Tinkerbell needed Peter Pan and Pater Pan needed Tinkerbell.

Anyway.

I think more of us need to seek our inner Tinker Bell in 2021. And in doing so we have a chance to refind the magic in Life and embrace fear and guide ourselves to new and better adventures not alone but together. Maybe in 2021 we stop valuing certainty over uncertainty, stop embracing uncertainty, and simply grab our fears, place them in pocket, and get up and go.

Aw.

This may sound silly.  This may sound Disneyesque <mostly if you haven’t actually read Peter Pan and only know the Disney Tinker Bell>.

But do not disregard the thought.

Tinker Bell sought something better even when faced with reality. She desired to create the future. She guided from adventure to adventure. She may not have liked all her companions, but she never desired less for them at the expense of something more for the ones who mattered most to her.

Oh. And she had pixie dust.

Metaphorically, I could argue we all have pixie dust it just seems irrational to think so in our rational brains.

Seek your pixie dust. Tap into your inner Tinker Bell. Have faith and maybe find a Peter Pan or two to trust on your quest. And maybe reflect on the fact the fear of the known, the certainty, is equal to the fear of the unknown/uncertainty, and that 2021 will be where norms are redefined, adventures will abound and Life’s value is found in valuing the fact 99% of us have a 100% daily survival rate.

====

“There’s a place they can go if they’re tired of chains,

And our roads may be golden, or broken, or lost,

But we’ll walk on them willingly, knowing the cost –

We won’t take our place on the shelves.

It’s better to fly and it’s better to die

Say the wicked girls saving ourselves.”

“Wicked Girls Saving Ourselves”>

—–

======

“When leaders and organizations develop skills without cultivating energy, the result is organizations (and schools) filled with spiritless specialists.”

Zach Mercurio

====

Bastian Lehman, the CEO of Postmates:

No competitive advantage should come at the expense of workers.

====

Leda Glyptis wrote this in one of her pieces: “It took me a long time to admit to myself that hard work delivering results is not the same as work that has an impact.”

Early in your career you are demanded (pressured) to show you can get things done. Results is the key to unlocking pay, respect, promotion and even some independence (getting your boss of your back). I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that early in your career getting things is mostly tied to some specialist role (although if you pay attention you learn that getting things done well incorporates a lot of generalist, and relational, aspects).

That said.

I was slightly different than Leda in that I always sensed impact was more important than simply generating results. It made my career tricky, or, as one co-worker said to me later in Life “you always liked to do it your way.” The difficulty in focusing on impact is that most people want to focus on process with regard to creating impact. To be clear that process does not have to always be efficiency. Business, if you generate results, can be quite accommodating to an effectiveness ideology. Regardless. Business, in focusing on results, tends to encourage spiritless engagement. Now. They would never tell you that. They speak of culture, passion, caring about your work, etc. ad nausea in fact. But. Deliver results and business can overlook a lot of shit. The problem is, well, inevitably you cannot overlook that shit. If you are really honest with yourself a career of results can feel a bit hollow. It will feel a bit like you missed something. You may not know exactly what you missed but if nudged a bit you’ll most likely speak of some missing engagement aspect.

Simple doing only contains, and retains, a certain amount of value. And when you assess that value, while it does have value, it doesn’t quite measure up to the highest value you may see when you look around. And, well, for a results person, this may feel like assessing your results and finding them wanting a bit.

** note: on specialists and specialism. To be clear, I am not anti-specialist. In fact, specializing can be quite rewarding. In fact, being a spirited specialist can be incredibly rewarding. I would argue to be a spirited specialist one would be a craftsperson with their skill. I believe it is Jackson & Jackson, “How to Speak Human”, who pointed out the shift from craftsmanship to professionalism (where we went from being a profession, and having a profession, to creating an industry of professionalism. This distinction is most likely the difference between spirited specialist and spiritless specialist. I am a self-proclaimed generalist, loving knowing some about many things, and yet I can be quite envious of the specialist who sees their specific skill as a craft and wield it as a craft. Ponder.

Now. It would be silly to not admit that the internet, or technology, hasn’t played a role in this.

All the internet has done is tightened the gap between mediocre professional experience and talented young learner.

Oh.

In addition, it has blurred the value in true professional experience <what to do with what you actually learn> and learning.

Oh.

In addition, the internet <and our generation in its insane focus on simplifying everything> have blurred the contrast between what is truly complex and what is truly simple.

Oh.

In addition, the internet, in combination with an insanely stupid focus on short term results defining a decision/choice, has created an impression speed has more value than, well, anything else. In other words what experience truly brings, ‘slow down a little to speed up’ skill, is more challenged than ever before.

All the digital age has done is commoditize experience perception-wise and it is up to someone with experience to decommoditisize it in reality. It is was true yesterday, true today and will be true tomorrow. Not everyone can do any job and a complex job can never be simplified.

All of this leads me to the fact Zach Mercurio, author of The Invisible Leader and the best speaker on Purpose I know, talks about impact all the time. Sometimes people miss that as they navigate their own visceral response, and biases/opinions/attitudes, as he speaks about Purpose.

“I’ve been thinking about this for a while. How do so many extremely talented people become so miserable in organizations?”

Zach Mercurio

Impact, from a personal perspective, once you get your head wrapped around something other than results, is fairly easy.

Impact, from a business perspective, is trickier – but rather simple and easy.

When I was doing strategy work for businesses I kind of became known for my ‘better’ strategies and questions.

How does this make a person better?

How does this make a life better?

How does this make the society better?

How does this make things better for a person in making the world better?

While, yes, products and services are inevitably problem solvers and people buy products & services to solve problems, that simplistic value equation/assessments provides the opportunity for that product and service to:

• Absolve itself for any accountability beyond simply solving that problem
• Miss the opportunity value of not being spiritless (while I do not believe Purpose adds value I do believe when embedded there is a halo effect of intangible value)

‘Better’ forces a business to ask some hard questions.

Now. While Zach and I would most likely have a healthy debate on how tightly I attach value to impact, in my view, a business has to. This, in my opinion, is not to the detriment of individual assessment of impact (in fact I think it can often create a healthy layer). Better is an easy thing to grasp. Yeah. Maybe too easy in its ability to morph into some possibly not-really-that-better things but, in general, it provides a compass toward good, not bad.

Business, being business, has always wanted to quantify ‘better’ inevitably seeking to shift it into the results category.

** note: this is why I almost always balk at empathy, authenticity, mindfulness in business because I believe they are embedded and not objectives, but business will always seek to quantify (assess results)

If you decide impact is more important than results, you are in for a rocky road. If you don’t believe me, just watch Alain de Botton’s Tedtalk “Gentler philosophy of Success.”  Impact is intrinsically more satisfying, yet, society (and business) inherently embraces extrinsic results. If you generate the results, society rewards you, yet, it still sometimes feels like a hollowish satisfaction – that there must be something more or, well, better.

Look.

If I am honest, I am sure I played the role of a spiritless specialist at some points in my career. It was probably uncomfortable, but I did it. It’s quite possible I was within the generation navigating the change from “industrial and based on mass production, mass distribution, mass consumption, mass education,  mass media, mass recreation, mass entertainment, combine[d] with standardization, centralization, concentration, and synchronization and organizational bureaucracy” ( Toffler) to, well, a shift to the opposite and this puts certain demands on people to ‘do’ to bridge from an old way of doing things to a new way of doing things.

If I am honest, part of my career impact has been navigating this shift.

** Note: I am willing to place navigating this shift in the ‘impact’ category because I believe this was a positive shift for business, people and society, albeit, it’s a work in progress.

If I am honest, analyzing oneself on impact is hard. Its hard because we are hardwired, with some real reasons, to results. Therefore, some days, even if you write down how you made an impact each day, you will find yourself holding pencil above the paper not really sure what to write. Some days you will find no real victory, just the attempt.

And this is where results, impact, purpose and mattering all come crashing together. Results, impact, purpose and mattering are not typically short-term actions. What I mean by that is you do something, or somethings, ‘feel’ like you may have made some positive impact, but not see any direct correlation (ever) or correlation is ambiguous or correlation is days, months, years away. In the end impact is simply feeling like you have done something to make something, or someone, better in some way (but results can provide a short-term dopamine hit).

And maybe that is also where I land on Purpose (with a capital P). I believe Purpose is an outcome, not an objective. But I also recognize people like objectives. Maybe if everyone would center some Purpose objective on something simple like ‘better’ – better today than I was yesterday and ‘somehow making things better for someone’ – I believe you will attain the objective of Progress. And I would argue that if you attain Progress, I am fairly sure you will have positive impact which, in my pea like brain, should fulfill some Purpose.

In the end.

Results and impact. Parents, school, society, even peers, will bludgeon you with results judgment. From an early age we are taught this is how to not only assess yourself but assess yourself versus others. I am not going to suggest that, in a whole cloth way, this is wrong because at some point you do need to assess some truths with regard to your skills or even your own behavior. But we need to get a grip on how we view results. We need to understand that results are often a means to an end – the end being impact. Maybe we should ponder Viktor Frankl from Mans Search for Meaning:

“For success, like happiness, cannot be pursued; it must ensue, and it only does so as the unintended side-effect of one’s personal dedication to a cause greater than oneself or as the by-product of one’s surrender to a person other than oneself.”

Results have consequences not just to ourselves, but to others. And maybe that is where I will end. I think we all know this; it just takes some awareness to become truly aware of it. We all know the world is bigger than “I”; it just takes some choice to do something about it.

Onlife Manifesto

Societies protect, cherish and nurture humans’ attentional capabilities.

More collective attention should be paid to attention itself.

—————————-

Every business knows they must manage against “objective blindness.” This is where your people pursue an objective with tunnel vision which makes everything subservient to the pursuit, & attainment, of an objective. And, while many businesses ignore this greater responsibility by thinking revenue & profit is the only measure of success, all businesses recognize the need to set the parameters on the pursuit of an objective and setting some guidelines for HOW the pursuers actually pursue the objective. In other words, a business recognizes that in some form or fashion it is not only responsible for an objective, but also “how everyone plays the game”.

Now.

Recognition and actually doing something about it are two different things.

While business is quite aware of objective blindness (they may couch it in ‘values, ethics & how we do things’), that’s why they also have HR depts and legal departments. Those departments permit leadership to blind themselves to everything but the pursuit of objectives convincing themselves that these departments permit people to share concerns about misguided pursuits and have people protect the ‘objective pursuers’. These departments are purposefully set up so people can step OUT of chain of command because they:

(a) do not know who is actually supporting misguided pursuit within the command (i.e., it could be their boss or someone who could make their life miserable), &

(b) if your sense, in looking around, that everyone above in the regular channel has objective blindness & are acting with this misguided tunnel vision you can’t follow chain of command.

I will note that organizational objective blindness runs rampant in bureaucratic organizations where multiple people, with relatively good intent, never see the entire picture. An objective pursuer, and people in general, only hold one piece of the puzzle and assume everyone else is doing what they need to do.

But I will also note this is all bullshit.

In any organization that is set up this way there are a variety of power dynamics which make:

1. 1. 1. The HR department power asymmetrical to the objectives themselves. They may be able to address some relational dynamics but anything truly pursuant to the pursuit of the objective has to be shifted over to the legal people.

      2. The legal department useless with regard to objective blindness. This is where I use Mike Walsh. “Your legal team will never get you to the best ethical decision.”

In other words, while having the responsibility to not be objective blind, these two departments are possibly the two least likely to do anything about objective blindness. The HR department isn’t really sure what exactly is “cricket” (or Hoyle’s rules in all games) and the Legal department has one function – can I actually defend the action/behavior, not, is it the right thing to do.

This is where I state that in a traditional organization (not a distributed decision-making organization) this is why leaders carry the burden of responsibility. IT IS THEIR JOB to set up the rules of how the game is played, parameters of the objective & to ensure objective blindness does not lead to improper decisions and behavior. It is their job to argue with Legal upfront on what may be technically legal and what is not ‘legal’ to the culture. It is their job to get HR in sync with how the game is played and be empowered to actually call ‘foul’ when applicable.

When they fail this responsibility, or worse, they suggest achieving the objective by any means is acceptable, they fail not only their organization they actually fail society because achieving an objective should not cost anyone integrity or dignity. Period.

“A person is a point in the social process rather than a unit in that process. A person is at the same time a social factor and a social product.”

Mary Parker Follett

Objective blindness overlooks the main objective – insuring people’s character and dignity is not sacrificed in the making of business.

Now.

While I have focused in poor leadership with regard to objective blindness until now. At this point I will discuss people and the challenges of just being a person.

Objective blindness actually can occur out of sheer (perceived) survival. What I mean by that is there are only 24 hours in a day, no one wants to work 24/7, not only does the task list ever seem to get shorter, but the list of things trying to get your attention is always getting longer.

There is gobs of research suggesting people, themselves, feel like being immersed in technology is costing people their ability to focus and a feeling they are losing control over their attention. It’s just an overall sense of “too much to (cognitively) handle.  I could bring to bear some research to compete against this feeling, but I will not. The feeling is too pervasive to ignore. This is one of the few times where perception is close enough to reality to actually do something about it.

So. True or not there is a battle going on over our attention (although I would argue that this battle is eternal and has been going on since the dawn of time). Anyway. I would argue the larger issue is not cognitive, but rather a lack of anchoring. What I mean by that is something I wrote years ago in something I called “we are all nomads now.” Attention, or control, is almost always balanced out by some stability or ‘safe place.’ That safe place doesn’t have to be mental but suffice it to say we need, mentally or physically, a safe space or safe time or safe stability in which we feel we have control. It is the deprivation of that safe space, the lack of an anchor, from which I believe our larger feeling of lack of attention and ability to focus arises from. I am not arguing that technology and the internet permits a 24/7 stimulus mechanism, if we permit it, but Life, in general, is and always has been a 24/7 stimulus machinery. If you accept that generalization, then you need to seek another variable from which this feeling arises. Therein lies my premise, an environmental shift in which something as small as the smartphone has disconnected us from some of the stability from which we sense, or have an ability to anchor, clarity and focus.

I cannot lay the entire blame on the smartphone or even technology, but they have certainly created a new environment in which lack of attention and lack of focus thrive.

I say all of this to suggest objective blindness is a compilation of issues.

I say all of this to say “it doesn’t matter.”

Set aside the excuses, objective blindness is a purposeful choice by every individual who falls prey to it. Objective blindness is a purposeful choice by every business. Objective blindness, once you have some experience, is a choice. It is an excuse to get shit done, win at any cost or simply any inexcusable behavior anyone wants to attach to ‘meeting the objective.’ It is a safe haven of excuses in a business world which will forgive anyone and anything if they are pursuing “the objective.”

Maybe that is my point about objective blindness. Objectives are safe havens for a lot of inexcusable behavior. If you become blind to the objective, you become blind to the behavior. So, make a choice. Don’t be objectionably blind.

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

“Laws and principles are not for the times when there is no temptation: they are for such moments as this, when body and soul rise in mutiny against their rigour.

If at my convenience I might break them, what would be their worth?”

Charlotte Brontë

====

“Ideology knows the answer before the question has been asked.

Principles are something different: a set of values that have to be adapted to circumstances but not compromised away.” 

George Packer

====

“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

====

I almost called this “70 million reasons to shelve Purpose in business.”

Yeah. As of today, I call for people to stop talking about business Purpose (or Purpose over Profit) and speak of Principles over Purpose.

I have about 70,000,000+ reasons to say this.

70,000,000+ people is about how many voted for Donald Trump.

70,000,000+ people, and their children, believe business should be led in this way. Or. Maybe said differently. They believe this type of leadership is effective within their world view of business.

it’s a zero-sum game world

playing by the rules is for losers

good people don’t win

do whatever it takes to win attitude

the ends justify the means

hyperbole (lying) is simply optimism in a pessimistic world

destruction, without creation, is a net positive

I am certainly not suggesting all 70,000,000 embrace everything that is Trump, however, fundamentally to vote for Trump you must accept some fundamental things about how to be successful in Life and in business. I will let sociologists deal with Life, I am worried about business.

“The 2016 explanations of Trump’s appeal were based around the theme that a vote for him was a scream of pain, a shout of hear this. OK – but the millions who voted for Trump in 2020 were not just making a protest vote. They were making a positive choice. Trump isn’t just a cipher for people’s frustrations – they actually like the guy. Worse – they think he’s a good president.”

Ian Leslie, The Ruffian: 11/7 edition

Which leads me to the title of this piece – principles over purpose – and the belief business is in, and of, society. I have always a dubious relationship with business Purpose and an even more uneasy relationship with the Purpose over Profit concept. While I applaud the higher calling of Purpose my concern with the business world, at the moment, is more about principles. Because in this time, and this place, people are beginning to believe the way to be successful, in business and in life, is by doing whatever it takes to win, be corrupt, lie, nepotism, lack of dignity and absence of integrity. If business believes they can avoid this trend by simply saying “him, not us”, they are delusional.

Let me touch on Purpose a bit because I envision someone saying to themselves “well, if the organization has a Purpose, that would probably resolve the ethical concerns.” 

No. It would not. In fact, many businesses claim a purpose and use that purpose to be shitbags. Ok. Shitbags that sell things and make money. So their purpose provides affirmation, and meaning, tied to results (and being a shitbag to do so). The people do have meaning, albeit a warped one, but a meaning nonetheless. In fact. I could argue this type of meaning is so easy for 99% of people to grasp, results/achievement/proof based, that, if asked, most people would be quite comfortable with this. It is a quasi-impersonal calculation of meaning which permits people to keep some larger questions about Life, and their true meaning, at arm’s length.

“Our age has found a substitute for God: the impersonal calculation. This new god has turned into an idol to whom all men may be sacrificed. A new concept of the sacred & unquestionable is arising: calculability, probability, factuality.”

Erich Fromm (1968)

Businesswise, this is Purpose without principles. This is winning by playing the game without rules. This is a problem.

I imagine I am suggesting to the Purpose folk you aren’t going to get anywhere with Purpose until you resolve the principle, or lack thereof, issue.

This permits me to circle back to ‘in, and of, Society.’ I do believe how a business embraces its intentions, its principled behavior, bleeds into how people embrace their own intentions outside of work. Work either offers an example to draw from or an excuse to act upon. Therefore, while some may want to use Purpose as a guiding compass, I believe business needs a map – a map of intentions.

Business intentions can get masked by visions or missions, both of the which can play valuable roles, but I believe a business should lay out its intentions.

An intent to act with integrity every day.

An intent to engage with community.

An intent to do what is right, not what just generates results.

An intent to be principled to create, not destroy.

Or, as Mary Parker Follett outlined:

1. 1. 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.

I could argue this is a version of organizational morality <or value beyond profit> which can become a leadership cornerstone within an organization and a leadership cornerstone within societal behavior.

It is true what I am suggesting is a long road to hoe.  Morality and virtue are developed over time <via repeated decisions to choose what is right and to forego what is wrong> which typically means there is no quick fix to any organizational morality problems, nor to societal morality problems. That said. Business, if it elects to take on this responsibility, addresses this challenge because lots of smaller pieces can be redirected in the here and now by business without the consent of people (i.e., it is simply the system of the way business works). It can simply become the way business is done.

Within these intentions the people IN the organization then have a variety of paths they can choose to walk on – and clearly see where undesirable paths do not lie. These intentions don’t constrain, but rather construct. I hesitate to call these principles because, well, they seem simply like intentions. Call them what you may, but they are not Purpose.

“Morality is not the refraining from doing certain things – it is a constructive force”

Mary Parker Follett

In fact. What I am suggesting is a conscious decision to shelve Purpose and focus on the principles of ‘doing’, attitudes and, ultimately, behavior.

Yes.

Principles and principled actions are a tricky topic. Tricky in that while principles ‘are statements denoting fact or generality which are universally or widely considered to be true and fundamental’ they, in fact, have a great range of meaning. ‘Principles’ most often refers to fundamental, basic, propositions of some system or of conduct.

It would be much nicer if we actually referred to ‘principled behavior’ as an axiom. While an axiom is a derivative of ‘principle’ it is more tightly tied to ‘one agreed upon as the basis of truth … a truth so self-evident as to be indisputable’.

Principles, in theory, are an axiom. Unfortunately, in practice; they are more a theorem <a proposition>.

The distinction may feel like dancing on the head of a pin, however, within that distinction resides my belief it is time to set aside Purpose for principles and principled behavior. And, yes, I have 70,000,000+ reasons why.

Look. Here is one thing I know for sure. This is a Life truth.

I am not sure there is a worse feeling than looking back and wishing you had been more principled.

In a business world where sometimes, jobs are tough to get, and keep, setting aside principles to “win in a zero-sum game world’ seems like a fair trade.

Every day we are asked to compromise in some way. Sometimes it is simple ‘tradeoffs’ <do this or do that> and sometimes it is ‘a no good choice’ decisions <all choices are bad … which is least bad> and sometimes it is an actual ‘right versus wrong’ choice.

These are not difficult choices in our minds. These are difficult choices in reality.

You have a job to do, you have accepted responsibility to do that job and everyone around you is counting on you to do that job <and you do not get paid if you do not do your job>.

Yeah.

I am fairly sure some Purpose proponents are going to suggest “if you understand how your decisions/behavior impacts others you will act principally.” Well. I am not so sure. If I am working within the 70,000,000 bucket of people a shitload of them would simply say “if you help us win, no matter how, you have had a positive impact on us.” I will say this. principled behavior echoes through eternity (which includes homes, communities and society). It MAY serve a higher Purpose but at this time, in this place, I believe the business world just needs to focus on principles and principled behavior.

I could argue the #1 issue facing the business world right now isn’t Taylorism, short-termism or even profit, its how business plays the game – how they go about conducting business. In general, every business seems to treat every day like it is a zero-sum game which inevitably zeroes out principles (or at least minimizes them or gives some space to compromise them) and puts people on the slippery slope of ethical fading.

This kind of competitive attitude bleeds out of business and into society. It creates a sense that this is THE way to be successful and if you do not, someone else will.

Business was already teetering on the edge of maybe not complete corruption, but certainly corrupted principles. We look around and see unworthy ‘but-won’ and worthy ‘but-lost’ – inside the companies we work as well as society. In fact. I could argue 70,000,000+ voters are my proof they have seen this and have decided winning is more important than how you win.

That needs to be fixed.

And Purpose, in my mind, is not the answer. It isn’t the answer because the corrupted mindset will only corrupt the true purpose of Purpose. They will simply add it to their already long laundry list of objectives to be completed.

Principles, not Purpose.

That’s the battle at hand.

Just a warning as we enter into this important fray. Principles, while we like to think of them as solid cornerstones, are actually a reflection of a series of actions and choices over time. Work the system, consistently, and culture follows. It’s not like this time you will compromise and the next you will not. In other words. This will not be a one-time choice. It will be an ongoing calculation throughout the entire organization, a decision that must be revisited repeatedly, week after week as new demands and decisions unfold.

If we do this, that same attitude will occur outside the walls of the business.

And, well, society will benefit.

Let me end with maybe the most important thought. I am not sure there is a worse feeling than looking back and wishing you had been more principled. In the moment this can easily be forgotten, but at some point the past catches up with you and, well, your meaning will be defined by how you played the game, not whether you won all the games. People may not grasp this, but business certainly should. And in this time, and in this place, at least 70,000,000 people are willing to believe being principled is an obstacle to success. That is a problem. I just don’t believe Purpose solves the problem at hand.

Ponder.

=======

“We believe we are issuing executive orders, whilst most of the time we are actually engaged in hastily constructing plausible post rationalisations to explain decisions taken somewhere else, for reasons we don’t understand”

Rory Sutherland

 << ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 10, 2016 and PAINFUL REMINDER >>

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

“There is an ancient Greek legend about harpies,” she told me. “They are shadows that can come to life only if they drink human blood.

The life of a scholar is the life of a shadow. When one participates in making the future happen, even a small part of the future—and this is what politics is about—that is when one who was a shadow can come to life.

But for that, one has to drink blood, including one’s own.”

=======

“I am not one and simple, but complex and many”

Virginia Woolf

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

Ok. I am tired of talking about the presidential election. Shit. I was tired of the election itself before it ended. But I have been asked so many times about the result I am going to roll out one last final enlightened conflict thought on the election because yesterday I was mostly discussing the global repercussions, security/financial/nationalism, of the election choice.

I will begin with 62,984,828 popular votes. That is how many Trump received <give or take>.

That is 19.5% of the total US population <321,418,820>.

That is 25% of the total adult US population <247,813,910>.

That is about 31% of the total registered voter US population <a little over 200 million I believe>.

<just a note: about 72,000,000 votes, 29% of the adult population, actually did not vote for Trump>

Yeah. A minority just chose the most powerful position in the world. A minority just put possibly the most incompetent unqualified person to the most powerful position in the world.

But, most importantly, a majority did nothing to stop this from happening.

This is not an ‘anti-establishment movement.’

This is not a ‘reestablishment of conservative values.’

Nor is this a rejection of current policies.

This is nothing more than a large indifference to involvement with a sliver minority voice being pissed enough to push one candidate over the finish line.

Ah. That ‘sliver voice.’

Trump won Pennsylvania <+68,236>, Michigan <+11,837> and Wisconsin <+27,257> by 107,330 votes. Ironically … that is almost the same as the capacity seating for Michigan Stadium the home of the Michigan Wolverines.

Florida and North Carolina by less than 200,000 each.

With voter turnout so low <historically low in America compared to other democracies> the actual ‘difference’ is relatively easy to identify.

Trump’s campaign fully admitted that they had “major voter suppression operations” all with the overall intent to create and encourage a sense of disillusionment <whether it is truly fact or fiction> thereby encouraging an overall lack of enthusiasm to show up at all. Their campaign created one of the most negative ‘hollow of policy’ public discussions of all time.

And.

Well.

It worked.

Despite the fact that 87% of Congress was up for reelection and there were a number of state by state initiatives which will have a direct effect on the people living there and the fact the least qualified candidate of all time was in position to take the most powerful position in the free world … only one significant voting block segment really showed up <Latinos showed up, but represented too small a segment to overcome a significantly larger white voting block>.

White rural Americans.

Life, just as in this election, is filled with winners and losers. And no one likes to lose. And, to me, that is what this election revolved around. Rural America and working white people feeling like losers or they are losing … even when we all know they are not losers and many of them really are not losing <even though we most likely do not publicly verbalize that enough>.

Ah. But this all feeds into a perilous topic … white people and their identity.

Far too often when this topic comes up it is cloaked in white supremacy or simple racism … in this case it is not. In fact many people have researched some of the isolation populist thinking working its way through the Western world and consistently identify ‘a crisis of white identity’ as a common thread.

In this case it is more revolving around what does it mean to be part of this country, what is my role and what is ‘our nation anymore’ as well as “what should this nation be”.

As for identity … experts typically define it in two categories –

• “achieved” identity derived from personal effort
• “ascribed” identity based on innate characteristics.

Jessica Nagy

I bring that up to make the point that this election was not an indicator, for the most part, of any real pain, but rather of perceived pain and identity.

Please do not read that as any indication I am diminishing areas that have lost jobs and lost opportunities. I am simply making the point that, in general, lives are lived in relative comfort, people have jobs <even if they may not be the ones they really want>, the economy is growing and culturally we are as open as any country in the world. I am simply pointing out that many white people feel like it should be better than it is <even though what is ain’t that bad>. Therefore, if they feel like their role in the nation’s achievements is diminishing <perception wise>, they believe that it would be better if they had a larger voice.

I have purposefully worded it this way, as I did yesterday to a consulting firm, because this is not racism — this is ‘doing and fixing’ at its core. It is achieving and ascribing.

White rural people, hard working Americans, believe they offer the solutions to achieve as well as they ascribe themselves to the solutions. And you know what? The other 25% of non whites who voted for Trump most likely also would throw their achieving & ascribing hats into the same ring.

We cannot get around the fact that older white people were the reason Trump will be our next president.

We cannot ignore the truth that a portion of that older white people segment are racist and xenophobes.

But we cannot ignore the larger truth that this segment believes their white identity, as achievers & ascribers, actually reflects a larger identity of what makes America great.

And, on that? They are correct.

Anyway.

Hillary did not lose the other night.

Working class America did not win the other night.

White identity did not win the other night.

America lost the other night.

I am not suggesting having Hillary Clinton as our president would have been a resounding win for America all I am suggesting is that Trump, an asshat incompetent narcissist who I am hoping with my deepest hopes will actually rise to the occasion, is a resounding loss for America. And our citizenry lack of involvement and how we have elected to voice any displeasure we may have with the status quo was a losing tactic.

Lastly. I do have a piece of advice to the politicians who are now forced to work with Trump <and, on a side note, this drew some chuckles as I stated this yesterday>.

Trump is not a Republican nor is he a Democrat, nor is he a thinker, he is a tactical doer <with an eye toward how those tactics “look”>.

That means <part 1> … you would be foolish to believe that there is now a “dictate for Republican ideology as spoken by the people” and start believing you have a president who will ‘do shit’ <and, as note earlier, only 24% of adults ‘mandated’ that>. You may get some of the stuff done you want, but only if it meets the Trump “doer” filter.

That means <part 2> … well … those of us in the business management world are quite familiar with the incompetent ego driven leader focused on doing shit. They aren’t smart enough or skilled enough to recognize the true ‘good doing’ versus the ‘not-so-good’ doing. Their natural instinct is to just do. You would be foolish to try and block the doing. It is wasted energy <and I have the scars to prove it>. You have to learn to maximize the good and minimize the bad.

All that said. With an incompetent ego-driven leader in charge America will have some wins and some losses as he forges ahead with doing shit. It would be foolish of us to assume we are destined for the shithole. We will be forced to do shit and manage the shit he starts making us do. Frankly … the success of America resides less on Trump than it does on the people surrounding him. I have worked with shithole leaders before who surrounded themselves with good people who herded the leader’s doing stupidity into meaningful pastures of profitable use of time, energy and resources.

As I told someone yesterday, there will be costs <protectionism comes with an expense> and there will be profits <doing inevitably creates something>. There will be winners and there will be losers <both of which are yet to be identified>.

Sigh.

I am done with writing about Trump until he does his next anti-American buffoonish maneuver.

What I do know, for sure, being a business guy, what this election has done is permit me to see the problem to be solved. That is what a business leader dreams of.

The worst problem is the one you cannot see.

We can now see this one – identity (real or ascribed). Trump is not the leader to solve it … yea … he may make some decisions that will help business (most likely at the expense of morals), but he has no clue on how to solve the dividing thoughts of America and Americans. His role in this tragic comedy was to give voice to it.

It is now up to others to see it and solve it.

I end as I opened … when one participates in making the future happen, even a small part of the future that is when one who was a shadow can come to life. But for that, one has to drink blood, including one’s own.”

Participate in the future.

Remember.

That I was yesterday, this I am today and what I will be tomorrow is up to me.

“Education would be so much more effective if its purpose were to ensure that by the time they leave school every boy and girl should know how much they don’t know, and be imbued with a lifelong desire to know it.”
—

Sir William Haley

===========

Remember when you had recess with that funky soft rubbery ball you kicked around and played a random version of kicking type baseball. Or maybe used that same ball to bounce it in that four square thing (which looking back on how could you ever suck at that game?).

Or maybe you did nothing just hanging out with your friends talking about the new video game or games or whatever.

Well. No more my friends.  The world of school for young people has changed fairly significantly as we adults go nuts over “preparing our children for the future.” Its not only technology and “creating digital natives” but the ‘culture of doing’ <kind of a warped nurturing Taylorism”> has entered into childhood. I was reminded of this as i scanned an old NY Times piece: “Forget Goofing Around, Recess has a New Boss.”

They (someone in their infinite wisdom) has decided there will be no more sitting around, goofing off with friends or simply doing nothing and, in general, they are reining in recess because they believed it was breeding bullying and behavioral problems. Apparently schools were getting concerned because students left to their own devices during recess “ran into one another while playing, squabbled over balls and jump ropes or monopolized the blacktop while exiling their classmates to the sideline.”

(lions and tigers and bears  … oh my)

So. Now we are paying a “recess coach” who organizes games and activities so there is a more regimented recess.

Ok. Before I say something really stupid and probably wildly inappropriate I am gonna take a deep breath.

(breath)

(deeper breath)

Ok. This is fucking stupid.

I guess the interesting part to me is that this action is the epitome of what Clotaire Rapaille pointed out in his study on Culture Codes as the essence of America’s ‘code’ which is one of “doing.”  It is a belief we Americans are only happy when we are doing. And, yes, America is a little maniacally unique on this.

In many other countries when they get free time they relax.

In America when we get free time we look to fill it up with something on our ‘want to do’ list (because we, as a country, never have enough time to do all the things we want to do).

Now. This was an unhealthy culture code when viewed as an adult thing (leading to a variety of other issues like stress, burnout, imposter syndrome, drugs, fast food, anxiety and, well, whatever else you’d like to add). Doing, in and of itself, certainly has some positive attitudinal aspects but we Americans have a nasty tendency to attach “efficiency” to whatever doing we do.

That is an adulthood issue we have yet to resolve. But now that we are trying to inject into our children’s lives that it is not okay to have any down time, well, that seems kinda nuts. In addition, so this also starts feeding into their little minds that they cannot manage their own time and always have to have someone do it for them.

Oh. And it also starts teaching them that they will always be protected from bullies in their lives.

Oh. And it also teaches them that they will never be relegated to the sidelines.

Oh. And it also teaches them that squabbling over balls doesn’t teach them anything.

Oh. And, well, I will stop here.

This is nuts. This is stupid. This is teaching our kids the wrong things. In fact it isn’t teaching our kids diddly shit about life. Ok. It IS teaching them something about Life and it is the wrong thing. It teaches them that efficient doing is all that matters and begins sucking out all the creativity and imagination and all the inefficient things random play brings to Life. It makes my head explode that someone, far smarter than I, ignores the long term consequences of stupid decisions like this.

I have written ad nausea with regard to how business bleeds into society and how business needs to accept that responsibility. On the other hand, society (and educations systems) need to stop applying bad business lessons into kid’s lives. Simply because business looks structured as a way to be productive does not mean that being structured is THE way to be productive. Just because business has unhealthily embraced Taylorism does not mean that Taylorism is THE way to not only being productive but how to bring up our children.

Recess coaches. WTF.

What’s next? Nap time Neurological testing? Crazy stuff.

“When I talk to audiences about the size and age of the cosmos, people often say “it makes me feel so insignificant, I answer,” the bigger and more impersonal the universe is, the more meaningful you are, because in this vast, impersonal place needs something significant to fill it up.” We’ve abandoned the old belief that humanity is at the physical center of the universe but must come back to believing we are at the centre of meaning.”

Alan Dressler, astronomer

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

In and of society. To me an individual of business is also of the community and society just as an individual in business is also in the community and society. An individual fulfilled at work is more likely to offer something fulfilling to the community and society. Order begets order and just begets justness and good begets good. By shaping a fairer, more creative and more productive business one begets a fairer, more creative and more productive society.

—

“Business is, and should be considered, truly a social agency.”

Mary Parker Follett

—

A business person should think of their work as one of the necessary functions of society, aware that other people are also performing necessary functions, and that all together these make a sound, healthy, useful community and society.

I would argue it not only makes business more interesting, but a job more interesting if one acknowledges it contributes to the culture of the world it interacts with.

A business should think of their work, and their business, as one of the necessary functions of society, aware that other businesses are also performing necessary functions, and that all together they make a sound, healthy, useful community and society.

An emergent conceptual organizational model, to meet the needs of what I call the Conceptual Age of business, almost demands being in, and of, society. It demands the convergence, and connection, between individual meaning, business vision, community health and engagement with the greater society (world).

If a business does not, they will act upon emergent opportunities solely in a self-interest way, in other words, they become a mercenary. I’d remind everyone there are no old mercenaries relaxing with grandchildren telling stories how they made the world better.

That said. Ultimately, an emergent conceptual organization is dependent upon maximizing human potential which also is a reflection, and recognition, that work, what one does to earn a living, is inextricably linked to being in, and of, society — structured in a better way to get the best out of people & resources as well as be a better citizen within the society in which it exists.

—

“A person is a point in the social process rather than a unit in that process. A person is at the same time a social factor and a social product.”

Mary Parker Follett

—

My issue with most ‘human-centric’ business discussions resides in the fact they appear to center on productivity within the 4-wall-construct of a business and not see themselves as any version of a producer of a social product. The truth is productivity is actually contingent upon people within, and with out, the constructs of the physical building. Humans have a symbiotic relationship between the business, society, community and, yes, the environment. It was first Follett who pointed this out and Drucker put a sharper point on that thought by pointing out a business cannot be successful within a sick society.

People, at least in a business, need to be productive, but to find meaning that productivity needs to meet two main objectives:

• • • It should tap into one’s potential (unleashing potential rather than extracting skill)

    • It should offer a benefit to someone other than the person doing it.

This isn’t about Purpose or some grand vision. This is simpler. This is a simple decision to believe that a business is part of the weave of society, community and the world and that everything the business, and its people, do matters not only to the business but everything & everyone it touches. That running a profitable business is not mutually exclusive from running an equitable business – equitable to people.

This is more about shared vision than it is any purpose, cause or social responsibility (shared vision diagram). Far too many businesses are under the illusion that their organization is aligned around not only ‘values’ but some shared objective. Typically, that shared objective is some tangible measured goal and, like a machine (or well trained team), the organization is striving to attain it. That is not vision, that is a warped leadership version of gamification. It is an attempt to even out uneven people. Instead a business should share a vision, embrace progress and connect all activity with behavior people can be proud of within their home, within their community as well as within their business.

If society, and business, is truly at a crossroads, or a liminal moment in time, what does the future business model look like? How does a successful business act, and conduct itself, to thrive in the future? Those are ‘big’ questions with no clear answers, yet, I have offered an emergent business model wherein everyone can prosper, show progress and optimize their potential which maps out a clear path for a business wanting to go on a quest for a better business and a better world.

Let me remind everyone of The Malthusian Trap: humans reproduce geometrically and resources reproduce arithmetically. Technology, robots, infrastructure/capital are resources, humans are not. Period.

The business model of the future, of course, will incorporate all aspects of technology, but if a business wants multiplicative results, they should be using technology to augment humans, not replace them.

I am not proposing HOW to do this change, but rather maybe what to aim for. How to do it can be debated by smarter minds than I, in fact, Frank Thun outlined the dilemma quite simply in this piece on adopting self management’.

“Theory is good; but it doesn’t prevent things from existing.”

Jean-Martin Charcot

Theory is good, but the future of the corporation demands some actions now. organizations will need to encourage individuality and individual freedom in the business decision making because it will also encourage individuals grounded in a vision based on character, virtue & organizational integrity. That, by the way, creates business resilience to ward off Creative Destruction.

note: I set aside Culture as a topic for now because I tend to believe if an organization embraces the most potential uncovering process, systems and principles a great culture will emerge (and as long as you maintain the process, systems and principles the culture will propagate itself).  I do believe ‘culture’ is possibly valuable infrastructure elements of a business for value creation. That said, of course, there is a synergy between algorithms, data, processes, systems and humans that make up culture (its lazy to simply say culture is people).

I am not a ‘purpose driven business’ fan mostly because I believe purpose is found in an outcome & doing, not based on an objective. I’m extremely cynical about organizational purpose because far too often some nebulous Purpose is used to justify less-than-dignified, non-collaborative, behavior in the pursuit of it. In other words, Purpose, in and of itself, is not moral or principled, simply another objective. I believe if a business embraces mobility, autonomy, objectivity & velocity within a framework in which the business itself is of, and within, society I imagine they will achieve some purpose without even having a specific purpose in mind. In fact. I imagine if a business strives toward being a Conceptual Age organization, they will find that the greater purpose narrative is met – the purpose of business is to benefit people. In other words, usefulness is a Halo Effect (if you succeed at being useful you not only generate $ but also enhance meaning).

An organization, no matter how far down any “digital transformation” (or any technology transformation vector) is, at the end of the day, no more or no less than people serving people. Technology may enable this service in some form or fashion but, as I have said too many times to count, technology is nothing without people using it. Technology can enhance the Conceptual Age organization, it can enable a Conceptual Age organization, it can even augment human conceptual emergence, but, in the end, the conceptual age is about people doing things for other people.

Let me end with where I began – Toffler.

I will not debate at this time, in this place, and in the foreseeable future, there are not distinct issues and distinct questions to answer. But just as Toffler stated in 1965, 55 years ago, any society which is progressing will always be in this situation – it is simply a matter of degrees. I fear in positioning what is happening today as a unique situation it will not only mislead people (which creates attitudinal issues) but most likely creates some misguided thinking.  By treating this as unique we increase the likelihood that everything needs to be thrown out and everything becomes a zero-based plan. And some things may deserve that type of scenario thinking – but not everything. For example. I dislike the concept of ‘reskill’ for a number of reasons but let me highlight 2:

• It is demeaning to people who have invested years of training & experience who sees value in what they know & do that they need to be ‘reskilled’, in combination with,
• I would bet if you asked 100 workers you are viewing as needing ‘reskilling’, 99 of them will respond “you don’t even use let alone maximize all the skills I have now.”

The business world has underutilized individual potential for decades. In fact. I would suggest the waste of human potential is immense. It seems like now would be a good time to not change people (and their skills), but rather maximize people and their potential. I think it’s absurd to suggest coal miners become coders. But you know what? They can certainly redirect their skills to building infrastructure and redirect their extraction skills to assist in injecting things back into the environment (renovate parks, environmental improvements, etc.). This, in my words, is substantive productivity – productivity which offers meaning to the individual, the business and the society.

Substantive productivity,  purpose & doing is more important than intangibles and is where Management, who typically views productivity as efficiency not effectiveness (& people as efficiency parts) or “stripped productivity”, redirects its focus on being in and of society.

This creates a version of organizational morality <or value beyond profit> and it becomes a leadership cornerstone within an organization.

In the end.

I am suggesting a better business creates a better society. People spend a significant part of their lives working and that work establishes, as an adult, how they view how the ‘game of life is played.’ When business is dysfunctional or misaligned from ‘better’ values/ethics/behavior (playing fair, how you treat others, rewarded for good work, appreciated for potential not task achievement, progress over results, etc.) it creates a discord in how one views how community/society SHOULD behave. It creates a sensemaking (what makes sense in the world) dissonance and destroys the commonalities (a word Daniel Schmachtenberger uses) which offer some agreed upon beliefs and behaviors. When sensemaking falls part or becomes blurry choice making often steps on the slippery slope of moral compromise. I bring all of this up because business, like it or not, is often not only the model for how things work but the glue to societal attitudes.

I am suggesting business should assume its responsibility to society.

I am not suggesting removing the human element, in fact, this business model elevates people BY using data & technology to augment the people enhancing curiosity, collaboration and empathy.

This new business model success is dependent upon some degree, if not total, distributed decision-making (which can be collaborative as well as driving knowledge to teams working together) more so than simply a structure in which humans working together is enhanced. Some of what I am suggesting suggests that digital transformation is a simplistic misguided concept in that it suggests building an infrastructure then making people use it (maximizing the digital construct) rather than what should be done – morph a digital construct around people to augment and enhance their imaginative/productivity potential (maximizing people) to the benefit of the business AND society.

I am suggesting business assume its responsibility to people, all people, not just its customers or employees.

I will end where I began. Many of these issues have always been in existence they just come to life in different forms and rather than suggest it is ‘disruption’ we view it as ‘healthy progress’ – “on and of society” is no different.

A new generation of thinkers will have to decide what they will do with all the thoughts Follett, Goldratt, McLuhan, Drucker and Toffler offered us decades ago. Technology will play a significant role, but it will end up being impossible to turn our back on people working together because, inevitably, it will be people, and people working together, which will redefine society and business.