transient assertions:

they are true today, but may not have been true yesterday or may not be true tomorrow

=======

My weakness, professionally, is the lack of any specific ‘hard’ skill. To be clear. I am fairly sure my ‘soft skills’ are not a strength. Regardless. That hard skill weakness makes my biggest professional vulnerability, well, stability. What I mean by that is a specific hard skill gains importance the more replicable or consistent a context is. What I also means by that is in order to facilitate my own professional survival I had to embrace progress or some version of consistent contextual change <facilitate organizational/brand/business continuous improvement>. It also meant not only embracing ‘transient assertions’, but figure out how to articulate the value of transient assertions.

Now. This does not mean everything changes. I have also said, and still do, that the best organizations typically run on parallel, but interconnected, paths – consistency/replicable and emergent/improvement.

But if you don’t have a specific skill to hang your hat on you need (blue to emphasize) to move upstream in a business. If you do, and you are really worth a shit, you’ll find your thinking, whether purposeful or not, has scraps of the larger company identity/strategy/vision underpinnings in it no matter how downstream you go once up that stream. This has a mutual benefit of imbuing the more tactical with the more strategic <or mission oriented> and imbuing the vision with some more pragmatic aspects. You become more able in linking scraps of skills with scraps of vision slowly but surely positioning yourself as a tapestry maker, or, a transient assertionist (I made that term up). The truly interesting aspect of this professional thought is that if you are any good you find you not only start sneaking into other conversations and other departments, but you are even welcomed or asked to. In addition, you will also find that “non asked for business building ideas” are more about company things then any brand things (but brands would benefit).

So, regardless of your actual ‘skill’ you just become comfortable wandering into the business of doing business.

That said.

I do think it matters what someone has done from a practical experience when doing a job. I struggle to think of an industry, department or function I have not interacted with professionally. I have worked with retail, CPG, services, franchises, multi-unit, global with local needs, technology startups and almost any business configuration imaginable. But, maybe more importantly, I have used all those experiences as Edward de Bono suggested, through lateral thinking to transfer appropriate learnings from one to another to create successful, distinct initiatives, ideas and improvements <value creation>.

I do think it matters what someone has done from a practical experience when doing a job. I have either worked in or directly managed Direct Marketing, Media, Ad agency Account Management, Creative process, brand planning, brand strategy, strategic planning (business consulting), social media, organizational behavior, digital planning, behavioral dynamics, etc. and as a result am quite familiar with how to guide thinking to practical output to results.  Heck. I have taught and implemented strategic planning, managed an advertising agency and, in general, have been able to elevate a variety of businesses to new points of distinction in competitive environments.

*** note: Points of distinction. Let me be specific.  It would be easy for someone to suggest a supermarket is a supermarket, an enzyme is an enzyme, a motor oil is a motor oil, a bank is a bank or whatever you would like to add. I used those because I have direct experience on those, as well as a variety of commodity-like industries, and I do not agree. A person has to understand how to identify the underlying components that create the distinctness of any business, often the subtle little things, and bring them to life in a way that will resonate with people and, ultimately, create some connection. I imagine I am suggesting connection and distinction have a looped relationship and one cannot exist without the other if you seek create value.

All of what you have just read may seem, uhm, restless. Well. It is.

But despite all the restlessness I have just highlighted there is a core consistency – principled thinking and principled application. While I believe if a business, and initiative, is not moving it will not survive, I also believe “continuous movement” demands embedding strategy in every tactic and tactical thinking within a strategy and embedding the organizational vision into every strategy. Maybe better said, mastering transient assertions to the benefit of the long-term business.

Anyway.

Here is the one thing I am consistent on. I believe every business, every product, every service, every initiative, has something worth telling a story about. If you are in business and do not believe that you should be in a different career. I also believe if you can stand up and tell a story with your knowledge, or what you know, all your restlessness can create value. What I mean by that is I could stand in front of accounting, ops, sales, customer service, a board … and tell a story (usually in a cascading dialogue – here is situation, here is what someone says first, the response, what some thinks, what some says, etc.) and thru the dialogue story cemented some credibility, offered some solutions/words thru the story dialogue and made the strategic point.

Stories even some things out which is helpful because restlessness tends to create some unevenness or asymmetry. That last point is important because growth just by its natural properties creates imbalances AND the business world <as well as the world writ large> encourages us to believe things should be tidy. Unfortunately, people are inherently untidy irrational things, improvement is rarely tidy and stories tend to tidy some things up.

Look.

Restless consistency is valuable because I believe business, in general, is a constant tug of war between freedom and focus.

It’s a little bit easier to have this tug of war if you have established business/brand heuristics because then in the debate you can lean in on them to gain some flexibility elsewhere.

But.

Large businesses worry so much about challengers (& are defensive rather than offensive) so they tend to conservatively hunker down on what they are afraid to lose rather than focus on what they could gain. It creates an inherent focus, but also stagnancy & lets others play in the “hey, I am interesting” zone.

Small businesses are scared about standing for nothing. They have had it pounded into their heads that the path to success is “stand for one thing.”  This creates a tightrope for any strategist in that they have to be able to articulate core focus as an incredibly solid lily pad while suggesting some freedom aspects and a “let’s follow what works” plan of action.

And new companies? Yikes. I just think new businesses have less margin for error and with business inherently attracted to ‘evenness’ & consistency (the list of reasons of why span from political to managing upwards to budgeting to articulation/looking smart) and, if you aren’t resilient and diligent, the arc of activity will always go to ‘one thing well’ not ‘restless consistency.’

Look.

Business itself is restless. Consistently restless.

Business itself is a transient assertion. Consistently transient.

I imagine my point is you have a couple of choices with regard to your career.

First. Hunker down and master a skill on the consistent part <and hope the transient part of business doesn’t kill that particular consistency>.

Second. Hunker down on restless learning and get good at applying that learning against the transient part.

I will not tell you which is better because, well, both offer value to a business and, yet, both do not offer any guarantee of business success. All I know is that in hunting and in business, a moving target is more difficult to hit so restless consistency may make your survival probabilities increase. Just think about it.

====

“All men dream: but not equally.

Those who dream in the dark recesses of the night awake in the day to find all was vanity.

But the dreamers of day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, and make it possible.”

T.E. Lawrence

———–

“On stormy nights they both dreamt intensively, violently – they often drowned.”

Heat and Light by Ellen Van Neerven

====

“What use is idealism when the ideals are false ones?”

Byron

====

Hope, optimism, dreaming, even idealism, seems out of vogue these days. “Be realistic,” “nothing is going to change” is the war cry of the general masses or, at minimum, the cynical few. This is the real crisis we face. For the truth is more often than we like to admit our idealistic visions and dreams actually come to fruition, in some form or fashion, in the real world. and what that means is less idealism and less dreaming creates a reduced chance of real progress.

I will say its weird, at least to me, in that how we view people, who is essential and who will be valued <not the same>, is often also the way we view some idealistic thinking and dreams. Ideals and dreams are essential and of value <although not all are created equal>. Now. I am going to focus on business, but the lessons within are also ones of society too. Just ponder it all as you read along.

It was Mary Parker Follett who discussed, in Community is a Process, idealism and realism meeting “in the actual.”

The actual is complex. Shit. “Actual” could simply be complexity itself. Business demands navigating complexity BY AND THROUGH a combination of idealism and realism. We can talk about sensemaking and choice making and embracing uncertainty, but the weapons we wield as we wander through complexity is idealism and realism. Sure. We also focus on greed and profit when the truth is the motives of business are numerous and complex. We want profit and yet we work for self-development, working together, service, completion, progress, esteem, craftsmanship, creation, etc. This is another extrapolation of Mary Parker Follett’s “law of the situation” where each situation has its own order and own complex mix of motives. Idealism, realism and ‘in the actual’ are all part of the weave of complexity of which any group of people working together as well as any individual ‘doing’ will interact with their own weave of motives. Simply saying it is ‘greed’ or ‘just a paycheck’ is lazy. Work is more complex and people are more complex and even the connection between idealism and realism is complex.

And maybe that is why I now suggest an ideology of incrementalism is fraught with peril. While on the positive side it offers potential consistent positive progress on the downside it can be representative of putting off important things until it’s too late to do anything about them. Incrementalism is the worst of both idealism and realism. It sacrifices the best of both while promising the best of nothing.

“The remarkable monotony of the proposed solutions throughout our recorded history testifies to the elemental simplicity of the matter. Generally speaking, they always amount to seeking shelter from action’s calamities in an activity where one man, isolated from all others, remains master of his doings from beginning to end”

Hannah Arendt

Ok. I believe every business has an ambition. In fact. I believe every business has different ambitions all at the same time – money, morals, size, Purpose, etc. that ambition can come in any size but it will always own some combination of idealism and realism. That specials sauce combination is theirs and they hope to attain it or aspire to reach it. it is their ‘hope’ of what can be.

To me.

All hope to me should be grounded in some sense of idealism and reality.

I, frankly, don’t understand when people suggest you cannot have both.

I, frankly, don’t understand when people suggest you cannot have both idealism and realism.

I, frankly, don’t understand when people suggest you shouldn’t have aspects of both hope & pragmatism, possibilities and pragmatism and idealism & realism.

We should want both AND demand both. It is reaching for the stars and reaching realistically. It is keeping your feet in the clouds and, yet, head on the ground.

But that’s how I think.

I think you can be both idealistic and realistic.

I think it is possible to offer a sense of a difficult path forward without creating a larger sense of ‘doom or Armageddon’ to create the sense of urgency which we often deem necessary in order to inspire real action.

And, inevitably, that is what this is all about.

How to inspire people not just to inspire, but to take action?

How to inspire larger ideas and larger actions and the smaller steps inbetween?

This is a tightrope all business people walk.

The difficulty on this tightrope is that there will always be people debating, and criticizing, while you walk on this tight rope. They will argue whether the ambition is big enough. They will argue whether the ambition isn’t small enough. They will argue we need more radical change. They will argue we need less radical change. Shit. They will argue we need no change moving forward, but rather reverse some of the changes made.

And you know what?

Some of that, in all of that, is right. Some of the past is awful and some of the decisions we will make for the future, and in the future, will be awful. Conversely, some of all of that will, well, not be awful.

To suggest that there are easy answers or that the steps forward are clear and simple is stupid. Stupid and foolish.

Just to be clear. Within the “Idealism and Realism” debate can be found the constructive decision which any leader tries to find their own course in leading. We debate all of this shit in our own heads and then we debate it in conference rooms and boardrooms every week. This debate, simplistically, are the doubts that reside between idealism and realism.

We are responsible for past decisions and, yet, try to unburden ourselves so that we can make progress.

Simplistically, just because I <maybe> made an awful decision in the past doesn’t mean I will make an awful decision in the future.

Simplistically, just because I maybe offer a hopeful idealistic decision for the future doesn’t mean it is a realistic decision for now.

Simplistically, just because I try and slow everybody down on some idealistic discussion shouldn’t suggest I am any more ‘canny or wise’ than everybody else let alone the person who offers the idealistic hope that people may gravitate toward — it just suggests that maybe I am trying to balance it all with reality <and maybe incorporate the fact that, pragmatically, I would like to incorporate some possibilities for people today & tomorrow>.

I will suggest, no, I will tell you the harsh truth getting good shit done within ANY size ambition is hard.

Getting shit done means balancing overreach and under reach.

Balancing possibilities and pragmatism.

Balancing idealism and realism.

Balancing the practical and the hope.

Balancing what people think they want and what they need.

Balancing the majority and the minority.

Balancing what is good for one and good for all.

Anything less than that is oversimplification.

Oh. Shit. And then there is context. One can never lose sight of context.

You have to balance the idea, the hopefulness of ‘what could be’, against pragmatically where you have been <what has happened if not what has just happened> as well as where you are.

It is incredibly simplistic to suggest any past decision should be compared to a decision you will make. Just as it would be incredibly simplistic to judge a business leader if they were to take over a large company which was truly heading into a shithole versus a company which had some problems but was, in general, businesswise healthy.

Every transition has its own singular issues. Every situation has its own singular issues. Every business has its own singular issues. And, let’s be clear, every one of those situations has singular problems.

We should all recognize that in the overall life cycle of business problems and opportunities, practical and possibilities, hope & despair, heroes & villains, will appear in different forms – all with the intent to either further our ambitions or steal our ambitions and crush our ideals.

This is not cynical, this is … uhm … reality.

I would suggest reality is navigating idealism and reality mostly by assessing the problems, or obstacles, to your ambition.

Harping on whatever those problems are doesn’t really get you anywhere.

They are what they are.

I could also argue that arguing over idealistic ideas and vision without admitting some pragmatic realism doesn’t really get you anywhere. It is not a binary discussion nor are pragmatism and possibilities, idealism and practical, mutually exclusive.

====

“Idealism increases in direct proportion to one’s distance from the problem.”

John Galsworthy

===

Look. We all hate cynicism, but far too often we confuse it with pragmatism and practicality. I would also suggest we all get tired of pragmatism because, well, far too often it sounds small. But I would also point out that we all not only get tired, but absolutely unequivocally hate, unrealized idealism. “Large” unrealized equals zero, nothing, nada. People don’t like a zero, nothing, nada no matter how large the zero, nothing, nada is.

Neither option, looked upon in isolation, is attractive or likeable.

And you know what? We all know in our heads this is a tightrope. We sit down and assess what we have, assess what we could have, assess resources, money, whatever, and figures out, pragmatically, how to get going doing the business of doing business – that desires to attain that ambition.

We may not always get it right and we may not always get done whatever is needed to get done to alleviate the problems, or all the problems, that exist in the here and now. But I would point out that, realistically, you can never alleviate all problems and that problems exist, contextually, no matter if you are idealist or realist, pragmatist or a ‘possibilities driven’, hope or practical person. The only constant is that problems existed to be addressed, exist to address and will exist to address all to eventually be solved ONLY if both idealism & pragmatism and possibilities & the practical are embraced.

Not accepting that as a business truth is foolish.

Not accepting that as a business truth is, in fact, lazy thinking.

Any business ambition demands both idealism and pragmatism. The idealism is the spark of possibilities and imagination while the realism stops you from simply being a ‘dreamer’ or wasting resources tilting at windmills.

Maybe, just maybe, we should be sitting back and thinking about how you can both be idealistic and realistic.

In the end.

I hate almost all binaries but choosing between realism and idealism is the most distasteful to me.

Every business deserves both idealism & realism, possibilities & pragmatism and grander hopes of individual significance. Every business deserves to think, and believe, it can matter – in its family, neighborhood, community, city, state, country or global. Whatever their ‘mattering ambition’ is they deserve the intrinsic motivation found in that ambition – while grounded in some realism.

Once again, let me say, maybe, just maybe, we should stop embracing just idealism, or just realism, and see that optimizing the combination is the path to optimizing the future. And while I typically dislike optimizing (it often feels like compromising) maybe, just maybe, in this case, we should all go into the optimizing “in the actual” through idealism, realism and dreaming. Ponder.

===

“Behind each door of what-if lies an unanswerable question that unhinges an infinite Rube Goldberg machine of probabilities.”
Maria Popova

===

“With respect to the requirement of art, the probable impossible is always preferable to the improbable possible.”
Aristotle

===

Far before Nassim Taleb published Fooled by Randomness or Antifragile I learned the lesson of the pragmatic relationship with probabilities. In the 1980’s I managed the Valvoline Motor Oil advertising and grassroots business. This included motorsports which will make sense why I point out a bit later.

Anyway.

In the good old days, we didn’t speak of probabilities, we would sit down and pragmatically think about the likelihood of shit happening – both good shit and bad shit. And, yeah, most times when probabilities are being discussed these days “crisis” is tossed around.

Let me be clear. Crisis is never good. That said. There is certainly bad crisis, i.e., “the bottom has dropped out from under our feet and we are 5,000 feet up”, but then there is also good crisis, i.e., “holy shit, they loved it and we have an order for a 1,000,000 sock puppets but we only have a 1000 capability sock puppet manufacturing capacity.” Both are certainly a crisis just that one focuses on survivable and the other on thriveable.

So let me get back to pragmatic probabilities.

Survive

Sometimes you take some chances. Chances, in marketing, usually circle around aggressiveness, i.e., how aggressive do I want to go to market. Needless to say, a testosterone-driven business like motor oil can be quite aggressive in their attitude. Motor oil can appear to be a commodity category but in reality, is it is just ‘commodity-like.’ What I mean by that is there are some nuanced differences between motor oil production and you can create some fairly vivid demonstrations to amplify some fairly small differences <albeit I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that sometimes small differences in car performance can equate to big consequences on vehicle lifetime as well as current optimization>. Valvoline had an opportunity. They had done some comparative testing and found a performance difference. Creatively we had attached a visual which amplified that difference to create a vivid metaphor which had a Valvoline semi-truck pass all the competitors’ trucks going up a hill while the voiceover walked people through the difference. The combination of words and visual were a compelling communication that Valvoline surpassed everyone else <the close was also “#1 choice of car mechanics”>. It was pretty simple and pretty powerful. And pretty much suggested the competitors were shit in comparison. Valvoline loved it and it was a defendable claim with research. This is where probabilities enter onto the discussion. The discussion revolved around “what is the likelihood a competitor challenges and we receive a cease & desist.” The conversation quickly concluded “extremely high probability” <our guess was someone would pull their own research to make our research look a bit murky in its claim>. Now. We also assessed a likelihood we would win or lose <because we had support>. This probability was a bit more hazy. Oh. And whether we actually cared if we won or lost <that was a bit less hazy>. But this entire likelihood/probability discussion led to producing an entirely different execution saying almost exactly the same thing, but with a different visual to have in our hip pocket. The initial competitive execution ran for one month in high rotation, competitors went ballistic, brand awareness & preference went thru the roof, market share increased, and we quietly pulled it off air right before we had to get into an extended fight legally and ran the non-controversial execution. My point here is that a pragmatic discussion revolving around probabilities helped us develop a plan of action of which we created a potential crisis and, yet, averted it at exactly the same time.

Thrive

Motorsports is a tricky sport. In something like NASCAR, you can win only 2 races an entire season and yet still win a championship. That said. IndyCar, NASCAR, any professional circuit, if you are a main sponsor, winning is good. Here is where probabilities and marketing cross paths. Inevitably all marketing groups have to hash out how to apply limited resources against all marketing opportunities <not just motorsports>. So, at the beginning of a season, you attempt to build programs to maintain positive awareness and optimize positive awareness opportunities, i.e., when you win or figure out some vivid demonstration of your product positioning. Depending on the quality of your sponsored team, if you look at individual races each probability of a win can seem fairly minuscule particularly as you assess all marketing dollars available to you. But then when you sit back and say “likelihood of a win at least once in a season”, well, all of a sudden people around the table sit up a little and apply a higher likelihood <I know that’s not the way statistic/probabilities works but this is a pragmatic business probabilities discussion>. As soon as you reach this point in the conversation, of probability accepted, then everything circles around “how do we optimize the opportunity.” In other words, you move into ‘thrive’ mode and a win crisis <and, yes, when someone wins it is always a scramble no matter how well you prepare> it is not “oh shit”, but rather “let’s go.”

This is actually optimizing a low probability opportunity or, let’s try, the inverse pragmatic relationship with probability <not building to probability but rather to little probability with high return>.

Oh. About “win at least once in a season.” Yeah. “A” win. Someone will always say “no one will care you won A race.” That’s silly out-of-touch thinking. If even for one moment I can get some people to think “hey, they are a winner” I have already enhanced my brand value <directly & indirectly>. The value of a ‘win’ to the light user or new entry into the category is invaluable. The value of reminding any customer you are a winner is never bad. So, the importance of amplifying a win, correctly, when you have limited resources <who doesn’t> is, well, important. I am sure I could make a probability point on this also if I was smart enough, but I am not.

In the end.

I imagine my larger point on this is probabilities get discussed pragmatically all the time. We don’t need to be statistics nerds or run simulations or even delve into scenario planning. What we need to do is run through survive and thrive situations and make sure we have a plan because neither situation is something you want to screw up. Ponder.

—

“Sometimes one just gets tired of fleeing.

The world’s very small when you don’t have anywhere to go.”

Carlos Ruiz Zafon

———

Fujhi, poudes; escapa, non.

<flee, you may; escape, you cannot.>

——————

So. Meta and the metaverse is now upon us.
Let’s be clear. The main lure of the ‘metaverse’ will be escapism – escape from decisions, reality, uncertainty. People seem to increasingly seek to throw up their hands and step back as they increasingly feel like the world is in more turmoil than ever (it’s not, that’s perception, not reality). And in doing so more people will increasingly seek escapism – from accountability in business decision-making as well as accountability for dealing with Life. So let’s maybe call the Metaverse a fleeing destination.

But. “Fujhi, poudes; escapa, non <flee, you may; escape, you cannot>.” I say that because in today’s world fleeing anything, in life or business, is tough. While it may seem like a great big expansive world, the shit that we have a tendency to flee either has some special ray gun that shrinks the world or it is so much faster than we are that it can appear before us no matter where we flee.

Which leads me to fleeing the stuff that matters.

There’s a lot of navel-gazing these days. I mention navel gazing because I often think navel gazing is simply a version of fleeing. It often constitutes too many conversations about things that don’t matter and not enough about things that do, in other words, fleeing the shit that matters. The metaverse now offers us an opportunity to step into some alternative universe where the stuff that really matters just doesn’t exist. Id be remiss if I didn’t point out that isn’t reality – it’s a metaverse; a fake reality.

What the metaverse, at its worst, offers is an escape when time should be spent spending precious attention, energy, and innovative idea skills solving meaningful problems in the reality.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t engage in thoughtful circumspective dialogue about shit, but the shit we discuss should be the shit that matters.

It often feels like we flee the stuff that matters only to run toward the shit that doesn’t. I get frustrated because it often feels like we flee the hard stuff and use the easy stuff as an easy target. I mostly get frustrated because even if someone does this … well … escapa, non.  You cannot flee. You cannot escape the stuff that matters. The metaverse does not slow down stuff that matters while you escape, in fact, I would imagine it keeps going so when you come back from the metaverse it has all just gained more velocity or more power.

I imagine the next aspect of stuff that matters is decision-making. Its not a big stretch to think that people will use the metaverse to pose questions and seek answers. Kind of like a high technology version of dashboard decision-making. What I mean by this is that business, and life, will only get more complex therefore decisions will become a bit more elusive AND businesses will be most likely encouraging more autonomy. In order to flee increased personal decision making responsibilities within seemingly unsolvable situations, we will use the metaverse to play out scenarios and use it to make decisions. To be clear. Scenario thinking or contextual thinking is good – to inform decisions and choices, not make them. What will happen is far too many people in escaping the work of choicemaking will use metaverse to make sense of things only to find that Reality is a different version of Metaverse and the decision will always be slightly off or misguided. I imagine I am suggesting the stuff that matters in the metaverse will never be exactly what the stuff that matters in reality is.

Ponder.

Which leads me to perception versus reality.

Well. If you are on Facebook or watch any of the 24/7 news channels, you would be relatively sure Armageddon was upon us. Apparently, everyone you have a different opinion with is evil and intent on destroying the world. Algorithms purposefully drive us to the extreme messaging and every headline suggests we are more stressed, more overwhelmed, more depressed, and, well, more of everything bad.

Its not that people become imprisoned by fear, but rather people just decide they cannot cope with all the forces swirling around the world. Reality becomes not just a bummer, but un-navigable.

Let me be clear on this one, fleeing something or ‘things’ <in today’s world> or even ‘reality’ is a common thought for the common person. Its not that we seek to avoid accountability or responsibility, but rather we seek to avoid the, well, lack of boundaries. What I mean by that is reality used to have some boundaries, not so much these days. Raise your hand if you have a smartphone <about 80% of you between 12 and 54 just raised your hand>. Over 90% of us have some handheld technology which permits texting, calling, scrolling, or emailing on a whim. Huge changes in technology and in society in recent years have blurred many of the old, familiar, reassuring boundaries.

Uhm.

Without boundaries where does one flee?

Where does work stop and life begin?

Where does my time stop and your time begin?

In less turbulent times the boundaries were very clear. And this is where the “metaverse” enters into the discussion. In the metaverse I can not only avoid reality, but I can actually craft the boundaries in my imaginary universe.  This is dangerous. These boundaries are actually some aura shell around “metaself”. By the way, no one can see this boundary but yourself – this means you are screwed.

You may think with this invisible force field around you that you may be able to flee the things swirling around you … uhm … escapa, non.  “The things” are better and faster and more resilient and, well, more <as in sheer quantity> than you. Fleeing simply means you will get smothered from behind. You may as well stand there and face ‘things’ and strengthen your own personal boundaries. You can never escape things, but you certainly can deflect things if you stand there and see them coming.

Which leads me to fleeing yourself.

——–

“People are running, running, but there is no place in the world to which they can flee to escape themselves. Ultimately, each one must face himself. “

Paramahansa Yogananda

——–

While I do worry that this metaverse will encourage people to flee reality, I worry a bit more that it will become some false haven to flee yourself. What I mean by that is in the metaverse you can, conceptually, create the “perfect version you seek” in yourself – as a person and in some context. It is not difficult to see people running to the metaverse as it almost seems like today’s world, reality as it were, the self help people and the advertising and the futuristic blowhards, encourages us to think there is something wrong with us. That we aren’t ‘enough’ or passionate or focused or … well … we are lacking in some form or fashion.

Add in the fact that today’s complex issues facing us have no clear right or wrong answers and Life has become a contentious blend of flexible and inflexible boundaries.  Because of that individuals and societies will try to organize all their own personal chaos with boundaries with some intent to keep out all the external chaos. Here is where the Metaverse gets tricky. Whatever ‘metaself’ you create within this Meta universe actually means you will inevitably have to face yourself … uhm … the same self that society & all the expert shit is suggesting doesn’t have its shit together. I imagine what I am suggesting is in Reality or in Metaverse at some point you will create a boundary and reflect upon what is “inside” that boundary. In other words, escapa, non. Whether inside some finite space boundary or wandering aimlessly outside the boundary in some seemingly infinite space, fleeing yourself just doesn’t work. Mostly because where you are, well, you are there. Now. This is what the metaverse promises you – a different place to be where you are. This is a Faustian bargain with reality.

We may not always like what we see when we look in the mirror, but I can guarantee one thing – external critics will ALWAYS find something they don’t like. Fuck ‘em. Don’t flee them just ignore them. And don’t flee yourself, just remember that perfection is mostly found in glorious imperfections.

Don’t flee your imperfections, they make you who you are. And don’t flee to the Metaverse to flee yourself because, inevitably, reality holds all the mirrors.

Look.

I see the potential for good with the metaverse – conceptual thinking, spatial thinking, contextual thinking – opportunities abound to help hone thinking – for Life as well in business. Where my concern resides is most likely with Meta, itself, and how the world is currently arcing – increased ambiguity with perceptions skewed by loud voices suggesting Armageddon. That combination creates a scenario in which even if the metaverse were Utopia, there would be a bunch of doors available for escapism and a bunch of asshats writing algorithms and such encouraging you to go thru those doors.

As Jaron Lanier said: “no matter how petty a flaw might be in utopia, that flaw will be where the full fury of the power seeking will be focused.”

In the end. You cannot escape whatever you are fleeing.

Period.

No debate.

Doesn’t matter what it is or where you are.

Mainly because whatever you think you are fleeing doesn’t reside only in the place you are running from. Those things you elect to flee are the things that most often live in a variety of different places and spaces.

In other words, the world is a very small place when you have no place to go. I say that to suggest even by building an alternative universe, a Metaverse, doesn’t make reality go away. It is there. It exists. And it awaits your return. And, for the most part, it will do anything in its power to remind you reality is reality and the Metaverse is the Metaverse. Ponder, but, escapa non.

====

cesiumadventures:

i just have this persistent feeling of “i’m not doing enough” combined with “i don’t have the energy to do anything” and it just really fucking sucks

====

“Many people are busy trying to find better ways of doing things that should not have to be done at all. There is no progress in merely finding a better way to do a useless thing.”
Source: Ford News
11/15/1922

====

Ever get the feeling you are doing a lot of ‘somethings’ and, yet, you look around and it sometimes looks like nothing? I tend to believe a lot of people feel some version of this. I have a stack of unanswered emails to people I really would like to respond to and, yet, I always have something to do. I rarely have an open minute, by my choice and I like it that way, but some of those minutes mean not doing something else. And therein lies ‘nothing.’ Nothing IS something. It resides in the choices left behind. I am doing nothing with all these emails and people who I genuinely like and conversations I genuinely would like to have and, yet, I have done nothing with them. They are something and what I have done is something and have created nothing in doing so. This may sound convoluted and slightly absurd, and it should.

It is indicative of the slightly warped pretzel logic we place to justify our productivity madness.

It is indicative of something generally happening in work.

Work never stops, we never stop, other people never stop, there are no stop signs, and yet with all this ‘not stopping’ productivity and productive performance has, well, stopped. Okay. Not stopped, but certainly hasn’t matched the amount of non-stoppedness it appears business is doing. I imagine I could say a bunch of things here but I would suggest the nonstop world costs us some creativity and absolutely costs us some critical thinking.

We are paddling so hard we can’t see where we are going or if we are even making any meaningful progress. It’s not like people aren’t trying to give is more advice on how to actually be productive because if you go to Amazon there are something like 100,000 books telling us how we can achieve more. If you don’t want to read, just pick one of the 1000’s of apps you can download onto your already nonstop 24/7 smartphone internet feed. The ‘hustle culture’ (and economy) is more a hamster wheel than hustle. While any ideal business progress trip should be one in which you reach some far-reaching destination, in today’s world it is just a circular treadmill encased in a cage.

This worship of productivity comes at the expense of everything else. It’s kind of like purposefully implementing mediocrity. Now. Within the productivity ideology they can’t see the mediocrity because their scale is biased – they don’t see the sacrifice; they see the achievements. They don’t see lost outcome possibilities; they see pragmatic outcome gains. This self-defeating behavior means a bunch of people are doing a lot of somethings all the while doing some nothings. There is no ebb and flow of imagination or creativity, it is all directed toward the God of Productivity. This God wields metrics of productivity to measure output and achievements, but also, we as human beings.

Look.

I don’t really need to share some research to be able to say, generally speaking, most workers are overworked <this can be time driven or task drive> which, generally speaking, lessens job performance, hence, productivity. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that technology adds on an additional burden to individual productivity stress – we also now compete against automation, AI and algorithms. We fight against the system and technology – in other words “the black box against us.”

Which leads me to the battle between more and zero sum.

More.

Growth, scale, expansion, higher, all are synonyms for “more.” Business is obsessed with more. If you did something yesterday, tomorrow can only be better if there is more than yesterday. It’s absurd and unhealthy. Let me use the business buzzword of the day, Transformation, to point out even that is never really about becoming better; it is always about producing “more faster” (better is a pleasant addition if it happens). ‘More’ simply begets an obsession with continuous output and THAT obsession arcs toward the worst of Taylorism in which Lillian Gilbreth-ism trumps Follett-ism.

The models of work are rewarded if they generate more regardless of whether it is true progress or not.

The models of work get rewarded if they generate more regardless of whether it is meaningful or not (because meaningful means ‘meet outcome objective.’

The models of work get rewarded if they generate more if they can simply be well oiled, or fine-tuned with more oil, thereby supporting the concept of human machinery.

But maybe even worse than treating people like machines is how business treats their work. I will talk about “achievement attitude” under zero sum, but suffice it to say that if achievements are all people truly get measured on <which feeds into what a person will identify as value and meaning> and More is always yelling in your mind, well, all you will focus on is more achievements – quantity not quality. “More” is a horrible corrosive productivity concept. “More” is actually a horrible corrosive concept for the world <invest some time reading Limits of Growth; Meadows/Meadows>.

Zero sum.

I am not sure, but it’s possible “more” could have worked okay in the models of work if we weren’t simultaneously stuck in a zero-sum mindset. In that mindset universe ‘more’ comes at the expense of someone else and, worse, if someone is getting “more” that means less for you.

It’s corrosive thinking and, paradoxically, reductive in nature. The pendulum in society has swung all the way over to achievement is all that matters. In fact, we are in a society where the Value of a person seems to be either driven solely by their outcomes/results or weighted so heavily by the outcomes/results that the ‘effort portion’ has minuscule value.

That’s … well … uhm … bad. Bad for individual meaning. Bad for society. Bad for Life lessons. Just bad.

It is bad because that means many people will ignore the price they will pay to achieve the outcome because the outcome, in and of itself, will contain all the value.

Yeah.

Think about that.

Taken to an extreme that would mean the attempt has zero value and trying and failing has zero, if not negative, value.

Ok.

That is bad.

======

“But he did not understand the price.

Mortals never do.

They only see the prize, their heart’s desire, their dream … but the price of getting what you want, is getting what you once wanted.”

Neil Gaiman

=====

Which leads me to how zero-sum plays a role. That achievement attitude becomes even worse, for society, because it also suggests “what are we willing to do to get what we want” is a zero sum game.

What do I mean?

Well.

You are willing to do anything it takes to get what you want <the achievement>.

The hell with rules … they are for people who don’t value achievement enough.

The hell with guardrails and guidelines … they are for people who are scared to do what it takes.

This attitude cleverly steals away freedom of choice in that it suggests the only choice is the one that ensures achievement.

“Measures of productivity do not lead to improvement in productivity.”

W. Edwards Deming; Out of Crisis

This attitude strips choices of anything truly worthwhile like dignity and respect and humanity because all of those things are not criteria for what is the ultimate value – the result or outcome. Productivity is inextricably tied to achievement which also suggests productivity that does not attain some objective achievement has little or no value. It’s a horrible way of thinking that actually equates productivity with gamification theory. Horrible.

I say all this because zero sum belief sucks the oxygen out of meaningful ‘doing’, or productivity, by sucking out the true freedom to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances and to choose one’s own way in doing things. There is no freedom because only one type of productivity is deemed the winner and anyone not achieving that is a loser.

In the end.

Some people suggest we need to prioritize new ideas rather than productivity. I am not so sure. I think we should be prioritizing meaningful progress – for both individual and the business. While this version of progress is not attached to any direction or quantity of things, it does accommodate productivity <which I believe if it isn’t worshiped can be a valuable aspect of value creation and meaning>. I would suggest the future is actually not about more, nor less, nor any quantity. But. I am not suggesting a business doesn’t have to sell some ‘quantity’ in order to sustain itself, it’s just that any quantity becomes a result of a focus on progress where doing something means something. This thought also suggests the future isn’t going to be solved by working smarter, but rather a smarter way of working. I would also suggest the current way of working is not a logical result of centuries of logical reasoned thinking about how work should be done, but rather a battle between ideas on a way to work. That last thought becomes a semi-important thought because it suggests we don’t need a new way of doing business, or a new way of thinking, or even some magical transformation, but instead we should be seeking out the ideas that exist and maybe lost a key battle here or there. It is not about a fundamental shift, but rather a revisit to the fundamentals. In doing so we change the concept of productivity and progress in business and that begets a shift in systems, policies and practices. Ponder.

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

“Even the smallest person can change the course of the future.”

J.R.R Tolkien

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

“And though she be but little, she is fierce.”

William Shakespeare

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

Ok. This is about business and business leadership. Now. this one is gonna be a bit tricky because I am going to use words like ‘above’ when it comes to leadership. I believe once you read all the way thru you’ll get a better sense of what I mean but let me just say that I believe at any given point, on any specific project, anyone is capable of leading. For today I am speaking more of those who typically ‘guide’ a business – those types of leaders. The ones who don’t speak of alignment <demanding people align behind them> but rather coherence <people aligned toward a vision>. Let me also add I think it is silly to not talk about leaders as being ‘different’ <leadership of groups of people is a certain type of skill> and even sillier to not talk about leadership skills <I believe it is always good to highlight some healthy principles>.

Anyway.

Leading is a big job. It carries big responsibilities and big burdens. You have to be big enough in some way <skills, character, smarts, etc.> to stay above the organization and employees. And I say “above” because part of leading is being able to see above the heads of everyone so that you can lead and align and step in when and where appropriate.  Above is not dominance, per se, just that you maintain a dominant-sight position from which you can most effectively and efficiently lead.

Now. Here is what any good leader knows, you don’t have to be big to, well, be big.  Heck. You don’t even have to act ‘big.’

In addition. A good leader can leave the comfort of the ‘throne’, i.e., the trappings of the ‘bigness’ –the natural ‘dominance’ power-dynamics bullshit that comes with a title — and still remain above even when stepping down or away from all those things.

However. Not everyone is an effective leader. And not every leader is particularly good at navigating the natural doubts <am I doing the right thing, am I doing the best thing, am I doing the thing I should be doing, etc.> that come along with being a leader. By the way, any good/sane leader has some doubts on occasion. It keeps them grounded.

Regardless. As a corollary to that ‘leadership is a big job’, that that means is there will inevitably be business people who fear looking small. And they protect their illusions of ‘bigness’, or being bigly, mainly in several ways:

• • They diminish everyone they can in the attempt to make others as small as they can so that they look bigger no matter the comparison

  • They find a ‘safe space’ in which they place their metaphorical throne and make everyone come to them <this is kind of like the boss who purposefully has their desk built slightly higher and the chairs facing the desk slightly lower to insure they maintain a physical dominant position>

  • They avoid, as much as possible, one-on-one interactions with anyone their own size <unless they can control the environment>

  • They ground themselves in platitudes under the guise of “flexibility & adaptability” so they can avoid having to defend anything specific with anyone who could diminish their bigness

It is not difficult to look around and see reminders of ineffective leadership style and the characteristics of insecure leadership. Simplistically, the number one characteristic of insecure leadership is the inability to walk among and still stay ‘above’. Insecure leaders are extremely hesitant, if not completely resistant, to leaving their ‘dominant position.’

Let me explain ‘dominant position’ because it can sound bad <and it is mainly meant to express a position of authority but for today its is to metaphorically offer a vivid demonstration>. A CEO or a president is clearly in a dominant position by title and by responsibility and, in many cases, by some larger skill that got them to where they are. A true ‘dominant position’ <let’s call it “authority” to guide> combines all aspects.  Therefore the ‘good’ person in the dominant position combines substance and style <or science and art>. And this is where insecurity steps in, because if this person has any true doubts with regard to their ‘dominant position’ – mostly doubts on their substance — they start exhibiting some insecure characteristics. Simultaneously, they will dial up their style aspects to cloak any substance deficiencies and become excruciatingly careful with regard to how they interact with other people.

Let me explain.

This is where the underbelly of ‘dominance’ rears its ugly head.

“They need to come to me” <thereby establishing some aspect of subservience and feeds the sense of ‘dominant position’>. And it is not a one-off. And they do it .. every .. frickin’ … day. They never truly “go among the people” nor do they unite by inserting themselves into any opposing groups <people who may not agree> opening up to say “let me be part of what you want.”  This person’s entire leadership style is driven by an insecurity of ‘dominant position’ perceptions and they fear ‘stepping down’ from that position for fear it will expose the fact they are not really ‘above’ anyone other than in title.

In other words, they fear looking small.

And therein lies the larger lesson.

Good leaders don’t become smaller when they among people or go to people rather than make people go to them. They know there are no ‘little people’, but rather only big responsibilities of which everyone has but they fear smallness.

Little people are little wherever they go or even if they sit in the corner office. Unfortunately for us a little leader knows this, uhm, and doesn’t know this. What I mean by that is they can sense their littleness therefore they go out of their way to stay within whatever cocoon of ‘bigness trappings’ to encourage the belief they have that they are actually big. And, yet, they don’t know this because they tend to have an oversized view of themselves <”should come to me” attitude>. They see themselves through a fairly warped view of self-relevance: “everyone else becomes more relevant by being around me therefore they become bigger in my bigness.” And that partially outlines their main fear. Loss of relevance.  Anyone who becomes more relevant than them is a danger. Loss of power, the illusion of or real, is the danger. Littleness is the danger they fear.

What that all means is that an insecure leader more often than not lives in a mentality in which everyone is treated as if they should be subservient.

Let me be clear.

No sane business leader <in this generation> has this attitude.

You cannot.

You cannot because you know many of the people working for you are actually smarter than you and a shitload more just may know something you do not know.

You cannot because oftentimes your peers, who actually report to you, may actually be better than you at some things.

You cannot because you know that good people never want to feel subservient, but rather want to feel being a key part of overall success.

Most of those who lead have learned these things not by attempting to learn to be ‘above’, but rather by learning how to lead. And you learn that mostly by getting into ‘the game’ and realizing you can play anywhere at any time. I know that I took an advertising job as a young newly promoted VP in NYC not out of any desire to be the best, but because I was curious. I was curious to see if I could “play in the NYC advertising game.” I didn’t need to be the best nor did I desire to dominate. I just wanted to see if I could play. I can tell you that once you become comfortable with knowing you can play at the biggest level and the lowest level you have a fighting chance to become a leader.

Look. We all have numerous character flaws and it is a sad truth the majority of us can’t see them. This is even more difficult in a leadership position because you do naturally become more self-aware of any of the things you are good at and yet also not good at, but you also lean heavily on the things you ‘perceive’ got you where you are today. We have a tendency to arc our behavior toward some of the wrong things. We are aware, but do some wrong things with the right intentions.

I say that because insecure leaders are relatively hollow on the self-awareness which leads to ‘wrong intention leadership.’

Here is what I know.

Big leaders are big leaders. And they are big because wherever they go they retain their bigness. That means they need not ‘stay above’ to be big. They can be among people, sit in town halls answering questions from real people as well as sit down with people who didn’t ask for you to become the C-whatever as well as sit down with peers and discuss ideas — and walk away just as big as they entered the room.

Small leaders cannot do those things, therefore, they do not.

I have now given you a way to judge big leaders from small leaders. I say judge away. Every leader should be judged, and judged harshly, because … well … they are leaders and that is their burden.

====

“… ignorance will persist in the face of masses of information however complete and correct.

It persists even in the face of the meritorious efforts that are being made to go beyond presenting information and to teach the use of it by means of lectures, classes, discussion groups. Results are not zero. But they are small. People cannot be carried up the ladder.

Thus, the typical citizen drops down to a lower level of mental performance.”

Joseph Schumpeter on Democracy

====

I talk about emergence and agility a lot. In fact, I sometimes believe I talk about it so much people think I don’t believe in any replication and standardization. Today I’d like to resolve any misunderstandings. If we are honest, all of us, successful business is in the replicating business. Replication is the foundation upon which all profitability and execution effectiveness resides upon and it isn’t the place where the typical employee drops down to a lower level of mental performance.

That said. Let me begin with what I believe is obvious. I think we often forget to acknowledge much of what business experiences happen serendipitously <or as a consequence of some unseen action in the past> and temporarily <albeit that temporariness could span just a moment or some longer finite timeframe>.

Sometimes these timeframes don’t have clear-cut beginnings and endings.

Sometimes they run parallel.

Sometimes they overlap.

Sometimes they randomly interconnect.

Sometimes we plan for them, sometimes we develop plans to address them and sometimes they develop sight unseen by factors outside our control <and we have no plan>.

I often believe it is useful to think of a business, and its systems, as an accumulation of different timeframe events/happenings. I believe if we did so we would be a little less rigid, a little less linear in thinking <about execution and alignment>, a bit less certain of system resilience and, consequently, have a bit more agility.

That may sound like an odd way to discussing replication, but this is the context in which replication thrives.

Replication often gets spoken of as ‘standardization’ or some version of rote behavior or even best practice, solid immoveable things, instead I believe we should speak of replication as coherent activity continuously in use. Kind of the steady pulse of organizational productivity showing up not just in repeatable actions, but seen in repeatable patterns of system usage of resources <often driven by consistent execution>.

Which leads me to replication of data.

While some gurus would suggest data is the oil that makes this non-machine work, I will not. I will broaden data to information and I will also suggest replicating information is the key to not only ongoing success, productivity, improvement as well as agility.

But let me talk about data for a minute.

Big data, small data, right sized data, we have always had more information than we have known what to do with in business. That’s I find most ‘big data’ discussions annoying.

Yes. I buy the fact that with today’s technology I can get better, more granular information <and sweeping trend like information at the same time> than ever before.

No. I don’t think we are significantly better at using whatever data, and information, than we were in the past.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know there are TedTalks and presentations from very articulate dynamic speakers espousing the coming generation of ‘big data.’ I would ask everyone to note a couple of things when these people stand up and pontificate about the potential of ‘big data’ and showcase how it has actually been used:

—

Their examples are often <most often> anomalies to everyday business.

—

The information is brilliant, the usefulness is less than pragmatic

—

Don’t get me wrong, data used well is valuable. I am simply suggesting we love the concept of data so much we are bedazzled with gathering it, but more often have no clue what to do with the data <or misuse it>.

This is where replication comes in. I encourage everyone to think about data a little differently. Think of the fact that Data is actually the result of someone doing things over and over again through connections with other people. Maybe think of it as a massive research program of ‘one-on-one interviews’ <not just of people but with resources, machines, etc., i.e., the system itself can be interviewed> that provides some quantitative and qualitative pattern/coherence information to think about. And, as with any research, when you compile the interviews, you can very easily lose sight of the fact that each data point represents real people who dedicated their real attention at some particular identifiable moment. But if you look at data that way, well, you realize that opportunities can be seen as clusters of people acting in a coherent/connected fashion over a period of time. I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out everything I just said is replication.

That said. Most importantly <and possibly what all those ‘big data experts’ fail to see> is that all these data points reflect WHAT SOMEONE HAS CHOSEN TO PAY ATTENTION TO.

—————–

“Attention is the most important currency that anybody can give you, it’s worth more than money, possessions or things.”

Steve Rubel

———–

Replicated information describes the ability to see what people pay attention to on an ongoing basis.

** note: this can be both good and bad, but what it does suggest is if you want to understand why something happens, you seek where people pay attention. Conversely, if you want to change behavior, or effect it, find out how to have attention <not mandated> directed toward something.

Yeah. My point is do not disregard data as a means to examine connections and what people pay attention to. I would also be remiss if I didn’t point out that the ‘data’ I just highlighted is simply one part of ‘information’ that decisions makers and business has access to.

Which leads me to information.

Information is the lifeblood of business. Possibly the most infamous legend supporting this is Rothschild and Waterloo and a carrier pigeon. Basically, Rothschild knew Wellington won at Waterloo faster than competition and took advantage in the market. The details of the legend are clearly not true, but the lesson is certainly true. Information used wisely benefits the user of that information. There is another part of this lesson – patterns. The entire Rothschild family, as they traveled, took meticulous notes with regard to what they observed and shared – persistently and consistently. I bring that latter point up to note ‘dimensionality’ <situational awareness spans entire compass> matters.

So let me talk about information, not data, and ‘replicating information.’

Let me explain. Business are persistent patterns of things – behavior, attitude and creation. all of which are undergirded by information. In order to maintain its ‘persistency’ it must maintain a steady flow of information, i.e., replicate flows of information. Now. This does not mean ‘the same information’, it simply means replicating whatever information is necessary, within the given time horizon and context, to enable the persistent pattern of things. I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that this information enables people to make decisions and do things in the service, or in relationship to, other groups of people. Information elevates the value of interactions and connectivity. In a nutshell that’s the business of replicating business and that’s the value of replicating information.

Organizations will only grow, or progress, if information is constantly injected (and learned from) within employees (and, yes, machine learning is not ‘of people’ but conceptually the same idea runs true).

Which leads to what information shows – patterns.

Patterns are a reflection of process or systems or behavior. They are codes for something you need to pay attention to. They sometimes narrow our view, and attention, away from whole systems view which, pragmatically speaking, may often help in decision-making <and often it’s okay because the value of the business is embedded within patterns.

In fact, it’s quite possible a business should manage to the Patterns and not the People

Managers manage what they can see. Connection decision makers make decisions on what they can see.

Better information, and data, certainly gives a business a chance to leverage connections. However, ‘seeing’, in good decision making, needs to expand beyond the moment itself and incorporate some larger patterns and consequence recognition (not just causal).

One of the key challenges to this thought is many managers are hesitant to accept how little information/knowledge is needed before someone can actually make a useful decision in the moment.

** note: this is a reflection that early decision-making experiences errs toward seeking too much certainty but experience drives decisionmakers to lean in on probabilities rather than certainty (I call this optimal certainty).

That said. Pattern recognition offers a couple of key benefits:

• Faster Reflexes: As a more agile organization culture, the company has an ability to blend into the marketplace (versus rigid institutions unable to flex). Technology has changed the way organizations should act because it has changed how the world interacts – the way we shop and consume. It creates new opportunities and destroys businesses that are unable to adapt to a sudden discontinuity with our past.
• Decision maker confidence. Face the fact that while everyone says they want to make decisions, a decision, in & of itself, can create some anxiety to a less practiced decision maker. Patterns offer some certainty, more so than a specific data point or ‘rule’, to a connection decision maker.

————–

“The Internet aggregates the actual brand experience, it discloses and amplifies the mismatch between companies and their customers, which can be seriously disrupted.”

Susan Baker, Cranfield School of Management

———————

While everything I have noted is under the meta ‘organizational benefit of pattern recognition’ umbrella, at a mesa level the benefit resides in how quickly a business can apply the appropriate replicable skills against or toward the patterns. The point here is replication, well applied, i.e., right time/right place, increases business velocity of pattern opportunities.

Anyway. We should treat data, and patterns, like mirrors, in which a decision maker gets not just information they need when they need it, but rather the pattern in order to assign the best decision to the connection need.

What this permits is not a causal problem-solution response, but instead a grander future-fit response in which consequences, some foreseen and some unforeseen, cascade away from each decision. This is sometimes called ‘knowledge management.’ Toffler referred to “knowledge management,” as becoming clear that viewing a company’s knowledge as something separate from its employees is impossible. Our growing understanding of social networks and organization network value creation should make us think more about patterns within patterns. What I mean by that is an organization itself has patterns (pacing, teams, informal hierarchies, etc.) which an organization should seek to nest within an external pattern if it would like to sinc up and optimize the opportunities.  I would argue that establishing a pattern recognition system maximizes the information as a living breathing thing altered by its use. In addition, not only does it maximize individual opportunities, but it also helps leverage real employee/people’s interactions to spot larger trends AND also helps identify internal experts throughout an organization so that you can better merge skills/strengths against future needs. All that said, the ability to replicate information and data undergirds not only the usefulness of data/information, but makes it easier to use.

Look. Replication is actually a dance, not marching. And even then, the natural order of replicable things is that it can fit a lot <that’s what makes it useful>, but not perfectly. It’s not optimal, but can be quite useful. It’s the core of organizational efficacy.

To make my point mass production of data, any information in fact, is less than optimal let’s go to mass retail. It’s like buying clothes at a chain retail store versus a tailor. Any large clothing retail chain store will give you something that looks nice, but likely will not fit you perfectly <its crafted for the average> while the tailor will fit you perfectly.

Similarly, data efficacy gets effected by algorithms <in a sneaky way>. Data compilation algorithms are designed inside-out. What I mean by that is they are shaped to scan information, craft that information into useful data and then is told to shape it in ‘useable ways.’ That is mass production of information. It will fit okay, often look good, but its lack of preciseness to the individual ‘buying it’ gives some room for poor buying choices. And maybe that is my big ask to the technology people, the software/AI designers, to start shaping things that work best for us and do not enable the worst of us (worst can simply be ‘default to simplistic’ to make a decision).

** note: I should also point out AI, designed with efficiency as an objective, will naturally skew data shaping away from efficacy, or even effectiveness, and toward efficiency.

All of this to say that consistent, and coherent, information that can be provided in a consistent fashion is the lifeblood of useful replication. Why do I say that? Information is tools. Period. All these tools create a landscape upon which we navigate our decisions, choices, selves and business. and while its easy to say having a hammer when you need a screwdriver is the flaw of replication, I would suggest there is a reason a hammer is in every toolbox.

In the end.

While its easy to suggest innovation is the lifeblood of a business, its really not. innovation, or continuous improvement, certainly enhances the likelihood of future survival, but it is its replication strengths & abilities that makes sure a business survives and is survivable <if not thriveable> through chaotic dynamic situations, and offers the pathway to consistent profitability <which, looping back, funds innovations and people>. In other words, success is often found in the business of replicating business.

=====

“It is the predicament of mankind that man can perceive the problematique, yet, despite his considerable knowledge and skills, he does not understand the origins, significance, and interrelationships of its many components and thus is unable

to devise effective responses. This failure occurs in large part because we continue to examine single items in the problemarique without understanding that the whole is more than the sum of its parts, that change in one element means change in the others.”

Limits of Growth, Meadows

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

“Once we believe in ourselves, we can risk curiosity, wonder, spontaneous delight, or any experience that reveals the human spirit.”

e.e. cummings

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

“I’m a slave to my hatred of boredom.”

F. Scott Fitzgerald

——————-

There is a difference between smart and smarter. That may sound obvious but I think it is important in this discussion.

In most of the world progress, or being smart, is defined by some outcome or achievement, i.e., what did you do today. In other words, output.  Smarter, on the other hand, is an input progress. What did I learn today that made me just a bit smarter? Input. Smarter often doesn’t have any immediate ‘output’ consequence just a nice intrinsic consequence, i.e., I am a bit smarter. My point is lots of smart people do smart stuff and produce a lot of smart things, but generally speaking, their output can only either (a) offer stable consistent value or (b) diminishing value. In other words, there is little lift in future value. They have specialized their craft <hence, ‘smart’>, tied it to output <execution well done> and will pound that particular smart nail into whatever wood you put in front of them. to be clear, once again, this has value.

Smarter is more focused on ‘better today than I was yesterday and better tomorrow than I am today.” It has less emphasis on doing and execution and more emphasis on learning.

That said. Smarter is actually about hard work. Smarter requires more than a surface ‘this is what I think’ tweet popular vote. If we really want to do what needs to be done to maximize meaning, we have to hunker down and work hard. Work hard in that we need to reassemble the present (knowledge) & rethink things by using all aspects including economic thought and philosophy and the past … all of which means dealing with ambiguity and contradiction.

And, yes, that is hard work. But it is the kind of work that hones the smarter insightfulness we need.

Instead of dumbing things down we need to be raising the level of general understanding to the level of complexity of a business which inevitably will lead a business to a higher level of ‘smartness’ which leads to a higher level of organizational efficacy <internally and externally>.

And while you may balk at something like ‘smarter’ as too far reaching, suffice it to say, we just need to be smarter, less ignorant, more enlightened <open to additional thoughts> and more involved in the difficult and uncertain work of demystification of business impact <and objectives> beyond profit and revenue and, well, just plain rethinking shit <and, yes, this can include doing and executional excellence>.

• Simply talking about world-changing ideas will not simply make the world change. Changing the world takes work, really really hard work.

• Simply having a positive attitude ain’t gonna work. Hard work will work. And in this case I mean hard thinking

• Simply ‘doing’ aint gonna cut it. We need to be smarter. And whether you think about thinking this way or not, it ain’t about staring off into space doing nothing, thinking is a blue collar job. It’s about work.

Circling back to one of my opening quotes, ‘smarter’ makes work less boring and more engaging which, well, is certainly the pathway to more meaningful.

Which leads me to more specificity on meaning, smart and smarter.

As I stated earlier, smart has value. What that value means is that meaning is attached more tightly to output. And while that may sound mundane or every transactional, it can also offer a lot of tangible, easy to see, meaning to an individual. Their ‘transactions’ with their productivity <what they put into their work> simply needs to be extended to an external impact to tighten it to ‘meaning.’ I guess I would call this a more linear definition of meaning and a less esoteric version. And if I am correct on that, even of its value, it also makes it more fragile – extrinsic in its ‘survivable nature.’

‘smarter’ meaning is a bit different. It has some dimensions and is less linear in its nature. It makes it a tad bit squishier and has some intrinsic aspects. I would suggest it is a more robust meaning.

All of this matters. I would note that on both smart and smarter I have referred to ‘impact.’

Research shows a 400% increase in employee productivity after meeting just one person impacted by their work.  That’s one way <and an effective way>, but the point is you are seeking to not inject confidence or belief <some gamification of motivation to ‘push’>, but rather to encourage belief to emerge naturally <i.e., ‘pull’ motivation>. This is emergent motivation or intrinsic energy. It is believing in oneself and when you align it in believing in what you are doing AND aligning that with belief in the business vision and who and what the business is achieving, well, you have maximized the believing business.

I would also note a couple other things Zach Mercurio has stated about meaning:

• 83% of people say meaning in work is a priority
• Regularly show people how their work helps others
• Connect people to the beneficiary of the work
• Show people how they matter
• Place contribution over achievement.

————

“Consent yourself to be an organ of your highest thought, and lo! suddenly you put all men in your debt, and are the fountain of an energy that goes pulsing on with waves of benefit to the borders of society, to the circumference of things.”

Emerson

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

Look. I have purposefully used smart & smarter today because I worry the world, and business, is getting stupider on a daily basis. Ok. Not really. I imagine we are actually getting smarter every day, yet, the overarching public narrative just seems stupider every day. It’s just that it sometimes feels like smartness is whispering and dumbness <or ‘simplification’> is shouting. All of this dumbing down seems to center around complexity and simplicity. It just feels like because we increasingly understand the world is complex, we have increasingly become convinced simplicity is the key to, well, everything. The truth is almost all hope, and possibilities, and even meaning, resides in managing complexity (if not the complicated) and fear (including lack of risk) thrives on simplicity. I would also be remiss if I didn’t point out meaning, itself, becomes quite brittle in a simplicity world.

Smart isn’t an absolute. Smart is not simple. Smart, and smarter, resides on a sliding scale of which there is no mean, medina or average. There are few 10’s and few 1’s and you can be an 8 on one topic and a 2 on another and ‘smart’ is not an average of them nor can you add or subtract them. I know I have said it before but the people who make it look easy, make it look easy because they invested a lot of hard work to make you think so. Smart, and smarter, is exactly the same.

Smartness demands you to work to gather knowledge and skills, sift thru it and understand it and apply it. but be aware. In today’s world smarter is harder than one would think. The world, in its quest to increasingly create more frictionless ways of circumventing thought and separating us from any random knowledge that could possibly prompt becoming smarter in combination with its relentless religion of ‘simplicity’ will fight ‘being smarter’ every step of the way. And maybe that is the grander point. Navigating that gauntlet enhances meaning.

In the end I believe smarter is worth the work and worth the meaning it offers. I believe we should be seeking ‘smart’ as a minimum. That is actually the solid foundation for higher value for a business and higher value meaning for an individual. But I also believe, whenever possible, we should be maximizing ‘smarter’. It more naturally ties to progress, learning organizations, continuous improvement and a more robust, less fragile, meaning. Ponder.

—–

The heights by great men reached and kept

Were not obtained by sudden flight,

But they, while their companions slept,

Were toiling upward in the night.

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

—-

—–

“It is essential to understand that the success of cities is born from their tolerance, which fosters collaboration; from their infrastructure and cultural resources, which are the results of investment; and from their compactness and diversity, which spark chance encounters and lead to artistic and entrepreneurial innovation.”

Ryan Gravel, Urban Planner

—–

Every organization is a network of people, individuals, who interact with each other. In order to survive, and thrive, the organization will, at its core, be at the mercy of how well they interact with each other. That said, forcing interactions <forced collaboration or even ‘social events’> tends to be counterproductive because relationships are inherently emergent (connections create). at their core these human connections are mini-learning systems in that each interaction forges the interactions, and connections, to come. What this demands, though, is some fluidity within the organization. Without fluidity the connections remain stagnant, or worse, cocooned, and the organization stops learning. There is a lack of exchanges.

Which leads me to cities.

I am not suggesting a business is a city, or any ecosystem/organism/etc. type tripe, but rather the infrastructure of a business demands connectivity in order to prosper, just as a thriving city does. A city, at its core, is an environment of exchange – economic and social. Conceptually that means an infrastructure, even a technology one, should seek to better the human condition and conditions for thrivability and navigating ordinary complexity.

Businesses, like cities, decline in quality through discrimination and segregation. The presence of those create an environment in which there is not only an inequitable distribution of opportunity, but also a complete lack of exchange of ideas. Hierarchies in business can also naturally encourage both of those negatives – they discriminate by titles, perceptions of skills and assumptions of knowledge contribution and segregate by department (if not also by evaluation files in the HR dept). Sociological studies show that integration reduces discrimination, therefore, the business structure should be one in which anyone can go anywhere and contribute.

This brings up a tricky topic – leadership led versus people led. I’d argue the composition of this structure cannot be left alone to leadership because they have failed, to date, to create or construct a healthy structure. I would take that responsibility out of their hands and let the infrastructure itself assume the main responsibility. This, in turn, would demand the infrastructure itself is constructed to encourage free exchange throughout. This does not absolve leadership of responsibility, in fact, it puts a different type of demand upon them in that they must set aside:

• A bias that they know better than the people

• A bias that the system will decay to the lowest common good if left to its own devices

• A bias that technology may be better assessors of potential than they

• A bias that living, and thriving, only through hierarchy has created in them mentally.

“Nothing is more destructive to a community, to creativity, than the desire to be seen as a good person and the deceptions that are mobilized to make that happen.”
Stephen Berg

Which leads me to design.

The way we choose to organize our space – parks, cities, streets, buildings, etc. – says a lot about the society we live in. This organization defines not only our perception of real-world environments, but also our imagination of. Simplistically, if a city is constructed with walls, physical or metaphorical, it diverts traffic and exchange from what may occur naturally. I bring this up because this is also true of internet/tech design. Our lives revolve around what has been designed. This doesn’t mean we are sheep, but rather we assume the larger design narratives have been designed in ways that we can easily (or easy enough) navigate. That becomes good enough for us. I bring that up because, conversely, this is why designer ethics is important. They are the organizers of ‘our space.’ They design the world we walk, and think, in.

This is where I turn to what I continue to suggest are Drucker’s most important thoughts – a ‘human imperative’ as outlined within The New Realities. It is not where he stated business is “in and of society” (albeit that is the ultimate human imperative), but it is there he highlights salvation by society versus economic imperatives. His concept is that in today’s world, with today’s challenges, it is quite possible we should be focused on business’s role in a community and a city design and as part of the fabric of society (and cascading consequences, i.e, how we ask people to think and act in a business impact what they say and do at the kitchen table when they go home and impacts how they view the workings of the community they reside in) rather than simple economic imperatives. I imagine at the core of what Drucker suggested was that organizational design is actually societal design. As a corollary, city design is actually societal design. Is that not the greatest human imperative intersecting economics and community?

Which leads me to technology.

Conceptually, technology does not care about anything other than supplying knowledge stimulus <information> to everyone, regardless of skill or title, and assembling people with the best potential to address emergent issues regardless of their ‘identified’ skill or title. As a corollary to this idea, the intent of business model design should be, similar to urban city planning, to maximize pedestrian movement and ensure the environment enhances easy movement and rewards the act of movement <movement need not just be people but information and ideas and resources>. I am not suggesting that every business have the same design, but that every business design with similar working objectives. I would note that this design need not remain static. I mention that because in business it seems like people do not speak often enough about what algorithms can create (crowd or tribe cultural), it can ‘unmake’. It’s possible to take apart larger ideologue, or beliefs, so that new ideologies or ways of thinking, can actually be constructed. Algorithms can be used in a variety of ways and if we elected to create an effective design, we could. All the objectives I have wandered through up to this point should be reviewed constantly and the infrastructure should be re-designed to optimize against those objectives.

In the end.

The subtleties of a community and a city defy any real definitions and, yet, even within its abstractness there remains the concrete. Personally, I hope we never get too close to finding a concrete definition because once people can easily grasp it, they will attempt to copy it, replicate it and scale it. What a shame that would be. For communities and cities and, yes, businesses may truly be the opposite and be the ultimate example of the emergent and unique to their own needs and desires.

===

“There is never a wrong time to do the right thing.”

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

“It is not that a person makes meaning, as much as that the activity of being a person is the activity of meaning-making … the most fundamental thing we do with what happens to us is organize it. We literally make sense.”

Developmental psychologist Robert Kegan

======

ideas that are the most difficult to validate can feel like the most important ones

=====

Complexity, in business, is in the midst of a weird time. In the attempt to translate complexity-in-theory to complexity-in-practice, a whole bunch of people are turning themselves into pretzels to simplify, uhm, complexity. The intent is to make it understandable and manageable (ability to navigate or as Donella Meadows suggests “dance with the system”), but in doing so there have been a variety of quadrants, some delightful descriptors (see: ‘wicked problems’) and, in general, a bunch of things which actually make complexity even more complex in the minds of people in business as well as in practice.

I continue to believe the rough-ish diagram Stacey placed in “Managing the Unknown” is one of the more practical views of complexity for business.

One of the things I like about it, and have liked, is that it has its own version of an OODA loop. This seems important to me because navigating complexity is less about the decision and more about observing decisions and decide what to do with the effect, or effects, which exist as a consequence of the initial stimulus <other past decisions>. In the past I have called this ‘situational awareness.’ That said. OODA loops WITHIN complex dynamics is how to iteratively navigate complexity without simply reacting. You do something and then manage against that decision because it is not a linear directional world in which a problem leads to an action that leads to a solution. Instead, we live in an infinite looped dynamic world. Each action is based on current conditions, such actions affect future conditions, and changed conditions become the basis for later action.  The system, and systems nested within, are reflections of ceaseless connections and feedback loops (even if they are nonlinear). This makes complexity tricky because you can do something with good intentions, say to resolve a problem, and actually alleviate that problem and, yet, be causing another unseen snowballing problem. By applying pressure <or a resolution> in one place tends to create some equal opposing pressure (or pressures) in another place.

Regardless. While that, generally, sounds complex – because it is – the simple truth is everything is connected and nothing is ever really stagnant. But the complexity folk just don’t seem satisfied with that. We need labels and words and definitions. To that I say we don’t need to be brilliant; we need to find ways of doing useful things.

“If you keep certain creative people in too tight a box, they blow up the box.”

Liz Phair

Anyway.

One of the most interesting books I have read about complexity was not actually about complexity. it was about people and society – The Listening Society by Hanzi Freinacht. Ok. Hanzi Freinacht is a complex guy, complex thinker, and talks about the future of society and humankind (kind of a complex topic).  The reason why I believe Listening Society is about complexity and business is because it is about people. And while we like to talk about systems, algorithms, digital infrastructure, culture, and, well, anything but people, inevitably if you want to navigate complexity you need to get people’s heads screwed on right and get everyone thinking about the right things.  I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out, pragmatically, business is a lot like living life in that for the most part you are just trying to get shit done the best you possibly can. It sounds like a grind and aspects of it really are – but can be a thinking grind. So, despite the fact we speak of the rise of the ‘knowledge worker’ the truth is if a business wants to have some agility it needs thinker/doers (or doer/thinkers) or at least have teams in which there is some equilibrium between needed thinking and needed doing and the grind it out mentality needed to navigate complexity and a complex world.

Which leads me back to Hanzi.

He suggests that each person is a cross section of the self – the depths & dimensions – and the conflict and potential inherent in the interactions with social, economic and cultural fabric – all amped up in a technological world. Freinacht calls this ‘a transpersonal perspective.’ Its not just that we are each a billiard ball that interacts with other people. We co-emerge or ‘intra-act.’  He suggests we have a lived experience as well as a creational experience. We experience and absorb from all experiences and in doing so we, systemically, change. What this means is that society is present within each individual as well as within the relationships one forges with what we call ‘self.’ Here is the uncomfortable suggestion — there is no true individual nor is there any true collective there is simply an evolving interlinked emergent set of ‘transviduals.’ This makes each of us inseparable, in a complete sense, rather than some simplistic unique separate life story. This means each person should be viewed as an open and social process, a “whirlwind of participation and cocreation of society.” Society, or social dynamics (which is relevant to the business world), as a whole is then viewed as a self organizing system which creates each of us (transviduals) who, in turn, recreate society. We are all social constructions. We are all, in fact, parts & pieces of one another and affect one another. We consist of many different influences (which makes the idea of individual a constraining idea), roles and perspectives WITHIN a multitude of contexts. In other words, we are complex.

Which leads me to what Ralph Stacy called “bounded instability.” People are inherently unstable <I call them uneven> and forcing consistency, rather than coherence, actually limits possibilities (stability comes at a cost). His thought is to relax the inhibitors and optimize (in a situational equilibrium, not balance) what he calls ‘fit & split’ and what I call coherence.

But lurking within what I just shared is that people systems inherently are driven by stable laws of behavior (boundaries) which actually CREATE specific kinds of instability, yet, this creates some aspect of patterns. It sounds crazy but stick with me here. The tighter the boundaries the broader the instability (fragility). But stable, not constrictive, boundaries create patterns.

“Companions the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds, not believers. Fellow creators the creator seeks – those who write new values on new tablets. Companions the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest.”

Zarathustra (Hanzi Freinacht)

Patterns? Reality is made up of inner landscapes rubbing up against each other. This means reality is emergent and we are not successful by slavishly following ‘laws of’ protocol, but rather our ability to sense make reality and navigate emergent patterns. What this means from a complexity standpoint is that Life, business, any environment, is best felt, not organized (or controlled).

That thought is kinda important because complexity, to the everyday worker, isn’t about chaos or stability or any management guru word, its about competing demands and the tension between meeting status quo demands and opportunistic demands WITHIN time demands.  Reconciling this is tough because most people make it a binary choice and the natural arc of business behavior is status quo because of a pressure to produce consistent and reliable outcomes. I believe it was Dewey who suggested people, in general, tend to formulate our beliefs in terms of “either–or”, between which alternatives we recognize no intermediate possibilities. Just like algorithms, which choose only in X or Y choicemaking, we tend to strive for clarity to such an extent we will make things simplistic, i.e., a highly probable assessment becomes a 100% choice and 100% invested <when probability and choice or not equal in truth>. Circling back to sensing or feeling patterns, this means we need to avoid either/or binary choicemaking so that we can ride patterns rather than control patterns.

 

structure influences behavior is a central principle underlying systems thinking

complex systems resist behavior change

the active energy in an organization is people

a process is only good, and efficient, as the market is built to serve. if the market changes, the process may still generate positive results, but it will no longer be efficient and will continue to decay in its effectiveness.

Anyway. I am not a big believer in social system design, more in trying to understand systems dynamics, but ignoring the fact that all systems, including social, HAVE a design and therefore can be ‘re-designed’ (in some form or fashion) would be naïve. Systems exist everywhere. Systems influence everything we do.  The idea of a social system implies that relationships between its parts strongly influence human behavior. To put the matter more bluntly, a social system implies that people act partially as cogs in a social and economic machine. In other words, people play roles demanded by pressures of the whole system. This idea is a bit uncomfortable because at its core it suggests people aren’t totally free to make their own decisions. That said. Suffice it to say all social systems have some ‘design’ features (or have actually been designed) which, tying back to Hanzi, means people, as social constructs, are designed by social systems.

Yup. The structure of the system will define behaviors. I say that because one cannot blame individuals for most failures, but rather the system itself. Yet. We tend to highlight the accountability of ‘the individual’ in some fairly unhealthy ways within business. Circling back to Freinacht, the entire idea of individual or collective is outdated in today’s world. Cluetrain Manifesto called it ‘the hyperlinked organization’ and the reality is “I am parts of you, you are parts of me, and the whole is a malleable mix of parts of all of us – even those we interact with outside the internal system within the business.” Business and our little personal circles of existence are simply a system within a system, or of the system, and people are systems in and of themselves. That’s today’s world. I imagine I make that point to suggest gamification (which I dislike anyway) of business tends to seek out ‘individual motivations’ when in reality all gamification does is create less than unifying aspects within an organization (when business, in general, while not seeking unity, should seek unifying systems). Gamification, or many of the silly leadership tactics, are attempts to untangle complexity into manageable units. That’s a less-than-useful approach. The intertwined nature of complexity means one shouldn’t be seeking untangle anything, but rather seek to get them to develop TOGETHER to create new evolutions of the system. It isn’t about shedding things, but rather creating things. My point, I imagine, is complexity does not exist to be solved, but rather developed. That thought, in particular, is counter to what society encourages us to do.

Lastly.

We need to deal with this. Remember earlier I suggested we are social constructs. If we do not deal with it, we, well, stop constructing <and that is bad>. This isn’t some theoretical mumbo jumbo issue I am sharing. We need to deal with it because people will be increasingly squeezed in a complex world. Squeezed? What I mean by that is the world is not going to become any less demanding with regard to ‘results’ or outcomes and the world is not going to become any less complex and overwhelming. In fact. They will both likely become more. Under the pressure of time and demand for ‘do something/decide something’ our behaviors will inevitably arc toward the simplistic on our bad, most overwhelmed, days (and simplicity on a good day). In our inability to navigate the multidimensional abstraction of each moment/situation/event/decision/etc., we will lean in on what we believe is our true ability – intuitive behavior. Uh oh. “Believe” as an ability is a misnomer. In a complex world 99% of us suck at intuitive behavior <heck, most of the time all of our intuition is dubious at best> and actually simply grasp the closest key we can find to unlock the door to get the hell out of the complex hallway we seem stuck in. The truth, the reality, is that even the most time-constrained decisions demand some mental grind. If we don’t, then even at our best, we will always remain a step or two behind not only the world but behind any semblance of a sane world. But here is where it gets, well, bad. As the world becomes increasingly complex and we become increasingly overwhelmed and under increasing pressure to ‘do something’, there will always be someone peddling ‘simplicity’ or some tool/tactic to ease us through that situation. Uhm. Easy does not equal what is best for us <see the endless apps claiming to streamline our interactions with the world only to divert our attention from some pretty important things>. Streamlining is more likely to strip away the important than to strip away the unimportant. We need to expand our abilities in order to expand the space we need to navigate as well as to simply expand space so we stop getting squeezed. And maybe that is the most important point. Look. Complexity has a nasty habit of making us feel like we are being squeezed – even when we are not. Gaining the ability to expand space is actually improving reality and, well, an improved reality is a reality more readily navigated. This can be done and we need to shed the defeatist attitude which arcs our mindsets into the space of being ‘overwhelmed’ versus ‘whelmed’. It is within that space in which we may not completely shed the constraints of complexity, but we can certainly push out on the boundaries to give us some space to breathe a bit. And, well, I imagine that’s the key to navigating complexity – space to breathe. No quadrant, no theory, no management guru, will give you any tool better than space to breathe. Complexity CAN be suffocating so the simple action of breathing is the path to navigation. Ponder.