=====

“Digital freedom stops where that of users begins… Nowadays, digital evolution must no longer be offered to a customer in trade-off between privacy and security. Privacy is not for sale, it’s a valuable asset to protect.”
Stephane Nappo

=====

“Ultimately, saying that you don’t care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different from saying you don’t care about freedom of speech because you have nothing to say.”

Edward Snowden

=====

Data privacy is a hot issue for a couple of reasons both based on the foundational thought we, the people, keep getting fucked by our own data. Basically, other people make money off our data by them using our data to get us to spend money. How fucked up is that? Beyond that there are some real pragmatic issues that with all of our data floating out there beyond our control it can be used in some quite nefarious ways. All that said. Some people with integrity are attempting to change it all. The majority of this discussion is focused on regulation, i.e., regulating how companies gather and use our data.

Here is the problem. While most of us care, we don’t <and, more importantly, a bunch of the big tech boys who gather & use the data, don’t actually care>. For a variety of reasons any time people are offered opportunities to try and manage their data, they don’t (or certainly don’t to the extent that would enable some larger structural changes to how much data is accumulated and used).

I speculate this mostly happens because our personal data is one big black box of shit that most of us feel like we have zero control over, sense we may actually benefit from sharing it – on occasion gaining some convenience – and the penalties for sharing don’t seem to be so bad.

Basically, we’ve given up believing we can control, not clear on benefits of limiting, or even understand, pragmatically, what occurs when we tighten our data privacy. That trifecta encourages most of us to just do what we are doing and just sit around and bitch that evil technology companies don’t have any ethics.

To be honest. Even I, who knows enough to be dangerous about privacy and data, when I see the terms and conditions I very rarely accept because I don’t know what it will cost me. What I mean by that is by limiting something I assume it will limit something else. Its kind of like limiting cookies or certain website features, you get less popups (sometimes), but ease of website use seems to get a little wonky. Just to be clear. It is quite possible I am either conflating causation and correlation or even that because I actually took an action, my mind is creating an expected response (which isn’t really there). But. Maybe that makes my larger point. Because I don’t exactly know the consequences my mind will create them, they will most likely be negative, and that doesn’t exactly encourage me to do it more often in the future.

So.  How do we get people to care? How do we get people to think it will matter what they accept or reject will deter the powerful unseen “tech” from doing whatever they want in the blackbox?

===

“Here in your mind you have complete privacy. Here there’s no difference between what is and what could be.”
Chuck Palahniuk

===

Let’s think about an indirect approach.

People have to see the value, before caring, before doing anything. So, I have some thoughts on how to nudge the mindset.  I believe there are two indirect things that could affect people’s mindsets.

1. Origin ID.

Its not flashy nor does it appear to be directly related to communicating the importance of data privacy, but in my mind, it begins to establish some validity to one’s own data within the black box. In other words, if all of a sudden, I know for sure the data that I am receiving (information is data) is valid and not some bot, well, then all of a sudden I start thinking “hey, mine has been evaluated and is valid too.” Its an indirect way of establishing some value proposition. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that, collectively, it also begins establishing some shared sense of truth (or truthiness) and that is an excellent foundation for establishing my personal value within that shared sense of truth.

The internet world needs to clean up its validation origin act and this seems like a good place to start the data privacy ballgame.

To be clear. I am relatively sure the moment we validate origin ID (proof everyone is human and verified ID) someone with less than good intentions will subvert the system, but anything has to be better than the current anarchist system. In fact. Maybe that is my last point in this idea. Creating a system that doesn’t feel like anarchy, alone, furthers the concept of data privacy by suggesting it could possibly be controllable. I think this idea is attainable in a reasonable amount of time. The trick to this one is who is trustworthy enough to not only validate but have some records of everyone’s origin ID. My gut tells me blockchain technology offers a viable solution, but someone smarter than I would have to noodle that.

2. Business use (with employees).

This one is trickier than Origin ID but, in my mind, if businesses can show an employee that their data has actual value in their own personal progress/growth within a business it becomes a platform for understanding how their data has value in a grander narrative. Maybe think about this as ‘if I can show on a smaller more personal case study than communicating a larger case study is the logical next step.’ Personally, I think its nuts that a business does nothing with data of their employees to better understand, better develop and better assess each employee’s potential growth opportunities. I think its even nuttier that it doesn’t happen in organizations talking about “digital transformation.” I mean if you are going to create a digital infrastructure wouldn’t you want to connect it with, uhm, the digital imprints of the people/humans who will be optimizing that infrastructure? And, yet, while I think its nuts, I also think this particular idea is years away from being implemented.

** note: I actually have outlined a Knowledge Distribution business model where AI-driven information flow is customized and tied to personal data of each employee suggesting it is something like a Human Nanofactory and offered something called ‘technology-distributed information’.

In the end.

While the world desperately needs a globally coherent plan of action for data privacy, it will not happen until the people of the world actually care and want it and will actually do something when given an opportunity. Along that point, I bet if you asked 100 random people they would (a) probably think data privacy is a good thing and, simultaneously, (b) have it number 101 on their list of 100 things they need to be thinking about.

I say it that way to make the point that this is actually a good equation for the future of data privacy. The ability to make something more important to someone increases exponentially if their existing mindset is that something is most likely a good idea. All we have to do is to make them care and, in my mind, it should begin by making their own data more tangible to them. Like, origin ID and the business they work at showing how their data can be used. Look. I am sure there are hundreds of better ideas than the ones I offered but I feel relatively confident my ideas would go a long way to getting people to care. So just think about it.

================= 

“Authenticity will be the buzzword of the twenty-first century. And what is authentic? Anything that is not devised and structured to make a profit. Anything that is not controlled by corporations. Anything that exists for its own sake, that assumes its own shape. But of course nothing in the modern world is allowed to assume its own shape. The modern world is the corporate equivalent of a formal garden, where everything is planted and arranged for effect. Where nothing is untouched, where nothing is authentic. 

“Where, then, will people turn for the rare and desirable experience of authenticity? They will turn to the past.

“The past is unarguably authentic. The past is a world that already existed before all the other shapers of the present day shaped today’s world. The past was here before they were. The past rose and fell before their intrusion and molding and selling. The past is real. It’s authentic. And this will make the past unbelievably attractive.”

Michael Crichton

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

Well.

I am not a past guy and I believe “authentic” is one of those words that is currently being abused in a variety of definition-type ways, but, I would offer a reminder to everyone that if you want something authentic it is actually the past <I will expound on that in a minute>.

Let’s just say that it always surprises me a little when people start bitching about the other people who seem to be yearning for the past. While I am certainly not a past-yearner lets’ see what a past yearner sees:

Everything is uncertain in today’s world.

You have no idea who to trust.

There is a struggle to trust anything.

Facts seem to no longer be black & white

Truth now has an alternative version.

Common sense doesn’t seem common.

Opinions look much like facts & facts get confused with opinions.

Simple, or simplification, doesn’t seem that simple anymore.

Add in that all of those things are occurring in a world in which we are increasingly encouraging people to think of everything as “all or nothing” <a zero-sum world>.

This all drives a lot of people to find any fucking semi-solid lily pad to stand on that they can find. And what seems solid, seems certain, and seems authentic, well, is the past.

Ok. That said. On to my ‘expounding’ comment.

No. We may not remember the past well or correctly. In fact <research> we typically do not remember it correctly <choosing to remember the things we like & discarding the things we don’t want to remember>. Yet, in our minds, how we do remember it is as certain as anything can be in this world.

*** note: Daniel Kahneman discusses this in “the riddle of experience versus memory.”

And, yeah, aspects of this can be skewed into a generational/age thing if you wanted. In a world of increasing uncertainty the young, who have less to hold on to with ragged claws & look forward to ditching a lot of the existing shit so they can develop their own shit, leave the past behind <sometimes flippantly> .

In a world of increasing uncertainty the old, well, they hang on with ragged claws to the only thing they know to be true, certain & authentic. i.e., the past.

But, suffice it to say, how we view the past goes beyond age <although age can exacerbate the issue>.

There is seeing and … well … seeing. And there is a vast difference between the two. Frederick Franck in “Zen Seeing/Zen Drawing” argues:

“The glaring contrast between seeing and looking-at the world around us is immense; it is fateful. Everything in our society seems to conspire against our inborn human gift of seeing. We have become addicted to merely looking-at things and beings. The more we regress from seeing to looking at the world — through the ever-more-perfected machinery of viewfinders, TV tubes, VCRs, microscopes, spectroscopes — the less we see. The less we see, the more numbed we become to the joy and the pain of being alive, and the further estranged we become from ourselves and all others.”

Well.

That is a discouraging thought. He is basically suggesting that once we get on the slippery slope of ‘not seeing’ we very quickly enter, and stay, in this miserable abyss of blindness.

He may be right. But I would rather believe he is not. I would prefer to believe seeing, really seeing, is a discriminating decision made by you and not the world around you. I would like to believe if we chose we could see the past with open eyes, open mind, open heart, with open to unapologetic attention.

This is about not really looking for something in particular just being ready and receptive to whatever happens around you and in front of you. And by not seeking anything in particular <because that inhibits true seeing> you end up, as someone wrote somewhere ‘… by your own eyes you will see, and there will be a conclusion.’ What that means is you don’t see based on your own ideas <or belief system>, but rather you see based on … well … what you see.

Hey. I am not suggesting this is easy. I am simply suggesting that you can do it if you elect to. If it helps, we partially have evolution to blame on why I can say what I am saying to you:

…. evolution’s problem-solving left us modern humans with two kinds of attention: vigilance, which allows us to have a quick and life-saving fight-or-flight response to an immediate threat, be it a leaping lion or a deranged boss, and selective attention, which unconsciously curates the few stimuli to attend to amidst the flurry bombarding us, enabling us to block out everything except what we’re interested in ingesting. (Selective attention, of course, can mutate to dangerous degrees, producing such cultural atrocities as the filter bubble.)

Ah. The ‘filter bubble.’

the filter bubble — by definition, it’s populated by the things that most compel you to click. But it’s also a real problem: the set of things we’re likely to click on (sex, gossip, things that are highly personally relevant) isn’t the same as the set of things we need to know. – Eli Pariser

Evolution and Life experience has created this filter bubble for each of us. And, by the way, each of our filter bubbles are different <because our Life experiences have been different in creating it>.

This filter bubble idea also suggests that you can manage, if not actually change your filter bubble.

Yup. You can change the way you see things.

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

“To learn to see- to accustom the eye to calmness, to patience, and to allow things to come up to it; to defer judgment, and to acquire the habit of approaching and grasping an individual case from all sides. This is the first preparatory schooling of intellectuality. One must not respond immediately to a stimulus; one must acquire a command of the obstructing and isolating instincts.”

Friedrich Nietzsche

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

I love that one thought: ‘allow things to come to it.’ Allow what you see to come to your eye and ultimately your mind. In other words, seeing is in the mind; not in the eyes. Mentally we need to stop focusing on a specific destination, but rather watch during the journey.

All that said.

While the past may be authentic it may not be truthful <or a reflection of truth>. There are certainly some problems with the past ‘truth.’  We are really sure about how we remember the past “… to some extent he is saying all the correct things. But he is not correct.”

 And maybe that is the most important is lesson that lies within.

We say all the correct things … but aren’t really correct. Context and perspective is needed to share “real & absolute truth” and Truth, with regard to the past, is the sum of accurate information; not just some of the accurate information.

Now.

More research.

Just to make everyone feel better, beyond evolution, there is a real reason we do this. It is called ‘adaptive ignorance.’ This is no excuse and this ‘adaptive ignorance’ gets driven by an out of whack barometer of what is important <kind of> to us crazy people, but at least there is a psychological reason:

This adaptive ignorance is there for a reason — we celebrate it as “concentration” and welcome its way of easing our cognitive overload by allowing us to conserve our precious mental resources only for the stimuli of immediate and vital importance, and to dismiss or entirely miss all else.

Attention is an intentional, unapologetic discriminator. It asks what is relevant right now, and gears us up to notice only that. But while this might make us more efficient in our goal-oriented day-to-day, it also makes us inhabit a largely unlived — and unremembered — life, day in and day out.

Not only does Life make ‘seeing’ difficult, our minds do. Our minds adapt more and more <which ultimately constrains seeing> because of a couple of things:

• • productivity <just getting shit done or out of the way or solved>

  • the ways we learn to see the world

All this adaptation <or I imagine we can call it ‘coping’> creates something researchers call ‘search images.’ These are things all of us employ when we need to narrow our attention in a goal-oriented task. Unfortunately, this is only helpful or even possible if we know what to look for.

And that, my friends, is ultimately the point about seeing — and really seeing.

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

“… more is missed by not looking than not knowing.”

Thomas McCrae

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

We don’t see because we don’t “look.” What a shame. Because by not looking … really looking … we miss seeing some really valuable things, like, what is authentic.

We all need truth goggles. Because we all want to hear what we all want to hear & see what we want to see & remember what we want to remember.

But all truth, even “the past,” takes a discerning mind.

Because what happens when the past says all the correct things, but is not correct? <i.e., you have a misguided view of what is true>

Truth takes work.

Shit.

Seeing things as they truly are takes work.

And that which appears authentic is often not what it appears to be. Just think about this whenever someone seems to be longing for the past. They are partially correct and partially not correct. Be careful with what you believe you see.

—–

“Once the inner connection is grasped, all theoretical belief in the permanent necessity of existing conditions collapses before their collapse in practice”

Karl Marx

——

“It’s never the changes we want that change everything.”

Junot Díaz

—–

How often have we identified a strategy and then went about identifying the obstacles within the system to effectively bring it to life? I would suggest more often than not this is exactly what we do. So, then we go about fixing the system, or fine tuning it to match the strategy, only to find the obstacles we foresaw were not really the inhibitors we thought (or by fixing them we created some unintended consequence instead).

The alternative, I imagine, is maybe we design a strategy to most effectively match the system we have only to watch the system change as it implements the strategy.

Both are flawed albeit the latter less so than the former.

The only thing a dynamic system guarantees is the future you foresee, or envision, will not happen.

My point here is you do need some plans, but plans, in a dynamic market, shouldn’t be followed to the detriment of the objective.

My point here is you need some strategies, but strategies, in a dynamic market, should sometimes be pursued to the detriment of a planned objective.

My point here is you need to recognize that your system is in some cases is not worth the energy to change (use as it exists) and in others tweak to enable plans and strategies, i.e., your system is both an enabling and a restricting constraint.

My point here is that strategies should nest within a system, or system dynamics, rather than have systems support a strategy <note: this is a general rule which under circumstances can be broken>.

Ok. That nested thought.

Nested dynamic processes ARE the system process. Anyone who suggests “this is our process” and describes it as some discrete, mutually exclusive thing, is on drugs. Any one process is simply something you have chosen to put boundaries around just to analyze and describe <that is a bastardization of a Donella Meadows thought>. Processes are layered, distinctly paced and intersectional. There are slow variables to fast variables all of which create patterns with slow to faster moving parts. This means, not only those things happen in combinations of speeds, but that also change occurs, and is encouraged, to happen at different speeds. The only way to manage this is to reduce environment variables to attempt to manipulate the context to create positive dynamics for process/system to thrive. I’d be remiss if I didn’t state these are ‘limited time contexts’ and more often than not dissolve faster than any business person would like. I would also be remiss if I didn’t point out this also demands:

• Different configurations of strategy

• Emergent strategy implementation

• Predictive strategies only used for framing not execution

All these layers and connections can create what appear to seem like fluid patterns and interactions, but are actually a makeup of somewhat unexpected patterns (within the transactions, community and world) but typically within a range of anticipated behavior. This also means that while a pattern is occurring, simultaneously, new patterns are being created (new patterns also create new possibilities). This may seem simultaneously exciting and frightening (organizations like tidiness and predictability & replication), but what I can say it should be simultaneously opportunistic and dynamic.

It is key to remember that systems, left to their own devices <maybe with some constraints>, have the ability to expand the proper strategy beyond the imagination of any objective one can place on it.

That said. More strategies die within systems than they do in the marketplace. Think about that. Think about that for a long time because if you don’t recognize the doom loop between strategies and systems you are, well, doomed.

===

“The world went on the same after all. The same things happened every morning. So what if they did not like her? She would go on the same.”

Harriet the Spy

===

Let me get this out of the way upfront: likeability, in and of itself in an organization, is deadweight.

Yeah.

I just said that.

Now. I am not talking about people wanting to be liked. I believe Alicia Menendez wrote a book called “the likeability trap’ which deals with that.

I am speaking of how people desiring to ‘build a culture’ saying things like “its important we like each other.” No. It isn’t. It isn’t important you like everyone, its important to not actively dislike everyone <that is different than liking everyone> and it is important to respect everyone. It’s a business not a circle of friends.

Look.

I am not suggesting someone seek to be unlikeable nor am I suggesting actually recruiting based on finding unlikeable people. Shit. Liking people you work with actually increases some social cohesion. The tricky part about that is effective business culture is more about professional cohesion.

What I mean by that is say you have Joe, and everyone likes Joe. No one has anything bad to say about him and, in fact, almost every conversation begins with “I like Joe”. But then the inevitable shoe drops … “but.” He’s likeable but doesn’t contribute shit. He’s just the likeable guy in the office taking someone’s salary who may be a little less likeable, but you can count on to get good shit done when the business of doing business needs to be done. Yeah. Professional cohesion is grounded in contribution, productivity and respect.

Please.

Please no one suggest I am suggesting a binary. This isn’t an either/or discussion. This is a “what is most important discussion” and a ‘proportional” discussion. Let me address the latter. “Likeable’ takes on disproportionate importance in many businesses and how they view ‘culture’. What I mean by that is whenever a review comes up or senior folk are gathered around some mahogany conference room table the “everyone likes him” cloaks all the other business negatives surrounding good ole Joe. Yeah. Proportionally we seem to disproportionately weight the importance of likeability higher than just professional contribution. Its almost like we view the likeability/contribution organizational formula as a zero-sum analysis where a lot here, zeros out a little here. That’s slightly absurd and not really a good way of ‘constructing a healthy culture.’

Let me be clear.

Joe is deadweight.

Joe is also actually bad for the culture. Yeah. Deadweight and bad. Deadweight in that salary earned is supposed to be related to business value provided and in this case that translates into “we are paying him because he contributes to the likeability in our culture” (maybe suggesting he contributes in some way to social cohesion). Which leads me to bad. Bad in that everyone else in the company senses that if you don’t really have anything to contribute, but figure out how to be likeable you can pull down a sweet salary and get healthcare.

In the end. I dislike, no, hate when people discuss likeability when it is related to culture. “We want to be known as likeable” is a horrible objective. I am fine if someone states “lets make sure we are not unlikeable as we craft a distinct professional position in the marketplace”, but likeable? Please.

===

“Sliding down the slippery slope of mediocrity.”

David Ogilvy

====

Turn on television on any given weekend in the United States and you have a very high probability of finding the movie The Replacements at some point. While the movie, at its core, is about taking for granted what you have versus taking advantage of opportunities, tucked within the movie is what I call “the quicksand moment.”

This is the scene where the coach asks the players their greatest fear and the quarterback says “quicksand.”

Businesses get stuck in quicksand all the time. Shit. People do too. What makes it worse is that most times you know how to play the game well, in fact, you may have actually been playing it well at the time so the first thing that goes wrong is just a blip.

“Just one thing” is what you say.

Then another thing happens.

Then another.

You fight back alone and sink.

Or.

Someone notices (usually management) and they help you fight back.

How?

The first response almost every business has to a problem is “more resources”. Oh. That is the first sign you have fallen into quicksand. As Brooks pointed out in the Mythical Man Month, even on projects, our first instinct is to add more people. This only makes everything even slower and more dysfunctional.

If that fails, the second response is usually even more resources.

You sink deeper.

Faster.

On a personal level this comes to fruition in “I’ll stay later or get in early.” You are on the edge of quicksand. You see added resources as “more time.” So, you put in more time. And more time. And this is where fear enters. You know you are trying hard; you know you are doing right things and, yet, it still keeps going wrong.

You are sinking despite all the effort.

And then you can’t breathe.

Organizational quicksand.

Now.

Quicksand and slippery slopes share some similar characteristics.

The first is that you don’t know you are in, or on, them until its too late.

The second is what I call “just this once” behavior.

It is absolutely easy to compromise – in business and in life. “Just this once.” An exception. And then another.

And before you know it you are on that slippery slope.

Regardless. This is a Life and business lesson. So, let’s just call it “truth.” It’s a truth about work, effort, decisions, compromise, lies (or “half-truths”) and almost anything else I can think of.

Slippery slopes are incredibly easy to step onto AND get stuck on. What do I mean?

“Just this once” you say to yourself when you are tired. Whatever the decision or action we are discussing, to you, in the moment … it is mentally “an exception”.

“Just this once” when you are asked a question and you ponder your answer and maybe you embellish a bit.

“Just this once” you say to yourself when you put off that thing you wanted to do. A workout. A chore. A book. A project. A diet. A decision.

“Just this once” you say to yourself when it is a silly rule or what you are doing isn’t really unethical, but its not 100% ethical, it’s just in the margins of “okay to do.”

Before you know it <after some “just this onces“> you have edged on to that slippery slope. Once has become many and, well, many becomes the standard.

Business is funny that way. Its sneaky. It permits you to look at things in a mutually exclusive way so that you don’t really see the accumulation of events and decisions until you have sunk.

Oh.

Quicksand.

Ponder.

—-

“I should never have surrendered. I should have fought until I was the last man alive.”

Geronimo

———

This is about Geronimo and it’s not. Geronimo was a Chiricahua Apache who, after his family was murdered by Mexican troops, pretty much dedicated himself to revenge as a warrior. Ok. At the same time he dedicated himself as what we would call “anti-establishment” in today’s world. He just wanted to be left alone on lands he believed was his tribes, to live with people he loved, and live a life he loved. My point is it is difficult to talk about Geronimo and some fairly heinous actions without at the same time acknowledging the context, the environment, within which he did those things.

But let’s cut to the chase.

Geronimo was 79 (maybe) when he died of pneumonia after spending the last 23 years of his life as a prisoner of war. He spent years at war which, if examined, was actually spent mostly not fighting or engaging with his enemies, but rather seeking freedom from his enemies. I point that out to finally get to his last words “I should never have surrendered but fought until I was the last man alive.”

The world is not really a very welcoming place for ideas that don’t conform. And if you happen to be the owner of one of those ideas you have a variety of choices, but suffice it to say they inevitably reside in one of two places – conform or fight. Now. I’d be silly to not point out either is a viable choice. Despite the fact ‘conform’ has a variety of negative definitions the truth is, like Geronimo attempted when he surrendered, it can give you an opportunity to fight the system from within the system. Not an easy task but certainly offers a possible path to your objective. Conform does not necessarily mean submit. However, this is where it gets tricky. The system will often try and convert your surrender, ‘the conform decision’, to submission. And that is where things go awry. And that is how someone like Geronimo, on his death bed, can state “I should have fought.”

To be clear, there is no political message in what I am communicating today <it seems like everyone always wants to read something into everything> this is solely about ideas, mindsets and beliefs – and regrets I imagine.

Not everything (not many things in fact) that you believe or an idea you have is worth dying for. Yet. Many more of those same things can make you feel like it would have been better to die for them.

To be clear. I am speaking metaphorically here.

There are clearly some things when you surrender you end up surrendering a part of your soul at exactly the same time. Business is infamous for this exchange. You surrender an idea and sometime in the future you will find out you had surrendered more than you had bargained for. I point this out to defend some people who fight too long, and too hard, for their ideas and beliefs. While I sometimes think they are being absurdly stubborn I can also clearly see the possible costs of surrender and, well, I think I would fight until I was the last person standing too.

The choice is not clear cut.

Not every surrender costs you more than your idea. But costs lurk over the horizon so when you do surrender, and conform, you can never be exactly sure what all the costs will end up being.

Here is about the only wisdom I can share on this. Those who you surrender to typically have a history. Leopards don’t change their spots, animals always carry fleas and businesses are consistent. Assess well and choose wisely if you decide to surrender, or, be the last person alive over an idea or belief.

====

“We are all joined in a circle of stories.”
Linda Joy Myers

====

“Stories are like spiders, with all their long legs, and stories are like spiderwebs, which man gets himself all tangled up in but which look pretty when you see them under a leaf in the morning dew, and in the elegant way that they connect to one another, each to each.”
Neil Gaiman

====

In ‘the experience economy’ or ‘experience as value’ world far too many people are simply laying out ‘experience’ as some amorphous wonderful blob of ‘do it well’. Sure. Sometimes it is “customer experience”, sometimes user experience, but more often than not someone stands up in front of a big screen and suggest “experience is the new value.”

*** note: experience is an extension of product value, not value in and of itself. It is an expansion of proof. If the experience doesn’t add value to the product itself, i.e., just be entertainment, it creates unmatched anticipation-to-expectation reality in usage.

The truth is that not all experiences are created equal, competing on experiences is a race to the bottom (or a commodity in which you can charge less and less for) and any experience value truly resides on the experience within the experience.

Let me explain. If you want to find real value, the stuff that drives up experience value, begin identifying the experiences within the experience. A simple trip to the coffee shop becomes an order, an eavesdropped conversation, a thought on how that related to something you may have heard the night before, what your roommate would think of it, the conversation you are having in your head if you talked with them, how that makes you feel, and then your amazement that all that happened to you in an unexpected moment on a bland expected transactional experience you were doing.

The value is found within the threads in individual experiences.

While we like to think not everyone “sees the things no one else does” the truth is everyone sees the experiences within the experience.

In different terms it is actually an ability to take advantage of the ‘now’. An ability to expand experienced time – in a good way. Conceptually this is adding dimension to a linear, or horizontal, time continuum. I bring that up because many businesses map out ‘customer journeys’ <which can be a helpful tool> and, yet, that linearity can make you miss the experience within, which is expandable, and reflects essential parts to value. The best example I have of this is when I speak with UI/UX people and suggest ‘frictionless’ can actually diminish value and that purposeful friction moments can actually expand value.

But. To be clear, many of these experiences are unplanned. They simply intersect with a standard continuum of experiences representing added value. I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that many experiences within the experience is a reflection of the fact one person’s experience is intersecting with another’s experience <or a number of them> creating an expandable moment as it shoves multiple experiences into a time space planned for one essential experience.

Yeah. In those moments, at its simplest, experience goes vertical and, at its most complex, it becomes a spinning helix of multiple experiences. I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out this is also where ‘stories’ occur, not in the grand experience but rather in the experience within the experience – the moments that become stories to the one who experienced it.

Anyway. All of that can seem overwhelming and create some uncertainty on how to optimize this whole “experience economy” thing being thrown around. All you really have to do is craft an experience that has experience opportunities nested within and then make sure you get credit when someone triggers a nested experience. You will not always get it right, but I can guarantee you will get it righter than someone who simply says “its all about the experience.”

“Emotive laziness; repugnances of memory: such things—such revealing imbecilities—exist. I can feel that some worry of long ago, a forgotten indignity, a thorn still rankling in the flesh might well recover its activity. But what, after all, is “the past”? On the other hand, I can foresee and outwit this obsession. Foresee it and avert it. Daytime lights up my ideas and my ideas light up my night-time. The shadow of the idea scares the idea away.”

Paul Valéry

=====

The organization with agility will be the one who optimizes the free exchange of ideas and thinking. This concept almost always brings up ‘thinkers versus doers’ and focus of roles within an organization. Let me be clear. Optimizing each person’s role, and skill, certainly ensures a level of efficiency and the essential replication which underpins consistency. But in order to continuously improve, or even more importantly, exploit opportunities, those people who have been optimized as a “part” need to have a free exchange of ideas with the “whole” if you desire to optimize the system itself. And should a business desire to attain the next level of its potential simply using the employees it has, this free exchange includes a free exchange of mistakes and unrealistic imagination. The latter is important because what may appear to be unrealistic in one individual’s imagination maybe be attainable and realistic when the ‘inspired idea’ is confronted by the whole. This means even the most ‘doer’ organization, one focused on execution, can become a collection of ideas which does incorporate the innovation necessary for continuous improvement but also has the ability to incorporate non-innovation ideas, a different configuration of existing resources and abilities, which is equally effective in terms of profitability and usefulness (using what exists is always more applicable than something new because no one has to learn something new).

I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out this is also the pathway to maintaining a hierarchy AND increasing organizational effectiveness. Instead of people keeping their potential to themselves, their potential (the unforeseen, by management, contributions any employee can offer when free exchange is encouraged).

Which leads me to links.

In the internet world the link is possibly the greatest invention of all time. With one click someone can zoom across the universe (meta or mesa) and reach some destination. What once could only be traveled on foot (trudge down to the library) was now Star Trek ‘transporter’ capabilities. I bring up links to make a point on exchange of ideas and connectivity even within a traditional hierarchy. Linking people, and their ideas, skills and potential, within an organization permits the organization itself to transport itself to destinations yet unseen. And just like a link on your computer, you don’t have to know how it works, you need not even design the link, just click on it and you zoom away. This is the positive aspect of what The Cluetrain Manifesto called “the hyperlinked organization.” In Cluetrain they pointed out everything was transparent with the advent of the internet. While many business leaders shivered, and still do, over that loss of control it actually also offers an opportunity to control, or corral, the potential within your organization – foster it to the benefit of the business.

Which leads me to evolution.

Evolution is always in search of a weakness and systems are always evolving. This means they are dynamic in and of themselves with components working, and failing, and being replaced, and improved, continuously. The constraints are typically the infrastructure (capital expenditures the institution seeks to optimize its investments) and leadership mindset. So, while people, humans, may manage to probabilities the reality is constricted, or constrained, by the institution itself (which actually increases the likelihood of missed opportunity and/or catastrophes). Evolution, left to its own devices, tends to enhance an organization – efficiently and effectively. Should a business solely focus on execution, evolution is stifled and growth and progress has a ‘cap’.

To be fair (part 1), an execution-focused mindset can grind out an excellent profit day to day <and customer satisfaction> and if they compensate the grinders well that machine can go on successfully for quite some time.

To be fair (part 2), in a rapidly expanding organization, either through continuous acquisitions or significant mergers or even velocity driven organic business growth, an execution-focused mindset may be mandatory simply to insure executional coherence (with an outcome of cultural coherence).

To be clear, both of those ‘to be fair’ comments are linked to some specific environment contextual aspects therefore have limited life within different contexts.

Lastly.

Constraints on free exchange of ideas. One could conclude when they hear ‘free exchange of ideas’ an organization in which roles are blurred, departments thinking about other department’s responsibilities and a bunch of people being asked to take their eye off the executional ball. Its not that way. While an organization should always encourage a free exchange of overall ideas and some transparency to how thinking can enhance doing, the reality is the most effective exchange of ideas are transactional in nature.

What I mean by that is someone, somewhere, within the business has an inspiration. That ‘inspiration’ isn’t really an idea yet but the seed of something. It gets shared <free exchange of an idea>, with collaboration <either organic or curated> that inspiration becomes a concept. From there, especially within an execution-focused business, the inspired concept needs to become an implementable concept <inexecutable concepts are wasted use of resources>. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out this type of exchange is not simply in the purview of some select, few but rather open to any and all within an organization.

I maintain agility is how any organization, execution and/or creative driven, will ‘future-fit’ for the future and a free exchange of ideas is most likely the foundation for that agility. “The shadow of the idea scares the idea away.”  Ponder.

=====

“The moment of truth, the sudden emergence of a new insight, is an act of intuition. Such intuitions give the appearance of miraculous flushes, or short-circuits of reasoning. In fact, they may be likened to an immersed chain, of which only the beginning and the end are visible above the surface of consciousness. The diver vanishes at one end of the chain and comes up at the other end, guided by invisible links.”

Arthur Koestler

=======

“There are no separate systems. The world is a continuum.”

Donella Meadows

==========

We love addition. It is simple, linear and understandable. One and one makes two provides some logic in a sometimes illogical world. It implies if we just study each of the ‘ones’ well enough we will be able to predict an outcome when we put them together. Understand one, and then understand another, and when you put that one and the ‘another’ together it will equal something.

Which leads me to “and.”

“Ands” are connections. Between people, between things, in general ‘ands’ are things within a system. This means in order to understand <as well as one can> a system one has to explore the mechanisms/things/connections that makes things happen – the “ands.” Simplistically the easiest way to do this is to step back and watch how the system behaves. And, yet, even this is tricky:

“You think that because you understand ‘one’ that you must therefore understand ‘two’ because one and one make two. But you forget you must also understand ‘and.’”

 (Meadows Thinking in Systems)

It is in interconnection <the ‘ands’> which may actually make one and one equal something other than two. That makes most people’s heads explode, yet, it shouldn’t because it explains velocity, scale and a variety of other exponential growth/progress ideas. Similarly, if you grasp the concept, now you must also accept that, in this case, one and one maybe actually equate to something less than two.

Which leads me to resilience.

Understanding “ands” is actually about understanding the resilience of your business. Yeah. Resilience rarely resides within a system, but rather the connections within a system. So, if you seek to understand a business’s resilience you have to understand the connections <complexity science suggests ‘fractals’>. I say that because resilience is a measure of a system’s ability to survive and persist within a dynamic environment. It has elasticity embedded within in, not constancy. Resilience is restorative from conditions encountered which means it offers non-static stability. All that said. The elasticity is found in the conversations, the connections, the “ands” and the ability to juggle, and find the appropriate equilibrium, of replicable and emergent.

Which leads me to “ands” and complexity.

While ‘ands’ are connections it is within connections where one can actually find insights into a system. While interconnected can look incomprehensible you can actually see some insights within the connectivity because connectivity, at its most basic level, are small linear fractals within a nonlinear complexity which represent. To be clear. I propose insights are not causally linear (they simply release a nonlinear aspect of probabilities) nor are they simple rather they are reflective of unleashing complexity’s non-linear potential. These insights may appear simple, because at their best they focus on some linear fractal, but they are complex in nature.

The truth is below the surface of any complex system outcomes lies a complex arrangement of fractal connections <”ands”>. By rummaging around the ‘ands’, you can discover some human insights (mindset/attitude/behavior) or some recurring patterns that ground connectivity AND observe some of the more nebulous inconsistent interactions/connections. Technically these are ‘fractal simplicities’ or what Alvin Toffler suggested in the 1980’s as halfisms versus wholisms.

Insights actually straddle halfisms and wholisms (albeit I could suggest insights are halfisms which lead to a wholism). Regardless. Insights reflect a connection TO the truthism while not offering the whole truth in and of itself.

Which leads me to the “art of ands.”

“And analysis” is an art. Here is what I mean. It was Arthur Koestler, in The Act of Creation 1964, who identified something called “bisociation of matrices” or how one creatively identifies patterns or connections.

** note: (Koestler) “The pattern underlying [the creative act] is the perceiving of a situation or idea, L, in two self-consistent but habitually incompatible frames of reference, M1 and M2. The event L, in which the two intersect, is made to vibrate simultaneously on two different wavelengths, as it were. While this unusual situation lasts, L is not merely linked to one associative context, but bisociated with two.

I have coined the term ‘bisociation’ in order to make a distinction between the routine skills of thinking on a single ‘plane,’ as it were, and the creative act, which … always operates on more than one plane. The former can be called single-minded, the latter double-minded, transitory state of unstable equilibrium where the balance of both emotion and thought is disturbed.”

‘Ands’ are grounded in a “bisociation of matrices” and, as Robert Kegan (Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life, 1994) stated, the idea of a “holding environment” which offers two key aspects within thinking — the Socialized Mind and the Self Authoring Mind:

Order 3: Socialized Mind. Cross-categorical thinking-the ability to relate one durable category to another-is evident in the third order of consciousness. As a result, thinking is more abstract, individuals are aware of their feelings and the internal processes associated with them, and they can make commitments to communities of people and ideas.

The ability to scan about for cross functional, cross categorical, cross institutional, thinking is at the core of sense making.

Order 4: Self-Authoring Mind. Cross-categorical constructing-the ability to generalize across abstractions, which could also be labeled systems thinking-is evident in the fourth order of consciousness. In this order, self-authorship is the focus. Individuals “have the capacity to take responsibility for and ownership of their internal authority” and establish their own sets of values and ideologies. Relationships become a part of one’s world rather than the reason for one’s existence.

‘Ands’ almost demand an understanding of the parts AND the whole, the intentions of the individual and community effort to be successful. In other words, ideas are self-authored AND socialized through connections so that the vision, idea and implementation are aligned to the benefit of the concept AND the business. in other words, ands is artistic thinking.

Which leads me to why understanding “ands” matters.

Even if you don’t completely buy into the mindset that all of business is complex, at minimum, most agree it is dynamic, constantly shifting and never/rarely static. That said.

• • • • I believe complexity just is. Period. It is the system in which all businesses work within. All dynamics are simply the dynamics of systems – institutions, people, process, automation, technology, society, culture (inside & out of a business), community (inside & out of a business), global, etc. – interacting with each other. In other words, a bunch of “ands”.
      • I believe complexity is expansive in nature, not reductive. Therefore, the objective of navigating complexity is always to unlock its potential, not ‘reduce complexity.’ In other words, maximize the “ands” and maximize complexity.

• • • • I believe there are linear aspects within complexity and there are causal relationships. In other words, “ands” are linear and their outcomes are causally nonlinear.

In the end. Thinking in ‘ands’ keeps us from simply dividing an issue into what we perceive as a solvable part versus unite the complexity into one seemingly unsolvable issue. Counterintuitively, the latter is actually the path to meaningful progress even though I suggest it is ‘unsolvable’. You do not ‘solve’ complexity, you use ‘ands’ to navigate and untap complexity’s potential.

I believe we would be better off thinking about this. I imagine my larger point is that systems and individuals are inextricably linked and if one desires to ‘work the system’ they will also need to ‘work the individual’ (I hate that phrase) and become experts in “and analysis.” Systems are people and people, inherently, are unique typically working in coherence to the benefit of a larger collective. In other words, systems are people, but systems effectiveness resides in the “ands.” Ponder.

—-

What a culture values is what it does and what it produces.

Culture is often simply a system of production. To the extent it exists as a healthy entity – it produces what it values.

—-

Culture people talk about culture, systems people talk about systems and humancentric people talk about humans. We need to stop this. If you seek to talk about one, talk about all. Culture is what people do, not what you tell them to do, and systems are a reflection of people’s behaviors and intents and productivity is the outcome of all working together. So, if your productivity sucks stop looking for a “thing” and recognize it is a result of ‘things.’

That said.

Systems.

Systems are persistent buggers. In fact, it is not unusual the persistence of a system is due solely to the existing mindsets, the language, the accepted ‘terms of agreement’ of how it works and should be worked, or, basically, what people consistently (almost as a default) think about it. This persists, the power/construct dynamics, as long as the terms of that agreement appear and feel favorable and the system thrives <or ‘works’>. As soon as the terms falter it begins to effect how people think about it and the system can become dysfunctional <or less functional than it was>. This persistency is also self-induced by the relationship of the system, people and productivity. Systems naturally deviate to the mean constantly dampening any deviations. In basic terms what this means is that systems naturally arc to existing productivity and discourages changes people may make to the system. Yes. Once a system is in place, and works, it is institutional gravity.

That said. It is fairly obvious that changes in terms of thinking affecting the system are rarely advanced by direct means especially if the system is working.

** note: “working”: working has a wide spectrum from ‘dysfunctional but productive’ to ‘functionally smooth’ and most business is comfortable with the range as long as KPIs and goals are met.

As with most systems, and human thinking, changes in attitudes are often inspired by unplanned events. That said.  Existing circumstances create environments/contexts which encourage, or discourage, listening/learning and sometimes, if done thoughtfully, we can bend circumstances in certain ways. But this is a tricky issue because ‘circumstances’ can be quite indirect in their influence as well as many can look unrelated to the future objective in the present.

Which leads me to the fact these vague relationships between cause and effect can often encourage people to think the system, itself, is something in and of itself. In other words, people don’t see themselves as within, and of, the system, but rather more often a victim, or beneficiary, of the system. This could be nothing further from the truth. People are the system and the only changes that can occur TO a system are created by people within, and interacting, with the system. Any one person can affect a system. Circling back to the beginning of this thought. If the persistence of the system is due to people (attitudes), it would behoove us to encourage people to think they are the system and, as David Amerland stated in Intentional, “attitudes are the lubricants which enable us to navigate complexity.”

Because once attitudinally people see themselves as systems influencers they will almost demand to have a better understanding of the systems roots, the things underpinning what makes it work, and doesn’t (it’s the way to isolate variants as well as possible leverage points). It also helps people understand the roles of people interacting with the system. The latter is important because cooperation is what optimizes systems and even speeds improvement.

Cooperation.

Cooperation absolutely needs some attitude agreements to be effective, but in the end cooperation is about effective connections and connectivity. Effective connections create mini frameworks for thinking and doing, probabilities and possibilities, risk and return. These mini frameworks (systems within a system) frame what is an exception and what is not so that there can be, or the possibility of, effective navigation of situations. To optimize the connections, they mustn’t be constrained by rules, but rather principles. Therefore, all the data and information input get assessed not just as ‘data’, but also through a principles lens. This lens constructs a criterion to be applied to what can, or cannot, be done with the data. This, in turn, standardizes responses and decisions within a framework, but not limit the responses and decisions to some “plug ‘n play” lowest common denominator. It also permits some space to accommodate some fairly high levels of uncertainty and still make progress (make decisions).

Criterion.

While principles provide some boundaries the natural temptation within any system (as noted in my first points) is to maintain the system if ‘it works’ <even if ‘works’ is suboptimal>. So, part of the criteria people need to assume is the ability to identify the parameters that matter (every business has things that make them successful) and blow the rest of the shit up. It’s an ongoing version of creative destruction in which you destruct something to create and create to grow in terms of impact. To be clear. Anyone can blow shit up, the true test of blowing shit up is destroying, or destruction, TO create. In other words. destruct paradigms, attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, mindsets, even the way things have always been done, in order to effectively set yourself apart from where you were before. Criterion is based on blowing shit up with a purpose in mind.

People.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out everything I have spoken of, even the system, revolves around people. I say that because while people are the system, they can simultaneously be a victim of a system. As noted earlier, systems are gravity and, at its worst, entropy. When you go into the details of most situations you will rarely find bad, ignorant, people, but rather find systems that have failed or are just bad or have just settled into a status quo mediocrity. Its easy to claim people are lazy or complacent or ‘sheep’ <following the crowd>, but more often than not people are constantly sifting through everything they are seeing and hearing and encountering — slowly but surely building up their own self <or, in a negative sense, tearing their own self down>. From a business perspective it is a sense of productivity. i.e., attitudes and behaviors that create the productivity that contributes to the system and is of the system.

I end there because if you want to change the system, once again, you need to address people and their attitudes. Productivity, 99% of the time, is a function of how each person sees how they can contribute to that productivity and, yes, people become what they ‘see’ <envision>. This is actually part of culture and I feel a need to point out that if you don’t like your culture you should probably begin with how the people see, attitudinally, their role in the systems of productivity. Here is what I do know. Systems, people, culture and productivity are inextricably linked and speaking of one without the others is, well, counterproductive.

========

sourcing:

this draft has lurked in my ‘draft fodder’ folder for quite some time and in using what i had written there I feel like there are a couple of points in this said by someone else. I do not want to take credit for something I did not think of <or maybe would have written that way> but i do not know who to credit. that said. the whole is mine, some parts inspired by someone else.