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

“I have tried in my way to be free.”

——————

Leonard Cohen

====

Ok. Occam’s Razor. You know: “the simplest explanation is usually the best one.”

Developed by 14th-century English Franciscan friar William of Ockham, Ockam’s Razor <more commonly spelled Occam’s razor>, suggests one should seek the ‘more economical solution.’ What he actually wrote <in Summa Logicae 1323> was “it is futile to do with more what can be done with fewer.”

Well.

This fabulous concept has been hijacked, twisted into a pretzel and, in general, bastardized under the insidious guise of ‘common sense’ logic.  It has been hijacked under the whole idea that ‘freedom’ is more often found in simplicity or the simplest explanations and , therefore, in a way those who use the concept in a misguided way are … well … bastardizing Life itself <and screwing up business in the business world>.

Yeah. Somehow … somewhere … someone decided that good ole Occam’s razor could be used day in and day out as ‘common sense living.’

I would point out that Ockham himself, a philosopher, wasn’t a big fan of simplistic common sense.

I would further point out that Ockham’s razor theory was based on, all things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the best one.

I would also point out that by “simple” Occam’s razor is really referring to the theory with the fewest new assumptions.

And, in fact, I would also point out that inevitably there are times when the simplest explanation for a given set of observations is, well, wrong.

Occam’s razor never claims to determine the truth or untruth of something. It only identifies the things we should logically consider and evaluate. Common sense, under the guise of simplicity, far too often strips, well, an idea, a concept, a process & a theory — of the texture & hues of which they should be judged.

The truth is that black, or white, is overrated … as in ‘this is a black or white thing.” The most interesting things and, frankly, the most effective ordinary things & ideas are neither black nor white nor even gray.

Complexity is a colorful idea & thought.

Therefore. Should we view Occam’s Razor the way skeptics use it we would find that their ‘one explanation is more likely’ not only doesn’t mean it is a common sense black & white issue, but it also tends to mean that the ‘common sense solution is not only not common nor of sense’. More importantly, common sense also commonly suggests the incorrect solution.

Skeptics <or ‘simplify or die’ seekers>, in their attempt to simplify everything, treat Occam’s Razor as if it were an actual “Law of things” and use it to enable denying any rational claim, no matter how valid, based on … well … common sense. Occam’s Razor is not a ‘law’, simply a ‘rule’ of thought or a principle for which to think about things.

Look. It was not meant to be anything associated with ‘common sense.’ Instead it was about making choices and deductions economically. Occam’s razor was never meant for paring everything down to some beautiful simplistic core of truth.

The truth is that most things are, unfortunately, difficult and messy – even complex. And, yes, I can absolutely see why someone would gravitate to the good ole razor with the intent to simplify. But Ockham’s razor was not intended to cut away anything & everything or eliminate logic it simply suggested that when everything is done, when everything has been thought of, and if all things were equal, you should look to the most economical solution as the one which made the most sense.

No, not common sense, but rather ‘the most sense.’

Or. As Tao Ching said; “seek simplicity, grasp the essential.’

Occam’s razor does not mean eliminating the essential no matter how complex or burdensome the essential it is.

Why? Well. We certainly do not want to make things more complicated than they need to be, but you also do not want to simplify so much that losing something essential ends up ‘under complicating’ things. And this is where common sense and the whole simplicity thing really screws up good ole Occam & the razor.

Pretty much any great theory, any great concept, any great idea has to incorporate what I would call ‘intentional simplification.’ That is intentionally ignoring some things <some effects or causes of things> not because they do not exist or do not actually happen, but because they do not have any impact or much of an impact on the final outcome. Conversely, this means some idiot <or a bunch of them> are going to wander around picking up all the non essential things and say “common sense suggests your conclusion is flawed because you ignored these things.”

WTF.

“I purposefully, intentionally, ignored them … as meaningless in the grander scheme of things.”

In some absurd version of their world their ‘simple common sense facts’, well, over complicate things. They use Occam to … holy shit … complicate things. Uh oh. They actually use common sense to … holy shit part 2 … complicate things.

As I said back in September 2013 when I first used Occam’s razor: sometimes what is … is … well … just is.

Yeah. That may be the paradox that ‘common sense’ struggles with – sometimes the simplest explanation is complex and maybe even ambiguous and your job is to make it understandable, not simple.

Look.

Occam does not nor should it take sides on any given issue.

Occam does not nor should it shame a complex issue out of existence.

People who ignorantly wield Occam’s Razor often seem to be unaware of this.

To wield it incorrectly is a lazy tactic at best.

To wield it incorrectly is usually a reflection of ignoring the crucial question … whether there really is a need for the questioning.

Shit. That alone is Occam’s largest suggestion — should I slice away questioning what is?

Anyway.

Where the lazy Occam users gain confidence is that Occam, at his core <albeit I did not know him personally> was a nominalist maybe even a minimalist. But even the most simplistic minimalist recognizes that analysis of anything truly worthwhile is likely to be incredibly complex — even at its simplest.

While I love simplicity, I will admit, the utility of Occam’s Razor is highly questionable. I fear that its misuse flippantly eliminates the useful by selecting over-simplified competitors. Occam’s razor is simply a heuristic or rule of thumb which should be used to guide discussion but not to offer a solution. All it does is to encourage us to favor, among otherwise equivalent theories or hypotheses, those that make the fewest unwarranted assumptions.

It is not a law.

It is not a scientific principle.

It cannot justify a position in and of itself.

It does not represent common sense.

Maybe everyone should remember only one thing about Occam’s razor that really matters — the razor analogy refers to “shaving off” or cutting from the theory those variables or concepts that are superfluous & non-essential and only create unnecessary complications. Maybe everyone should remember before they invoke Occam’s Razor as common sense that it is more important to identify ‘the essential’ as true common sense decision making.

In the end?

“I have tried in my own way to be free.”

Far too often people do so by attempting to simplify. They assume, through common sense, that less is better & less is more. And, in some ways, that is true, but not at the expense of what is essential & needed. Complexity is a Life truth. Freedom of choice, of living or almost anything is more often found in an “economical truth” and not in a ‘simplistic truth.’

Ponder that for a while.

==========

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>Originally published August 2016

Hugh McLeod

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

Mike Walsh

——————-

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

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

For example.

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

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

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

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

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

Toffler 1991

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

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

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

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

Now. Now that I have stated this is about people, I will now suggest that morality, ethics, and empathy need technology. The destiny of all those things are dependent upon technology. If that is so then I imagine I could say society’s fate resides in the hands of technology. That may seem backwards in that all of these things reside in humans, not technology. Well. They do but technology will either flatten, amplify or even extend the reach of all. I am certainly not suggesting that technology will guarantee morality or ethical behavior, but I would suggest improving technology increases the likelihood that morality and ethical behavior becomes more pervasive (expansive).

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

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

All That said.

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

In addition.

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

That juxtaposition of things creates stress to a societal structure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

   2. Socio-sphere: inter-related social institutions

   3. Info-sphere: channels of communication

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Atlee

In the end.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The unexpected, always the unexpected.

If they expect you to move right, move left. The first law of survival in this jungle that you’ll inhabit.

The unexpected move. “

—-

The Avengers

========

“She was already learning that if you ignore the rules people will, half the time, quietly rewrite them so that they don’t apply to you.”

—

Terry Pratchett

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

Well. Far too often in business we talk about making an “unexpected move” to gain an advantage as “zig when they zag.”

So lets’ take a minute and talking about the whole “zigging when they zag” bullshit. To be clear. On a football field zigging when they zag can be effective, but in business it is bullshit.

Look. I am all for running with a temporary advantage when given the opportunity <and, yes, about 97.385% of advantages are temporary — I made up the 97.385% number>. But that is not ‘zigging’.

I am all for hunkering down on a specific distinctness when it appears the rest of the category is bumbling around in an array of meaningless claims. But that is not zigging.

I am all for leaping through a window of opportunity when the window cracks open. But that is not zigging.

Suffice it to say … zigging, in general, is a stupid strategy.

Let me explain why.

Most industries, once they have a fair number of competitors, is more like a 7 lane superhighway where everyone is driving in the same direction within the same guard rails.

Not everyone will like thinking that, but the truth is that most businesses have smart people who see the same information and do all the necessary research with people who are likely, and not likely, to buy whatever it is they are selling and therefore strategies are in the same realm and everyone is pretty much competing in the same arena.

This means a couple of things.

• • Everyone is speeding toward the same approximate destination.

  • If something is obvious to you, it is most likely obvious to them.

What all of this means is you have to move, but most moves have to be done artfully.

So maybe despite the fact I balk at the whole ‘zig when they zig’ and ‘unexpected’ anything in business gives me heartburn it is possible I could discuss the art of the unexpected move.

I call it “art” because unpredictability as normal behavior is bad. No one likes someone who is unpredictable 100% of the time and organizations <alignment, operations and ‘day to day doing’> tend to respond poorly to unpredictability (so do customers).

In my highway metaphor unpredictability most likely means either <a> a crash or <b> slowing down and you get passed or <c> you are now on a completely different road than all the other competitors speeding toward sales, & customers.

As for predictable? Yikes. Boring. Lack of creativity. Bad <in a different way>. Let’s just call predictable “lack of any art.” In my highway metaphor this most likely means you are cruising in one of the right lanes, the slower lanes, and people are passing you all the frickin’ time.

This suggests making a move in your industry take more art and artfulness to navigate the path you desire or take advantage of the opportunity that may open.

This suggests, in the business world, you sit up and pay attention just with a little more focus when someone pulls out the “maybe we should zig when they zag” tritism. You do so mostly because anyone who says that who is not on a football field most likely has their head up their ass <but want to say something catchy in a meeting to be noticed>.

I say that, again, because most time in a business industry companies are going in a direction for a reason … that is where the sales are. So ‘zigging’ when everyone else ‘zags’ more than likely means they are heading toward sales and you are not.

Ok. Now. If you want to tie ‘unexpected move’ to survival … well … that is a different story. Survival does have a nasty habit of forcing some unexpected maneuvering. Ok. Maybe out of desperation the predictable in us decides that maybe being ‘unexpected’ may actually be called for.

I would suggest that if you find yourself in desperate times rarely is anything artful in that moment. But I would suggest that in a desperate survival mode I can offer two lists you should write up on some big board in some big conference room and make sure you discuss. There are basically 4 basic responses to a threat <or opportunity I imagine>:

• • • Fight

    • Flee

    • Deceive

    • Submit

Any move you choose to make will be derived from one of these four spaces.

Choose wisely.

Once you have chosen <wisely> effectiveness in a survival fight basically comes down to 4 things <in the order of importance>:

• • • aggression and willingness to hurt your competition

    • willingness to get hurt yourself

    • skill and knowledge

    • strength and power

Some may haggle with my order, but the top two will dictate your success regardless of how you stack the last two. And of the last two I would suggest most of the time knowing what to do is more important than brute strength.

Choose wisely <but always choose the first two or you will get crushed>. I offer these two lists because when anyone suggests zigging when someone zags I bring these out.

Shit. I bring these two lists out almost any time a business wants to talk about effectively competing in an industry.

Why?

Because nothing really matters if you do not figure out these two lists.

Why?

Going back to what I said earlier … advantages are temporary   and the other guys/gals you are competing against are as smart as you are. You don’t zig just for the sake of zigging <that is wasted organizational energy> and if you do have to take an unexpected move it is most typically a response to something in the situation <opportunity or threat>.

While we like to talk about zigging and zagging the reality comes back to the highway. You have to move forward and keep moving forward <or get run over>. The only zigging anyone should ever talk about is either moving into another lane to pass someone or another lane to let someone pass you or change lanes to avoid a crash.

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

“Desperation is the raw material of drastic change.

Only those who can leave behind everything they have ever believed in can hope to escape.

William S. Burroughs

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

Unexpected moves just to do something unexpected is stupid.

It is in the same category as change for change sake.

It is in the same category as zigging when they zag.

Now.

Unexpected moves made in the search for something incredible waiting to be known <some desired destination>? Well. That isn’t stupid.

===========

“Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.”

Carl Sagan

===========

Unexpected moves made to survive on the competition highway? That isn’t stupid.

Unexpected moves made to veer through a window of opportunity that arises? That isn’t stupid.

But zig when they zag? C’mon. That’s just stupid.

It is stupid because more likely than not it just means you will have not left the competition behind, but rather just left the competition.

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

“I eventually came to understand that in harboring the anger, the bitterness and resentment towards those that had hurt me, I was giving the reins of control over to them.”

Isabel Lopez

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

“Beware of those who are bitter, for they will never allow you to enjoy your fruit.”

Suzy Kassem

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

Well. Spite and resentment is one of the least discussed business ailments in the business world. What I mean is that businesses around the world <including the good ole USofA> are strewn with middle management and upper management who carry around a full backpack of resentment. This backpack has a nifty well designed logo on it — victim.

I would imagine <this is a guess> that this significant sprinkling of people in the business world carrying around the resentment of being victimized in some form or fashion do not hold the most senior spots, but rather they hold the responsibilities most dangerous to the overall health of an organization – middle management.

They are most likely not at the top because those people got the positions they deserve.

** note: while a significant amount of less-than-competent people, mostly men, get promoted into senior positions the majority of senior people do have significant skills

The ones who carry resentment are the ones who have been promoted “too slowly” or maybe haven’t been “recognized for the talents they offer” or maybe have been passed over by “someone who doesn’t know half the shit I know” and then, to their satisfaction, they have FINALLY been promoted. They take the step up, but before they do, stop at the bottom of the stairs to pick up their backpack of resentment and then accept the step up.

I often think of this as the ugly underbelly of ‘entitled’ or “finally getting what one deserves.” This is … uhm … in other words, resentment. And resentment carries a nasty quiver of grievance arrows to shoot when given the opportunity.

And grievances have a nasty habit of being one of those things that like to be addressed and not ignored.

Now. Some people confuse this with “carrying a chip on their shoulder” which is what got them to where they are today.

That’s bullshit.

People mistakenly conflate “carrying a chip on their shoulder” with ambition.

It’s not as simple as that. In fact that simplistic ‘go about business like they have a chip on their shoulder’ is actually just a lazy attitude toward motivation.

It is more often than not some self-created ‘boogieman’ someone has created in their mind in order to go out and be your best. It’s faux extrinsic motivation rather than intrinsic and it’s bullshit. If that’s all you have for motivation, well, that’s just not good <for you and the people you work with>.

Yes. In small doses a ‘chip on your shoulder’ can give you some well needed nudges to “I will show them” attitude at some key moments.

No. Large doses, or constant, “conducting myself with a chip on my shoulder” attitude simply makes you an asshole.

You become an asshole because this 100% chip on shoulder attitude actually makes hate, in some form or fashion, the energy to drive everything – it creates an outsized sense of grievance which you bring with you wherever you go. This grievance not only seems to pour from every pore in this person, but also seems to appear every time this person makes a decision <if not in the words they say>.

Yeah.

The resentment people can be crafty.

Crafty in that they justify their behavior not just based on their outsized chip, but more often that they are standing up for all who have been overlooked and begrudged of what they were entitled to by some unfair system or ‘cadre of assholes driven to let mediocrity thrive.’

It’s bullshit and it’s another version of us versus them, but with a total selfish foundation.

In addition. If they are good at masking their resentment, each decision, taken as mutually exclusive of all other decisions, can maybe be explained as a ‘personal issue being addressed’ or sometimes even simply an impulsive instinctual decision.

That’s bullshit too.

I am not suggesting all employees burdened by an unhealthy weight of resentment are actually bad managers and business people <in a pragmatic competent sense>, but they do have a nasty tendency to have built this façade of some “personal brand” which they have honed over time as they have been ignored & overlooked so much so that all decisions and choices get instinctually filtered through this personal brand filter.

Nothing is impulsive, nothing is “resentment driven” and nothing is “addressing a grievance”, it is all simply driven by the personal brand, i.e., I am what I am because of who I am.

What makes this behavior confusing to people <in terms of trying to discern motivations and the sense that there is an unhealthy amount of resentment incorporated into the management style> is that there is no long term strategy, it just assumes that all transactions meet the brand therefore, in the long run, it is good.

Exceeding expectations is defined in a transaction by transaction basis and weapons used to meet expectations <responsibilities> are justified as means to an end. In other words these managers can screw anyone they want professionally, but if within that specific project, assignment or transaction the greater organizational expectations are met or exceeded … well … this manager has “won.”

Oddly this behavior creates an odd sense of consistency … & inconsistency.

It can often appear inconsistent in that the actions, behavior & decisions are not particularly driven by any business philosophy or ideology or even based on what is right or wrong.  This drives the appearance of inconsistency.

The consistency is grounded on vindictiveness. This doesn’t mean any and all actions are vindictive just that if the opportunity arises to address some self-defined grievance and the window of opportunity to be vindictive opens this person will jump through that window.

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

“I must fight with my weapons. Not his. Not selfishness and brutality and shame and resentment.”

John Fowles

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

Here is the problem with all that I have shared today.

Resentment is part of the devilish trinity of bad shit in a business environment – fear, anger, resentment.

All the yesterdays make this person angry and humiliated and, frankly, they feel like they have been taken advantage of. It creates a negative emotional foundation from which all behavior and actions are leveraged from.

I could argue that this is a cultural thing. Something like a “culture of entitlement” in which people feel like they are promised promotions & money simply because they work hard.

I will not.

This is an individual issue.

Individuals are responsible and complicit in this attitude and behavior – culture does not force them to do anything and think anything on this issue.

I could argue that this is some version of culture encouraging a larger sense of victimhood.

I will not.

This is an individual issue.

It is not victimhood if you shoulder your own responsibilities and are ‘punished’ if the chips do not fall your way.

I could argue that thus is some warped version of culture encouraging unrealistic expectations.

I will not.

This is an individual issue.

Expectations are defined personally, society and culture doesn’t tell you what to expect, You craft that expectation all by your lonesome. And, I have news for everyone, while Life & business can be pretty cruel and unfair, in general, those who have ability and work hard do not typically get overlooked or left behind. Hate to tell the “resentful managers”, but I feel pretty confident suggesting that as a basic business truth.

The only thing I will argue is that someone who has a big backpack of resentment should never be a leader.

Why?

Anger today.

Resentment of yesterday.

Fear of tomorrow.

That is the trio of partners in crime in this sad story. I have to tell you. I am fairly sure no business wants those three sitting in any one office every day in their business.  And I am absolutely sure these are not qualifications one seeks in a new employee.

Beware the bearers of resentment in business.

====

====

“I am not afraid of my truth anymore and I will not omit pieces of me to make you comfortable.”

—

Alex Elle

===

So. Being yourself is a tricky topic. In business, Life & deciding what you want to do.

I know <I know>.

Seems like “being yourself” should be simple. Like ‘breathing’ type simple.

But it’s not. It’s not because there is a constant struggle between an internal part <’who am I’ type shit> and external <figuring out how ‘who am I’ should actually act in public>.

For example, one of my favorite young writers, Jamie, describes herself this way:

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

I’m a writer, pretty much by process of elimination. I am also a professional aspirationalist.

That’s not a word, but I’ve made it into one, since there was nothing that could quite describe me because I didn’t want to say I’m a “professional dreamer” because that sounds like some hippie shit.

I have aspirations, like, lots of them. If you’d like me to create a TV show, get in touch with me. How about publishing my memoir? Get in touch. If you are from The Ellen Show, I will, of course, accept your interview and would be delighted to dance it out with my girl, so long as she doesn’t prank me by making me eat cilantro. In fact, I want no cilantro in anything.

<Jamie Varon>

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

Professional aspirationalist. Not ‘professional dreamer’ nor ‘professional pragmatist.’

Ok.

Professional aspirationalist is just awesome.

If I could ever vote for a new term, that would be it. It’s fucking awesome. It captures the essence of restlessness & hope & striving & unlearning &, well, all the things I believe are good and healthy with a person seeking to be better tomorrow than they are today.

What I truly love about it is that she came up with a term to capture her “self.” I love it because being yourself, and even recognizing who ‘yourself’ is, is hard. And when I say hard think even harder than maybe becoming a Navy Seal type hard.

……….. self …….. an entanglement of nuances ………….

It is incredibly hard because the truth is that ‘my truth’ , more often than not, is most likely an evolving tangled web of characteristics which, as it evolves, simply becomes more tangled <rather than untangled>.

Yourself is constantly adapting to new learning, new learning about things and new learning, and unlearning <changed beliefs, opinions, attitudes, perspectives>, about oneself.

That’s why I love professional aspirationalist.

True north on Jamie’s compass is defined. And its not a destination, but rather it is a direction.

Aspirationalist is a moving target. It is restless and unmoving at exactly the same time. It is an adventurer with some pragmatism. It’s not being on Ellen <although she would be delighted to do so> because once that happens there will always be something else.

Being an aspirationalist means not only having dreams, but dreaming … oh … and doing.

Yeah.

Doing. As in doing lots of different shit.

Uh oh.

That also means … well … increasingly more and different dreams <and aspirations>. And increasingly doing more and different shit. Dreaming and doing. Lots of different dreaming and doing.

In the end <to me> being a professional aspirationalist means being a restless soul. Restlessly seeking, traveling, doing, thinking. Professionally constantly in motion <mentally or physically>.

I love it because it captures my personal belief that becoming ‘better’ as a person is experiential rather than tangible <although tangible ‘doing stuff’ is certainly a component>.

I love it because it isn’t for the faint of heart.

And isn’t what truly being yourself is all about? Having some courage to even suggest ‘I will not omit things just to make you comfortable.’

Professional aspirationalist reminded me of this other quote:

 ==

“I am a world that cannot be explored in one day. I am not a place for cowards.”

Caitlyn Siehl

==

Yes.

Being a professional aspirationalist means you are not a place for cowards.

Anyway.

I wish I had come up with this word, but I am not as talented a writer as Jamie.

I like it for its sense of Life’s paradox. Paradox in that it is independent and dependent at the same time.

I like it for it’s sense of Business’s paradox. Paradox in that success in business is a combination of stillness, at the right times, and movement/restlessness at all times.

I like it because at its core it doesn’t mean shunning the world and simply being a dreamer. It has rich & royal hues of reality threading its way through its fabric.

I would like to believe I am also a professional aspirationalist.

Now.

To be clear <because Jamie is correct the word selection was thoughtful to avoid the ‘hippie shit’>. Pragmatically, we aspirationalists do seek <some> approval and acceptance <ohhhhhhhhhhhh shit>.

Accept what I just wrote <that last sentence>. Don’t fight it <even if you are one of those who say ‘I don’t give a fuck what anyone thinks”>.

Because you do care.

Whether you like it or not, whether you think it is right or wrong, whether you think it is a good thing or bad in that it makes you ‘weak’ in some way, just get it set in your head – in some form or fashion – we care.

Don’t worry … we all care <not just aspirationalists>. We all care what the people around us think about us. And by ‘people’ I mean everyone from those closest to you <who would most likely accept you in any shape and form you ended up in … but you don’t want to disappoint them> to society overall <there is some value in gaining credit for who you are and what you do>.

Some acceptance from others feeds our self-esteem & self-worth <and all that Maslow stuff>.

Ah.

Please note I used the word “feeds.” Approval and acceptance is not the only nutrition necessary for a healthy esteem and worth.

It is simply one part of the diet.

Even we aspirationalists need a balanced ‘self diet’. We do not seek sole value from proving ourselves to others. And we don’t accept sole value in and of ourselves.

Being an aspirationalist is … well … the paradox. Independent dreamer with some dependence on external cues as to the value of our aspirations.

We want to fit into the world on our own terms.

Regardless.

What a description:

                       Professional aspirationalist:      I am not afraid of my truth anymore and I will not omit pieces of me to make you comfortable. I am a world that cannot be explored in one day. I am not a place for cowards.

We need more of these people in our world — in Life & in business.

Me? I will continue living life, trying to do good shit in Life & business, as a Professional Aspirationalist.

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

“We’ve all started to put down the virtues of the other factions in the process of bolstering our own. I don’t want to do that. I want to be brave, and selfless, and smart, and kind, and honest.”

Four <Divergent>

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

“Virtue refuses facility for her companion … the easy, gentle, and sloping path that guides the footsteps of a good natural disposition is not the path of true virtue. It demands a rough and thorny road.”

Michel de Montaigne

===========

Dauntless and being dauntless.

I thought about this after reading this quote from Rob Estreitinho: “Serve the idea. Solve the problem. Everything else is ego talk.”

In order to live your business Life to this ideal one would have to be, well, dauntless.

I love the word Dauntless.

I rediscovered the word in an otherwise incredibly poorly written great story <the Divergent trilogy>.

The book places society into five different factions — each espousing one specific virtue <at the expense of other virtues>.  I imagine one of the points is that making one virtue your Life focus is bad in that we are a complex balance of a number of virtues.

Anyway. The factions are <virtues>:

Abnegation.

Amity.

Erudite.

Candor.

Dauntless.

But it is in the Dauntless idea in which I found something that truly struck a chord.  Something I found valuable to think about. Okay. Not just for me but society, business and people in general.

—

“We believe in ordinary acts of bravery, in the courage that drives one person to stand up for another.”

Dauntless Manifesto

—

Well. There is a thought. No. there is a BIG thought. In a me, me, me world <or at least it sometimes feels that way these days>, in a world where if I see something like ‘no one will stand up for you but yourself’, or, hear ‘the only one you can count on is yourself’ one more time, I will begin thinking we have lost our humanity compass (or, at least, lost sight of what is important).

Important?

Ordinary acts of bravery.

Bravery as in everyday actions and not in running into fires to save someone or stepping in front of a bullet.

Bravery as in stepping in front of criticism.

Bravery as in stepping in front of ‘doing nothing.’

Bravery as in stepping in and doing what is right <even if it may not be the easiest thing to do>.

Bravery as in stepping up for an unpopular idea.

Or. How about these words:

“We believe in shouting for those who can only whisper, in defending those who cannot defend themselves.”

I am not suggesting shouting, but rather speaking out for those who only whisper and defending those who cannot defend themselves. This includes ideas.

Look.

The world is made up of a bunch of different people. It is crazy, fucking crazy, to criticize and diminish the people who only whisper or do not always defend themselves. Yeah. We may not like it, we may wish that they stood up and spoke out, but just because they don’t doesn’t make them ‘lesser than.’ It is simply what it is. Accept it. And if you can make a difference, and you want to make a difference; then make a difference. You are no better than the other person, you are simply doing what you do.

In other words. If you are dauntless, then be dauntless.

But, I imagine my real point is, if you have this dauntless virtue than accept the responsibility.

It is who you are and you should be it.

My next point?  Fearless and dauntless are two completely different things.

Dauntless doesn’t mean you do not have fear … it simply means ‘going the way despite maybe having fear.’ Dauntless is a relentless pursuit of what you believe is right.

As Montaigne suggests, it is not an easy gentle slope of living life; it is a rough and thorny road.

I found it interesting that the author of the Divergent trilogy in an appendix suggested the following lyrics to this song captured the essence of what she was writing about <and I thought it also was relevant to being dauntless>:

“Hold on to the world we all remember fighting for

There’s some strength left in you yet

Hold on to the world we all remember dying for

There’s some hope left in it yet

Arise and be

All that you dreamed.

Flyleaf <Arise>

Ah. Arise and be all that you dreamed.

Do we not all dream about standing up for those who cannot stand on their own?

Do we not dream about speaking up for those who can only whisper?

Or defending those who cannot defend themselves?

If that is being Dauntless … well … sign me up.

Now. We may all dream of being ‘that person.’  But that is not for everyone. And it shouldn’t be. Because sometimes being dauntless means you are simply clearing the way, opening the pathway, so someone can get through and do what they do. And what they do is make the world a little more like the world we remember worth dying for.

What does this suggest? Roles & responsibilities. We all have roles & responsibilities.

Regardless. The Dauntless Manifesto has some thoughtful thoughts. Things we should all think about. Things that may remind us of the world we remember worth dying for.

Anyway.  Parts of the Dauntless Manifesto are silly … but it is a poorly written young adult book so just focus on the sometimes breathtaking choice of words:

—————————–

Dauntless Manifesto:

We believe that cowardice is to blame for the world’s injustices.

We believe that peace is hard-won, that sometimes it is necessary to fight for peace. But more than that: We believe that justice is more important than peace.

We believe in freedom from fear, in denying fear the power to influence our decisions. We believe in ordinary acts of bravery, in the courage that drives one person to stand up for another.

We believe in acknowledging fear and the extent to which it rules us. We believe in facing that fear no matter what the cost to our comfort, our happiness, or even our sanity.

We believe in shouting for those who can only whisper, in defending those who cannot defend themselves.

We believe, not just in bold words but in bold deeds to match them. We believe that pain and death are better than cowardice and inaction because we believe in action.

We do not believe in living comfortable lives. We do not believe that silence is useful.

We do not believe in good manners.

We do not believe in empty heads, empty mouths, or empty hands.

We do not believe that learning to master violence encourages unnecessary violence.

We do not believe that we should be allowed to stand idly by. We do not believe that any other virtue is more important than bravery.

——————————-

All that said.

Being dauntless is not easy. Its about accepting fear, accepting doubt and accepting your own demons. Or maybe its just about living with them.

—-

”We never lose our demons. We only learn to live above them.”

Dr. Strange

—-

Ok. Here is what I know about living dauntlessly. It sounds like a simple choice but it is not simple. I believe it was Jaime Lannister on the Game of Thrones who explained it the best:

So many vows… they make you swear and swear. Defend the king. Obey the king. Keep his secrets. Do his bidding. Your life for his. But obey your father. Love your sister. Protect the innocent. Defend the weak. Respect the gods. Obey the laws. It’s too much. No matter what you do, you’re forsaking one vow or the other.

No matter what you do, no matter which direction, or fear, or decision, you face; as you turn away from one thing you will end up facing another. You will forsake one thing to deal with another.

What this means to Dauntless is, well, you may as well take action. You may as well do something.

You may as well try to improve your station and lot in Life despite whatever fears you may have.

=====

“If you pay attention to the present, you can improve upon it. And, if you improve on the present, what comes later will also be better…”

Paulo Coelho, The Alchemist.

====

 Look. As I have said a number of times the whole concept, the whole idea, the whole belief, of a fearless person is a lie. It is bullshit.

Sure. Some of the best of the fearless-like dauntless people have an inner fear compass which enables them to navigate fear little better than the rest of us everyday schmucks.

To be clear. They actually have dauntless guardrails which keeps them from chaos of ‘do anything just to do’ which truly only a psychologically screwed up person would ever embrace.  That means they don’t simply ignore fear & doubt; they accept it and manage it.

====

“There are very few monsters who warrant the fear we have of them.”

Andre Gide

====

Look.   I am not suggesting that fear doesn’t exist I am simply suggesting we often permit fear to take on superhuman powers and intergalactic sizes in our minds. I am suggesting seeking to be successful through being dauntless means not eliminating fear but simply making it into bite sized portions more easily swallowed <or however you elect to deal with fear … that was just a suggestion>.

Here’s the deal.

All people fear failure.

Everyone.

Even the dauntless.

And anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.

It’s just that some people set it aside and strive to seek something that lies somewhere beyond the fear. Across the chasm as it were. That is what being dauntless is.

Remember. Fear is defined as the emotional response to an actual or perceived threat of immediate or imminent danger or pain.  The capacity to experience fear is part of human nature that has been hard-wired into us. And it is debilitating to most people. It is a fact that a large number of people suffer the often debilitating impacts of fear and anxiety. They suffer a sense of being overwhelmed and helplessness leading to an inability to take action or make changes.

Interestingly I believe we tend to tie bravery and courage with being able to overcome that helplessness brought on by fear.

Well.

I don’t think that’s right.

In most cases it is more about having the ability to see <or conceptualize> what is somewhere across the chasm and using that as the focal point to step toward. That’s not courage … that is simply focusing on what is important.

Or, let’s say, an ability to focus.

Or, let’s say, an ability to envision possibilities.

Or, let’s say, being dauntless.

The ability to keep going with their plan of action, in spite of feeling scared, because they were generally resolute in their decisions, knew the risks attached to what they were doing and in many cases believed that their actions served a larger cause for a greater good <and they had a chance of achieving an outcome they could be happy with>.

People like that don’t lessen the fear … they simply accept it … and focus on the objective.

But.

Here is the true value of being dauntless: it enhances the chance to provide greater joy and expansiveness in other’s lives.

According to a psychologist quoted in a 2009 Psychology Today: “the inaction that stems from excessive, irrational fears or fear-based thinking often shows up as a decision to live life from a “safe” position and not take risks, even if that means forsaking opportunities that might provide greater joy and expansiveness to one’s life.”

As for being dauntless?

What’s important is the action. We take action all the while seeking our own version of the Dauntless Manifesto.

And maybe that is the important closing thought. “My version of dauntless.”

Being Dauntless is a personal choice, personal decision and personal attitude. Comparing dauntlessness is stupid and wrong.

You version is yours, mine is mine. How we do dauntless isn’t comparable; it should only be judged by your reflection in the mirror. That is the only judge that counts.

source: Zach Mercurio

———-

“Books are not made to be believed, but to be subjected to inquiry. When we consider a book, we mustn’t ask ourselves what it says but what it means.”

Umberto Eco, The Name of the Rose

—–

“Treat all of your secondary characters like they think the book is about them.”

Jocelyn Hughes

——–

Purpose, to me, is an intrinsic energy and the moment someone, a business or a person, makes it an extrinsic objective/vision/”Why” I believe they have stepped on the slippery slope downwards to hollow, or hollowing, of behavior. What I mean by ‘hollow’ is as soon as Purpose becomes an extrinsic goal it encourages some aspect of ‘blindness’. It can be ethical blindness (which may seem weird to say assuming Purpose is good, but as Ann Tenbrunsel, Professor of Business Ethics says in this podcast, Overcoming our Ethical Blindspots , often the most altruistic organization can have the most ethically dubious behavior. It can simply be objective blindness (which all business deals with). It can just be an overall blindness toward a myriad of details under the guise of some laudable ‘purpose.’

That said.

In general, I wish all business people would put down the Purpose crack pipe and take a deep breath.

Purpose is an outcome, not an objective.

Purpose is certainly a higher order undertaking, but tying it specifically to business results is not only misguided but a dubious undertaking (Richard Shotton’s chapter in The Choice Factory is an excellent stripping of the Stengel Purpose argument).

Which leads me to books. Let’s say you are interested in business and Purpose and do not want to pay gobs of your hard earned money on some bullshit. Maybe start here. It’s Not What You Sell, It’s What You Stand For: Why Every Extraordinary Business Is Driven by Purpose by Roy M. Spence Jr. and Haley Rushing.

I have noted several times I don’t particularly like reading business books. And then you run across one like this one and it renews your faith in perusing the business book section seeking something to read. This book is chockfull of interesting anecdotes and sound bites. This book was written in 2009 and even by then the premise of ‘purpose driven’ had been talked about for years (don’t buy into the bs that it is some ‘new found soul of business’), but Roy Spence offers a really nice more pragmatic articulation. Much much better, more pragmatic, than Sinek’s “Why.”

Anyway. While I believe every business owner should read this (I believe it should be mandatory reading for every business class in universities) I hope that readers take to heart the individual message. The message that if you, as a person, can get a grip on the idea of individual purpose that you can truly live an extraordinary life. This is a good book. It communicates some great messages and gives you some excellent behind the scenes stories which are just plain fun to know about.

This next book may seem odd in talking about Purpose, but let me explain. The book is Technique for Producing Ideas by James Webb Young. This book (which was written in 1937 for advertising people) is relevant to anyone’s work. This little book is one of the simplest summaries of commonsense—and articulating common sense is this book’s greatest virtue. The book lays out a five-step process for generating novel and not-so-novel ideas, articulating them so that you can put to them to immediate use. It is a powerful guide for gathering information, stimulating imagination, and recombining old elements into meaningful new ideas. It is so simple you wonder why so many consultants make it so much more difficult. But the real point in bringing this up with regard to Purpose is ‘perspective.’ Purpose is all about having, and understanding, perspective and “we” not ‘me’. “How to Produce Ideas” may sound like its about ideas, but its not. its about social dynamics and understanding where you are in perspective to others and other things. I would argue, as does Zach Mercurio, you don’t ‘find your

source: Zach Mercurio

‘purpose’ it is simply there for you to see it.

 ** note: Zach’s book, The Invisible Leader, is actually one of the books specifically written about Purpose worth reading.

Anyway. “How to Produce Ideas” is about seeing and once you see than you, well, see how you can fit in and assist in the progress of things.

Beyond those books I would much prefer business people hunker down on Vision, Mission, Strategy & Tactics rather than Purpose.

Look. Let me try this as an explanation.

We often talk about IoT (internet of things). Internet of Things is about connectivity and platforms for making things happen and lifting all. Maybe we should be speaking of PoT – Purpose of Things. Look at Purpose as structural lift. If you just go about doing things to lift things, well, you have Purpose. You will have contributed. You will have meaning. This doesn’t have to be complicated or complex, simply try in each one of your 30,000 daily decisions to attempt to provide some ‘lift’. Lift the process, lift the system, lift the task, lift the moment and maybe even lift a person.

In the end.

I often find myself in an uncomfortable position. Uncomfortable in that I do not believe Purpose will ever be found by reading a book, but reading books will help you better understand Purpose. So maybe I end with where I began. Reading, with regard to Purpose, should be viewed as an intrinsic task, not an extrinsic – objective seeking – task. The more you read this way the more likely you will intrinsically embrace purposeful living. So don’t pick up book about Purpose, pick up books and read meaningful stories. I promise you that if you can find a meaningful story, somewhere within that story will be a person who purposefully did something that mattered – and it mattered.

———

“What we call chaos is just patterns we haven’t recognized yet.”

=

Chuck Palahniuk

———————– 

“Confusion is a word we have invented for an order which is not understood.”

=

Henry Miller

————-

So. Businesses absolutely freak out over the whole idea of chaos & confusion.

They see it as a terminal virus for which they spend gobs of money trying to inoculate the organization against and invest gobs of time trying to tamp down <or stamp out> any outbreaks within an organization.

Well. Let me suggest that, on occasion, a little chaos and confusion outbreak is good for an organization.

Yup. I just said that.

I wrote fairly recently that great organizations tend to linger on the edge of chaos … or ‘bedlam’ as I called it. 

I believe the part I left out is the idea that in a great organization, well, what appears to be chaos is not really chaos, and what appears to be confusion, is not really confusion. To be clear … it can have the same feel, the same smell, the same look, but it is not really chaos or confusion.

Well.

Than what the hell is it? Well. I believe it was Peter Senge who said “Living systems, and organizations, have integrity.” Using that I would suggest 99.9% of organizations have structural integrity, therefore, true chaos is 99.9% impossible. What that means, pragmatically, is chaos in a typical organization is simply a pattern, or an order, we just don’t recognize — yet. Yeah. It is quite possible we will never see the pattern or create the order as ‘learning’ from the confusion. Instead we may only see the outcome of the seeming chaos and confusion and that outcome is most often a new idea or a new thought or a new invention.

===

“Invention … does not consist in creating out of void but out of chaos.”

Mary Shelley

===

New shit always confuses, and scares, the crap out of an organization.

Most organizations seek consistency & order & patterns of behavior that they can manage and guide toward the holy grail of business – efficiency <which means you can lower costs and either make higher margins or lower prices>.

Shit.

I hate to break the news to everyone, but efficiency is not the holy grail of business.

The holy grail is ideas, inventions and thoughts.

Efficiency tends to grind those three things down to dust. Situational or moments of chaos and confusion tends to create the friction necessary to spark those three things to fire.

Maybe that’s it. Great organizations burn on occasion. We confuse the flames as chaos and confusion and only see the organization going down in flames. Instead maybe we should see some chaos & confusion as the phoenix. What I do know for sure is that more often than not, chaos and confusion in business is not really chaos & confusion <despite the faux leaders running up & down the hallways waving their hands trying to get things back to the way they were – orderly>.

Most times it is simply something happening in which we have yet to recognize the pattern … the NEW pattern the organization is adopting <or should be adopting>.

I am also pretty sure about this.

Inventions, ideas and innovations, the good ones, the ones that are dynamic beyond their own purpose, are more likely to come from chaos than from ‘efficient orderliness.’

That said.

Maybe the worst thing a business can do is try to tame the chaos within. Its like asking an organization to not feel. Is there anything worse then not feeling?

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

Originally published May 2015

—————-

“Where a society is defined by its boundaries, a culture is defined by its horizon. A boundary is a phenomenon of opposition. A horizon is a phenomenon of vision. One cannot look at a horizon, it is simply the point beyond which we cannot see. One never reaches a horizon. It is not a line, it has no place, it encloses no field, its location is always relative to the view.”

James Carse

——————-

Let me begin by suggesting a company has one of 2 choices to meet its objectives:

– enable innate desire for meaningfulness

– exploit people as resources

Most companies build an environment somewhere in the wretched hollow inbetween with a practical emphasis on the latter and superficial emphasis on the former.

That said.

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

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

Today I propose a business model which proactively seeks anticipatory triggers to predict emergent activity and yet keeps people’s heads on a swivel for the unseen triggers which activate ‘surprises’ or opportunities.  And that is where technology can play a role – a significant role.

It is a business environment in which technology is a distributor of data, and knowledge (Intelligence Driven Software) and data drives strategic decision-making. This means Data drives potential, not just efficiency in decision-making & strategy, but effectiveness. The value of an AI infrastructure, leaning on algorithms, is that knowledge tends to pool rather than trickle throughout. AI (algorithms) become the irrigation system for institutional knowledge, data, individual knowledge and resources. In fact. Algorithms may actually be the order needed to provide the guardrails to an emergent organization.

Note: Some thoughts on the Intelligence Based Software (IBS) Concept

At its core this intelligence software is an iterative knowledge distribution system grounded in both predictive (recognized) patterns and emergent (unpredictable) patterns.

I envision a two stream of intelligence, one predictive and one emergent. The concern with having only a predictive stream, one based on boundaries, is even constantly evolving technology cannot outrun problems or be fluid enough to recognize emergent patterns (even technology doesn’t know what it doesn’t know). So, I envision a software intelligence/information distribution infrastructure which is rigid enough in one stream to consistently distribute useful intelligence, based on recognized symbols/words/topics, to have pattern recognition and, yet, have another stream which is fluid enough to reimagine patterns.

The intent is to find the optimal newness in intelligence, i.e., purposefully build in some intelligence dissonance with the information flow with the objective to both captures defined ontologies as well as escape from defined ontologies. Bottom line. Context matters. If we change the circumstances, we change the inspiration. The intent is to inspire from the known and the unknown.

This is an ambitious idea. it seeks to corral the ambiguity in the larger system of intelligence, as expressed by humans, and share it with people with enough clarity of the complexity challenge that someone, or someones, become curious enough to conceptualize ideas. This idea is an attempt to appeal to the rationality, and irrationality, of thinking minds. Explore the recognizable patterns, the easiest to replicate resources efficiently against, and explore the unrecognizable patterns which may represent the most effective velocity opportunities.

This is where I connect business culture to technology.

I would argue a business needs a culture to even envision the potential of an Intelligence based Software (IBS) structure. What I mean by that is:

(a) simply placing IBS into a business will not generate any meaningful behavior response (note: this is similar to most digital transformation plans),

(b) simply getting people to use an IBS system will not generate any meaningful results, and

(c) meaningful behavior and meaningful results are only achieved if the culture embraces the idea of people being augmented by IBS.

We should always remind ourselves of what James Carse said, “Since a culture is not anything persons do, but anything they do with each other we may say a culture comes into being whenever persons choose to be a people. It is as a people that they arrange their rules with each other, their moralities, their modes of communication.”  While I (slightly) hesitate to suggest people, technology (software) and information, each by themselves, are simply discernible bits of something that are actually nothings, I will suggest in a Conceptual Age frame of mind those things are nothing until they actually “do with each other” and collectively create progress. a culture forges them all together into something worthwhile.

From a larger perspective one could suggest the Cloud is the key to making it all work but the truth is, from a more granular pragmatic aspect, it will most likely be cognitive algorithms (intelligence-based software). Yes. Progress, and agility, isn’t tied to access of knowledge, but rather use of knowledge by individuals and individuals interacting with each other. Its within the collective interaction, culture engaging with a system, from which continuous improvement and progress is found. I would be remiss if I didn’t note that the truth is if you have to “reskill” your employees, it’s a reflection that you have not created an organization in which people are “continuously skilling”. Create a business that is continuously improving, even its employees, and you will never have to “reskill.” In fact. Just create a Conceptual Age organization and you are set (but I am biased).

One of the questions I asked myself is not only can an organization be 100% emergent, but if it actually were could it have a healthy culture (because culture does need some predictability)? Well. I believe yes and no. Yes because people behavior naturally arcs toward predictive, repetitive, behavior and rhythms. So, while the structure may encourage 100% emergent, people will inevitably seek some aspects of predictable. That also explains the no. No replication of systems & process ignores the fact replicable activity is where pockets of efficiency reside and without any replicable behavior optimal organizational efficacy can never be achieved. And maybe this is where I touch on Purpose a bit because I envision someone saying to themselves “well, if the organization has a Purpose, that would probably resolve his concerns.”

Individuals can have a Purpose and, in fact, if tap into Purpose are happier, healthier and more productive.

I do not believe Business has a Purpose in the sense Purpose is typically discussed. I don’t believe ‘shareholder value’ is a Purpose, it is simply an objective (which creates systems in the business to achieve). I believe business has intentions. These intentions can get masked by visions or missions, both of the which can play valuable roles, but I believe a business should lay out its intentions. An intent to contribute to the environment. An intent to act with integrity every day. An intent to engage with community. Within these intentions the people IN the organization then have a variety of paths they can choose to walk on – and clearly see where paths do not lie. I hesitate to call these principles because, well, they seem simply like intentions. With intentions understood a business can have a community of people interested in working coherently (some people may call this culture) and pursue quests to fulfill those intentions.

“Community is the fact that we work toward the same goal, that we accept our respective roles in order to reach it.  Values is the fact we trust each other. And, culture?   Culture is as much about what we encourage as what we actually permit. That matters because most people don’t do what we tell them to. They do what we let them get away with.”

Fredrick Backman

In having intentions and pursuing quests the business rely less on not having to tell people what they cannot get away with and encourage them more to go do what they can do. People gain knowledge, get better at whatever they do (and how they think), there is continuous improvement, progress is achieved (for the individual and the business), quests are pursued and everyone feels a sense of meaning in having contributed. That is possibly the best summary of what I envision a Conceptual Age Organization is.

With all of those positive organizational attributes there is a technology truth: “The computer is a moron.” (Peter F. Drucker) Ok, it’s not, but it has its limitations. On this topic I am reminded of Intelligence Analyst Walter Laqueur in 1988 “A World of Secrets” saying “the need for Human Intelligence has not decreased, but it has become fashionable to denigrate the importance of humans assets because technical means (technology) are politically and intellectually more comfortable.” This came at the height of the struggle going on in the world of intelligence between those who deny the usefulness of agent and those who defended the worth of Human Intelligence in the face of the technological revolution.  At the time the New York Times estimated, from intelligence officials, 85% of all information gathered came from all the hardware sources (ELINT/SIGINT/PHOTINT/RADINT) opposed to information gained by spies (HUMINT).

The ultimate conclusion the intelligence experts reached was “what’s the good of knowing the SIGINT without knowing what the motive is.” In other word, technology shows, humans understand. AI, technology, will never replace humans.

Which leads me to organizational culture, the difference between collaboration and the collective acting coherently and technology. Organizational collaboration, technically, doesn’t need to be led. I will also suggest that collaboration does not guarantee success. Collaboration, done poorly and in the wrong culture, can actually lead to mediocrity. What s much better for a business is a community of people, collectively behaving in a coherent way, pursuing a common quest. Technology can play an integral role.

Technology offers the public transportation of data, knowledge and words – to & from the cloud to the people. At the core of this business model I am suggesting (an emergent conceptual organization) is the relationship between people and accessible knowledge through technology.

The cloud elevates all businesses to the level of the best generic technology. Think of it as the common power grid from which a business opens up for business daily. But the power of the cloud is it elevates the greater potential of any business as it taps into shared information to supplement, & compliment, the institutional data – while maintaining privacy of the institution itself.

While the cloud represents an almost limitless pool of ever-growing knowledge and data, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that the cloud, in and of itself, can be just as stupid, if not stupider, than any one individual. More knowledge, used poorly, simply makes one stupider rather than smarter. The collective knowledge is only as good as who uses it.

As a corollary, individuals, and small groups of people, within an institution (augmented by the cloud collective knowledge) get smarter iteratively (even if they misuse knowledge because they learn from mistakes). Conceptually they get smarter than the cloud due to understanding of context.

I say all of this because in a conceptual age, in which understanding concepts and implementing well against them being the objective of the institution, these separate ideas should remain separate & distinct from each other. This must remain so because conversely, the more similar the two concepts get the more stupid both ideas get (arcs toward mediocrity in terms of response to emergent concepts).

“In all things that are purely social, we can be as separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress. There is no defense or security for any of us except in the highest intelligence and development of all.”

Booker T. Washington

Once again. the collective mind, the cloud, can be just as stupid as any one single less informed individual. A large quantity of collected data/knowledge does not guarantee smart solutions in contextual conceptual environments. In general, people create smart solutions, therefore, an emergent organization must balance the collective and individual(s) collaboration to command the highest order of value against emergent opportunities. And, in general, technology creates organizational stupidity when the culture does not embrace it’s thinking potential and simply use it as tools to ‘do’. The smartest organizations will be the ones in which there is a strong culture attracted to the benefits of technology and, specifically, an Intelligence Based Software system constantly feeding them predictive and emergent knowledge to assist them thinking conceptually about the business at hand.

“The cure for Plumbers Butt! We introduced the Longtail T® Shirt in 2002”

from the Duluth Trading Co. catalog <and website>

======

Well. It’s the time of the year when I get to talk about one of my favorite topics – Flannelytics.

Actually. This is about catalogs and advertising.

First. The catalogs.

Duluth Trading Co., Sierra Trading Post, Territory Ahead, Bas Bleu, Femail Creations, Wireless and, the granddaddy catalog of them all, J. Peterman.

Once you have ordered from one of these you will end up seeing all of them at some point in your mail (that’s good customer development strategy – I’m sure somewhere in Byron Sharp’s “How Brands Grow” there is some smart thinking associated with this).

Most are well written if not fabulously written.

And by that I mean they don’t just contain products with basic description and prices, but instead someone takes some time to think about how to descriptively, in an entertaining way, describe each product.

Sometimes some of these are called “maga-logues” <part magazine, part catalogue>.

J. Peterman is the best at this <although Territory Ahead is a close second>.

Each catalog is a keeper.

Now. They do something like that because they don’t advertise. Their catalogs are their advertising. By the way, I wish even businesses that actually did advertising & catalogues thought about their catalogues that way.

So. That leads me to advertising.

Here is a little known secret outside the advertising world.

Because theses catalogs are so frickin’ good  … every advertising agency in the world is constantly sniffing around these companies trying to convince them to do some advertising.

Why?

Well. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with actually thinking that advertising would be a good business decision. Instead it is simply because agencies immediately think “whoa … if they are creative enough to do THAT <in a catalog> think about how cool it would be to do some advertising for them.”

I could quite comfortably suggest that these catalogue companies could hire someone just to keep agencies at arm’s length.

And then, every once in a while, it does make good business sense <an agency will never tell them … the company figures it out by themselves> for a catalogue company to step out and do some advertising.

Which leads me to Duluth Trading Co. and The Department of Flannelytics.

Not only do they have a great catalogue <with great products>, but more importantly they ‘get’ what it means to have a great brand character.

Now.

On their website they couch their brand character in terms like “entertaining” or “with a sense of humor”, but don’t let them kid you someone figured out their brand character and said “well … we maintain this character in our catalogue … let’s do it in some advertising.”

Oh.

This character thing.

Here is how they describe their beginnings:

Back in 1989, there were these two brothers in Duluth – wild and woolly, hippie tradesmen kinda guys, working in the construction business. Every day, they saw guys dragging a jumble of tools from job to job using discarded five-gallon drywall compound buckets. A few of the guys strung wire around the bucket to hold tools, or even used bungee cords. The two brothers thought, “There’s got to be a better way.” So they invented the Bucket Boss® – a ruggedly durable canvas tool organizer that fit on a drywall bucket.

One thing led to another, and pretty soon they came out with a little catalog called Portable Products. Under the heading “Job Tough, Job Smart,” it offered 8 pages of products dedicated to improving and expanding on existing methods of tool storage, organization and transport. To save money, everything in the catalog was illustrated by a friend of the two brothers, a free spirit named Rick.

It’s conversational.

It’s not elitist.

Its, well, hard working, sipping a beer, speaking with a northern-twang-discussing-the-cheese-crop type Minnesotan feel.

And it’s awesome.

And then while they probably didn’t want to do exactly the same type of illustrations in advertising someone decided that they would like to do an advertising campaign using illustrations.

Well. I bet some agency had a cow over that direction.

“that will limit our creativity!!” …

“what happens if we have a better idea and not use an illustration!!!”

<please note the exclamation points to show utter dismay on the part of the ad agencies>

I would bet the company was probably quite nice about it and said something like “show us what you think is the right thing to do.”

<all the while knowing that they wanted illustrations>

What happened? <speculating here>

Let’s assume there were several advertising agencies pitching ideas.

One ignored the illustrations <mainly because no one came up with an idea using an illustration> and another agency said “well … let’s use illustrations … but use them to bring their brand character to life so they aren’t flat and lifeless.”

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … guess who won.

Guess who came up with an outstanding advertising campaign.

This television is funny, charming, educational <and it’s product specific> and matches what Duluth Trading Co. is all about.

This is good stuff.

This is something I wish I had thought of and wished I had actually done.

Duluth Trading Co. TV advertising

Oh. Next. These guys at Duluth really have their shit together.

They have come up with the Department of Flannelytics.

Yes.

Flannelytics.

Awesome.

And they not only created a department they actually put them to work. They determined the top ten flannel markets in the United States and came up with some fairly random factoids <made up> about each selected city’s flannel personality (Colle+McVoy work).

Once again.

Awesome.

At Duluth Trading Company, we make hard-working flannel shirts and jacs for the country’s hardest workers.  So, we gathered a team of world renowned Flannelysts to determine, once and for all, the most ferociously flannel locales* in the good ol’ U-S-of-A. These are those places.

*Our Department of Flannelytics referenced Google search data to pinpoint the top flannel-seeking metros, and then dug deep to find the most interesting nuggets since the gold rush.

Look.

I skewer companies and advertising agencies all the time for doing stupid stuff. But. On occasion someone really gets it right.

Like REALLY right.

Duluth Trading Co. is one.

They deserve kudos for not only eliminating plumber butt <with their long tail shirts>, but recognizing that good product is good — but good product with good brand character is gooder.

In the end. Flannelytics. Awesome.