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

“Before beginning a hunt, it is wise to ask someone what you are looking for before you begin looking for it.”

Winnie the Pooh

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

“I’ve often noticed that we are not able to look at what we have in front of us, unless it’s inside a frame.”

Abbas Kiarostami

===

“The difference between successful executives and unsuccessful ones is not the quality of their decision making. Each one probably makes good decisions 60% of the time and bad ones 40% of the time—and maybe it’s even 55% to 45%. The difference is, the successful executive is faster to recognize the bad decisions and adjust, whereas failing executives often dig in and try to convince people that they were right.”

===

Framing, frames, frameworks, models, all are attempts at offering some level of constraint to a discussion. At their best they can put a border around something so there is some clarity, at their worst they squeeze out substance, reduce something meaningful into something meaningless, and offer a misguided solution.

That said. Successful framing is 90% of success.

That statement is my version of ‘teaching people to learn’ not by telling, but maybe nudging them into a different learning space or, let’s just say, ‘some space.’ Maybe what I am saying is we don’t need to teach people how to learn, but rather remove the obstacles to learning and put them in spaces within which they can, well, learn. I do not know one person in the entire world who does not like to learn things. This means we don’t need to teach people to learn, and it certainly means we should stop telling people what they need to learn <implying they are stupid or learned the wrong thing>, but rather get out of their way and tell them to learn what they want and maybe give a little nudge on occasion to expand the learning space. What I just shared is partially my point of view as well as an example of framing. Learning is a positive thing (that’s framing) and the most effective learning is self-directed within a defined space (that’s a frame).

Which leads me to the space itself and framing.

Far too often we permit framing to be defined as some nebulous idea. And in doing so we talk about framing a shitload, but never really seem to get around to doing everything that needs to be done <implementing it in an effective way>. This doesn’t mean most framing people are not truly trying hard to bring about what they have framed. It’s just that their attempts get trapped in the wretched hollow between ‘ideology’ <conceptual shit> and the practical <which is by no mean easy or simple>.

And it gets even more complicated if someone can only envision what is <the current system> which leads to framing only tweaks & improvements. The best framing people not only see the system that exists, but also envisions a system that does not exist and creates a frame within which people can see the possibilities of all. That said. Outlining the outlines of an existing system is extremely valuable.

Inevitably successful framing is a reflection of several things all embodied in a process of information, education, dialogue, and ultimately, the insights generated from the process which will drive the choices. This sounds reasonable, but it ignores the world in which framing must occur.

Which leads me to larger context and frames.

The internet has eroded a sense of belonging to a large single community of humanity. I say that because society is a frame. The technology has relentlessly pried apart society, and civilization (as well as civilized thinking) so common sensemaking has less value than “I think opinions.” We have moved way beyond healthy skepticism of expert opinions to a more simplistic ‘whatever I believe is reality’ world. yeah. everyone has conflated ‘what I think’ with reality thereby encouraging everyone to not discus/debate but rather retreat to “I am happy with my opinions’ space. What this means is that while in today’s media and internet world we have far more choices than ever we see much less common information. The consequences of this less common information is that common sense making shared thinking is much less likely.

Which leads me to framing and dealing with this new reality.

Depending on the audiences and their needs, you want to “frame” the issue in terms of their interests. The proper framing of an issue helps shape the issue in such a way that it resonates with the audience and generates the “listening traction” in order to expand an audience’s existing framing. This is where both heroes and villains have an equal opportunity. Most framers, or thoughtful people, use some model – a 2×2, an X & Y axis, a 3-dimensional box – in order to help some confusing information seem, well, less confusing. Beware the model and beware the framing within the frame and beware the variables chosen. Yeah. User beware for heroes and villains use the same tools. That said. I, personally, don’t believe in focusing on fewer messages or fewer data points. I do believe you should be choiceful with regard to both, but I imagine this comes back to my opening point – learning. Framing is about opening minds, not filling minds. At this point many people would shift into the importance of stories to ‘engage emotionally’ beyond rationally, but I will not. Framing is different than storytelling. The truth is a story is a cage. What I mean by that is once a story has engaged with people it imprisons not only the ongoing narratives but minds and thought-making frameworks. Frames, on the other hand, are not cages. They are simply constructs within which there is freedom of thought and choicemaking.

Which leads me to framing is not just about a good plan nor is it just about effective adaptation … it is about having the flexibility to accommodate the unforeseen.

You don’t know what you don’t know.

A framework creates a layer between what you know, and do not know, and what you should know.

That said. As noted earlier, framing simply sets the stage for the discussion, a framework is simply a way to make sense of what you have framed, and a plan is something to be executed from all of that – and as you gain knowledge, know more, the framing changes, the input into the framework changes and, therefore, the plan should change. True framing is reflexive, we learn through questioning and discussion and trial and error and success. We learn from action and reflective observation. Frameworks shouldn’t constrain thinking/ideas, but rather promote growth of knowledge and progress.

I imagine I should point out this means because the world is increasingly complex this makes framing complex.

===========

Vague sucks and, yet, I would argue the majority of people only really have some vague outline of how the world works, how effective or ineffective a leader is and any specific relationship between cause & affect. This vaguery exists because it takes a lot of work to parse the details, and the appropriate details, and the ‘right’ details to make the outlines less vague and more tangible.

Is this work valuable ? sure.

Is this work necessary to increase some certainty in Life? Sure.

But the majority of people have shit to do <other than this type of work>. That is neither good nor bad … it just is what it is. A lot of pseudo intellectuals and smartish pundits bitch & moan and gnash their teeth over this, but they would lead a significantly less stressful life if they just accepted it and instead focus on effective framing. Why? In this ‘vague outline’ people inevitably create a vague/semi solid outline belief, i.e., “I think” realities. From there they look around on occasion and question that outline. The questions raised either support the outline or raise doubts and more questions. This is their frame.

All the while this is happening more information barrages the outline. In this barrage is a confusing mix of real, fake and quasi truths. All these confusing things do in the people’s minds is, contrary to belief, not confuse, but rather make the person more dismissive of the incoming confusion and steadier in whatever vague outline they may have constructed. The frame becomes a bit more solid.

Once again. This is neither good nor bad … it just is what it is. But at some point, the questions gain some gravitas. This can happen several ways but let me point out two:

• The questions themselves coalesce into some easy to understand ‘blob’ from which people who have a vague outline decide “my vague outline is wrong <or sucks>.”
• Someone weaves a narrative using the doubts & questions into a relatively succinct, believable and non-hyperbolic driven framing of an outline which people look at, scratch their heads, go “hmmmmmmmmm …” and decide this vague outline will replace the one they had in place, i.e., the frames and frameworks morph.

The first never happens fast enough to people who just cannot understand how and why some people have decided to live with some vague outline that just seems ‘not really a smart outline’ to them.

The second is not as easy as it appears. It isn’t as easy because problems are rarely as clear as we would like them to be and a narrative never lives without the context of all the barrage of real, fake and quasi truths impacting and denting and solidifying a vague outline that already exists.

In other words … everything has to do with everything else.

I imagine I have two points today.

First. We humans have come to accept a certain amount of uncertainty with regard to our lives and our decisions.

This uncertainty is also built into the vague outlines we tend to construct for ourselves. What this means is that the construct of our beliefs and thoughts and ideas may be certain to us and, yet, its silhouette accommodates some uncertainty. Within this framework the majority of people have enough shit to do that they slot their thinking. In one slot they place unequivocal certainty type thoughts. In another slot they place the “I will always be uncertain about this shit and thank God there is someone else at some higher pay grade than I who can be certain about it.” and, lastly, we slot all the shit in which we have formed some vague outline which accommodates a certain degree of uncertainty.

My point here is we tend to make this a binary discussion where the reality lies in a more complex mix of vagueness & clarity, certainty & uncertainty in which all can reside quite comfortably within the proper frame.

Second. Certainty, in and of itself, has degrees; it is not a simple black or white binary.

People can have vague outlines AND have questions with regard to their outlines and not want to ditch the outline. “How can you still believe that?” may be one of the most misguided and unenlightened questions that has ever existed. It completely misses the point in that it assumes ignorance, stupidity or some negative trait in order to hold on to some vague outline. A vague outline is a choice. No more and no less. We question choices all the time and, yet, remain with the original choice despite some fairly extensive doubts. I say this because it is silly to point out doubts and questions as a reason to ditch a vague outline.

In the end.

The truth is that we all live with some vague outlines albeit your vague outline may actually be one of my non-vague outlines, and vice versa. And when they are in conflict then … well … there is conflict. And this is where framing is 90% of success.

Life is an uncertain adventure in a diffuse landscape whose borders are constantly shifting.

While we tend to simplistically state ‘people don’t like to change,’ the reality is life is restless and “frames” are always shifting in some form or fashion. Effective framing accommodates both what exists and some of what is shifting. Vague outlines are both good and bad. Good in that they offer opportunities to expand existing mindsets, beliefs, and attitudes. Bad because if attacked most people will retreat into reduced frames of “I think-isms” realities. Once again, framing is how to effectively navigate those issues. So, yeah, framing is 90% of success. Ponder.

======

“ … today’s soldiers receive awards for valor. But valor was taken for granted in the old armies, in the monk ranks. It was virtue that was sought.

Maybe a soldier makes an act of sacrifice for his parents. Maybe he dedicates his life to the perfection of archery. Maybe he spent all of his off duty hours writing the nine million names of Buddha.

Or maybe performed great feats for the cause of truth.

In these cases he would be rewarded with a medallion from a general.”

discussion on Tibetan warrior monks versus todays warriors

======

Ok. While this is Memorial Day this is actually about business.

Before I begin.

I have huge respect for people who serve in the military. I sometimes believe a lot of that respect is driven by how my military friends discuss courage, honor and valor versus the non-military people which has given me a glimpse of what society values versus what a soldier values.

Regardless.

I do not doubt that a soldier finds pride in a chest full of awards & medals. But I also tend to believe they are more proud of simply wearing the uniform – unadorned. My point is that the uniform is a reflection of a personal choice and a collective impact – which is the true reward.

But that really isn’t the point of this quote.

While I tend to believe we give too much lip service to how much we appreciate those who choose to serve and too little heartfelt gratitude and respect for those who choose to serve I wonder how society would view today’s military if they were rewarded with medallions based on virtuistic behavior and not just awards for valor <thereby showing people that choosing to serve is deeper than simply picking up a gun and showing courage>.

Or how about this?

I wonder how society would view today’s leaders, business and government, if they were rewarded with medallions based on virtue and virtuistic behavior.

Yikes.

No bonuses for results <because that is expected> and awards only for things beyond ‘job responsibility performance.’

Imagine if these would be awards that were a measure of their character and not just of their behavior <or talents>.

Imagine rewards for ‘maybe performed great feats for the cause of truth.’

Okay.

That was funny, wasn’t it?

Could you see THAT happening in today’s business world? <no>

And even if we did do it I imagine, using my most cynical perspective, that most people would still find ‘something wrong’ with even that.

Sigh.

But here is what I truly liked about the thought. Virtue is not defined in some religious way nor is it defined by ‘what is honesty’ or ethics or anything like that, it is defined by enlightenment of self. Defined by honing an additional craft.

Defined by broadening the mind by focusing the mind.

Defined by thoughtful purpose and not by numbers, deadlines and bonuses.

What a thought.

No milestones and fake deadlines.

No quarterly goals.

Yes to expecting everyone to do their job.

Yes to expecting success.

Yeah.

I know.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t really work that way.

Now.

How about if we did this in management?

Maybe we could assume that as you work your way up you show your ‘valor’ in the doing and meeting the expectations. And once you have proven you can excel at the expectations & responsibilities of your job then your compensation rewards get shifted to values; not valor. Maybe people get rewarded for learning new skills and topics completely unassociated with their job.

This may sound crazy.

But think about it.

In today’s business world we have become business people who no longer punch a clock, but rather punch a goal/deadline/task. There is nothing deeper, from an individual aspect (to business at least), than checking the boxes and getting a check.

Sure. From the top down the good organizations are trying to instill some culture and pride and sense of purpose. But those efforts seem a little ass backwards or maybe trying to do something ‘counter to the system.’ What I mean by that is if everyone is being measured by doing and in task completion <even when exceptional is tagged to it> than the system is saying act one way and think one way while the organization may be suggesting “hey, we should also think this way.”

To be clear.

I am an organizational vision guy.

I am an organizational culture guy.

I am an organizational “dynamic beyond our own purpose” guy.

But my pea-like brain is telling me I am doing so and thinking so in conflict with a general business attitude focused on something else.

Look.

I know I can’t run a business solely giving out medallions for virtuosity and ignoring ‘valor.’

But maybe my point is that we should be doing a better job of reshaping a business culture wherein virtuosity and valor at least have a peer relationship with all the deadline/milestone/KPI mumbo jumbo.

Anyway.

I have to tell you as I end this thought that having a business in which the employees ‘maybe performed great feats for the cause of truth’ sounds like it would be a fucking awesome business to lead.

I have to tell you as I end this thought that having a military that rewarded virtue as often as it did courage sounds like it would be a fucking awesome military to lead.

Ponder.

I imagine part of everyone’s life is imagining what they would do in a certain situation. What they may say, how they may act within a variety of “what if” situations. I would guess this is actually a healthy thing to do. Mental preparation may not be equal to trial & error preparation, but it certainly generates some mental imprints, some possible heuristic thinking, which could be helpful IF the imaginary problem becomes a problem in reality.

And then the ugly side of this rears its head.

Imaginary problems.

Imaginary problems can span from harmless waste of time thinking to harmful conspiracy theories which subvert thinking.

On the harmless side it just wastes time. I would say the most obvious example of this is managers who have nothing to do, but create problems that don’t really exist under the guise of ‘being prepared.’ In business then can often lead to paranoia, particularly when viewed through a competitive lens, i.e., “them” are out to get “us” (which business loves to do). And while that is business that attitude slips into homes and home discussions and community attitudes and then, well, the harmless actually becomes a bit harmful. That said. To be fair to business, or even the everyday life imaginary problem thinking, this shit has degrees of probability and if the least likely to occur could be catastrophic, well, it may not be a complete waste of time. All I can say here is I wish more people would ponder the probability of some imaginary problem to insure they invest the appropriate amount of thinking time against it. Of course, there is a correlation between the amount of time wasted on this and anxiety. What I mean by that is continuously obsessing over imaginary problems where you can see no attainable solution, fantasy or not, inevitably increases anxiety. This isn’t a societal issue, but it is certainly an unhealthy, harmful, individual issue.

On the harmful side it not only wastes the collective minds’ time but it can actually divert resources through tangible fantasy solutions. So, this type of shit doesn’t just suck up mental time it can actually suck up tangible dollars and tangible resources. What I mean by that is if an imaginary problem becomes large enough in the imagination of a large enough group of people we will, oddly, develop a real fantasy solution to that imaginary problem. Yeah. That’s as weird and ludicrous as it sounds. And before you shelve that thought as some ‘imaginary issue’ I would point out that over 25% of all Americans believe in some conspiracy theory. I would also point out that at one point over 50% of Republicans thought Obama was a Muslim (which begat the Sharia Law takeover imaginary problem which begat a variety of fantasy solutions which, well, you get it, begat some really unhealthy anti-Muslim beliefs). Needless to say (part 1), when a conspiracy theory, an imaginary problem, goes mainstream we demand a fantasy solution. Needless to say (part 2), when we develop fantasy solutions it comes at the cost of time, effort and money/resources applied against a real problem which needs a real solution.

I purposefully broke this down into harmless and harmful to point out that thinking about imaginary problems is a human trait – all people will do it. Therefore, the path between harmless and harmful is a very, very, narrow one at times. I think it is fair for people to discuss imaginary problems and even fairer to discuss them in terms of likelihood in an effort to pare down ‘imaginary to possible.’

That said. Let’s be clear. America has a conspiracy problem. We have an ‘imaginary problem’ problem. And because it is a societal problem it trickles down into daily, individual, problems. Doubt me? We have more fantasy solutions floating around then most sane societies would, or should, have. This is occurring in homes, businesses and government. That makes it a societal issue. That is not an imaginary problem. It deserves more than a fantasy solution of fantastical thinking. Ponder.

===

“Technological optimism means to practice the ability to recognize bad surprises early enough to do something about them.’

Edward Tenner

===

Last week I found myself straddling the technology world and, well, the real world as I sat in a living room in “blue collar America’ discussing the fears of AI.

They all see the headlines of pauses and civilization Armageddon driven by AI and what comes to mind is The Terminator and robots with sentient awareness making decisions on their own. So when I brought up superintelligence and singularity all I got were puzzled looks. Why? Well. “I already think the computer is not only superintelligent but certainly more intelligent than I am.” And with that we get a good dose of everyday reality.

Which leads to the problem with all the discussion surrounding AI and superintelligence and whether technology is intelligent at all.

The technological experts and business consultants gnash their teeth and pound upon tables arguing over what is, or isn’t, technology intelligence and whether in the future technology will be smarter than a human being and, yet, if you were to sit with a normal everyday human being – who works typically nine to five – they would say they already believed that the computer is more intelligent than they are. Among the technology elite the Turing test is discussed as supposed to be the measurement for whether a computer or technology can mimic a human being. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that test occurs with some of the most brilliant minds in existence. The non-brilliant ordinarily smart person already admits his or her computer knows more than they do, can think faster than they do, and can come up with better answers than they can. While 100% of the everyday people I was speaking to that day feels that way, if I were a betting man, I would guess maybe 75% of people already feel this way. my point here is that the technology experts are debating over theory while the real world is attempting to reckon with technology that already exists.

Which leads me to fear.

All the technology experts and business consultants who dominate the headlines with everything that we should fear about the future of Technology and the future of AI is their fear based on some future state that may or may not occur. The problem is that state already occurs to the everyday person so the future fear the technology experts speak about only increases the common everyday persons existing fears that an already smart machine is going to not only be smarter still, but will begin running the world. Once again, my point here is that the everyday person’s future state fear is different than the experts future state fear and the dissonance between the two only exacerbates overall fear. Anyway. I would argue that if technology experts wouldn’t constantly talk about fear, the normal everyday smart person would just enjoy the benefits of the existing AI and technology. That doesn’t mean that we should allow people to be blissfully unaware of some of the negative consequences that AI can apply to a society. But it does suggest rather than encouraging fear we should just be encouraging awareness of the subtle manipulations and encouraging curiosity and exploration of the learning benefits technology offers. Should we be concerned about deepfakes? Sure. Should we be more aware of how algorithms feed confirmation bias? Absolutely. But ChatGPT is not going to destroy humanity <as Grady Booch says an LLM is architecturally incapable of reasoning> and both of the questions I just asked circle around human responses, not technology stimulus. Generally speaking, technology prompts, or should prompt, us to think just a little bit harder, explore just a little bit more and question with sincerity. I would argue that actually doesn’t destroy civilizations and societies, but enlightens them.

Which leads me back to what I always say: technology is nothing without humans.

The moment we turn it off or tune it out, technology has no effect on us. When two people sit in a café and talk it is between humans, not technology. The meeting rooms where people gather and debate and discuss things is between humans, not technology. My point here is that when we do choose to turn it on, and tune in, technology is simply a tool to either learn, not learn, share or gather information and knowledge. It is a distributor of the best and worst of humans – together or within each of us individually. It is, as Jaron Lanier has stated a number of times, a social connection tool. Nothing more, nothing less. I imagine if we were to fear anything it would be to fear that we are not good enough, smart enough, aware enough, to manage the tool we have been provided. But that means we shouldn’t fear the tool, but rather the user. Ponder.

===

“Change your thoughts and you change your world.”

Norman Vincent Peale

===

This is about marketing communications <and good advertising>. And this is also about the globe, or let’s say, the people around the world and the interesting fact that often, more often then we may think,  we are pretty similar with regard to our quirks.

First. Let me say that any time a marketer can actually do something that may suggest that people are people, wherever they are, people like it.

Uh oh.

That may sound contrary to marketing 101 <and marketing experts> in that most everyone invest a lot of energy  expounding on ‘individualism’, personalization, and ‘treating everyone one-by-one’ and, well, you name it when it comes to making people feel distinct and special.

In fact. This rhetoric has gone to such an extreme that it seems like everyone suggests that ‘mass’ anything is bad.

This is wrong.

Well. Not wrong all the time, but in point of fact, we often like to know that our quirks are not just ours. We often like to know that while being ‘individual’ we aren’t so weird that, well, we aren’t weird.

Embarrassing? Sure. Weird? Nope.

It’s nice to smile and say ‘hey, I do that too.’

• *** note: Byron Sharp and Ehrenberg Bass have a lot of smart high falutin’ theories along these lines in How Brands Grow which is a smart companion to this piece today.

Second. I actually have an olderTV ad where they figured out a way to suggest exactly what I just described.

Chevrolet.

This is the one that suggests people in cars all around the world terrorize their fellow travelers with their singing.

Ah.

Singing in the car.

I imagine I have never really thought about it, but why wouldn’t everyone anywhere make a fool out of themselves … uhm … have silly fun … singing in the car.

Now I know <and I have Chevy to thank>.

Chevy suggested that the Chevy Cruze is ‘loved in 119 countries’ and have attempted, fairly well, to showcase that it is loved by not focusing on the cars, but on those who are in the cars — and the fact that maybe we’re not so different after all.

==

Chevrolet Cruze TV Spot, ‘New World’: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lWZIO6j-MQ

==

Is this a spectacular tv execution?

Of course not.

It is excellent not because people will be talking about it or it will become a viral sensation <although you could do a very fun viral campaign similar to what Pharrell did with his Happy song … Happy every hour>, but instead because people see themselves in it. It may not make me buy a Cruze <it will not>, but that does not make it an ineffective piece of communications.

It is good. And well done.

And I find it funny to know that people in their countries are just as ‘weird’ as I am as well as pretty much everyone I know.

Sometimes a great insight to develop great communications is NOT about ‘being different’ or ‘unique’ but rather in ‘we are not so different.’

Well.

That last sentence would drive a shitload of strategy thinkers to some heavy drinking <and lots of angst> and begin questioning their career. Strategy, or developing a good insight, is not some formula that anyone can pull out of some magical bag, or do, insights are called insights because someone sees something “in” that matters. Please note I didn’t suggest disruption or anything grandiose. All I suggested was that an insight is about having the sight to see something within life or people to highlight.

And not everyone has good eyesight.

In the end?

I say “well done Chevy.”

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.”
Albert Einstein

===

“The more stupid one is, the closer one is to reality. The more stupid one is, the clearer one is. Stupidity is brief and artless, while intelligence squirms and hides itself. Intelligence is unprincipled, but stupidity is honest and straightforward.”
Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

===

“Dumbing up” is taking dumb, simplistic, thinking and attempting to make it look smart. While I would like to claim credit for ‘dumbing up’ it is actually the name of a World Party album.

Dumbing up is never positive and it is almost always counterproductive. But. It sounds smart. It looks smart (when it is delivered in meme form). And there is almost always a grain of smartness within it.

My favorite example continues to be when someone says Leonardo Da Vinci said “simplicity is the highest form of sophistication.” Why is this dumbing up? Well. anything that generalizes simplicity is dumb. Simplicity is no more, and no less, than understandability. Second. Da Vinci never said this. And that is where dumbing up makes it bones – by attaching the simplistic dumbish twisted good idea to someone or something which credibly could be categorized as insightful, brilliant, genius, smart.

Which leads me to say dumbing up is the key to simplicity, branding, short term versus long term, organizational design, well, any complex topic in the world today.

Why do I say that? One of the signs of dumbing up is the implication that they are doing it to make it more ‘understandable’ to everyone. Dumbing up implies you are the smart one, not them. Yeah. Once again this is the alternative universe in making something dumb look smart. Like “It doesn’t matter unless there are results.” Another one of those vapid inane ‘dumb up’ comments. I mean, seriously, what does that mean? Results can be whatever you want them to be so meaning is meaningless to anyone but the result you decide to use.

Which leads me to businesses and organizations.

We have been floundering about attempting to showcase some metaphor for how a business actually works. To be fair. This metaphor rummaging exercise has the objective of changing a fairly persistent belief a business is a machine. But here is where dumbing up comes into play. Businesses are about people. Period. As James Carse said “a business is what people do together.” Period. No metaphor. Just, well, people interacting (conversations, connectivity, collaboration all cascade out of that simple sentence). But then we get dumb from there. From here on out we attach ecosystems, biology, bees, forests, fungus, networks, and a slew of other metaphors to dumb up the idea.

And here is where dumbing up shows its negative value underbelly. Businesses actually hear and see all the metaphors and either (a) get confused as “all that mumbo jumbo” and revert back to machine (because it is easy and can be easily attached to performative bullshit) or (b) lovingly embrace and ignore the substantive shit that really matters (people creating something, and things, of value, that is valued by the market).  Simplistically, in business, “dumbing up” promotes superficiality and undermines genuine expertise and understanding.

Which brings me back to simplicity.

Simple” and “simplicity” are related terms, but they have slightly different meanings. Simple refers to something that is easy to understand, uncomplicated, or straightforward. It can also mean something that is plain, without unnecessary embellishments or complexities. Simple unclutters for the mind to grasp. Simplicity refers to the quality or state of being simple. It can be used to describe a wide range of things, from the design of an object to the style of writing or speech. Simplicity implies a focus on the essentials and a rejection of unnecessary complexity or embellishment. It is often associated with elegance, efficiency, and clarity.

In summary, “simple” describes something that is easy to understand or uncomplicated, while “simplicity” is a broader concept that refers to the quality or state of being simple, unembellished, and focused on the essentials. Yeah. What I just described is Occam’s Razor. Say what is essential – nothing more and nothing less – not the least. And I end there because if there is a dumbing up example , it is Occam. The ‘dumb uppers’ use Occam to suggest simple is least. Occam never said that. He said “say the least that says the most.” The difference between the two is the difference between being dumb and smart. Ponder.

===

“We now live mainly in the map, in the recreation of reality, rather than in reality itself.”

Philosopher Jean Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation

===

Technology has confused the discussion. It has encouraged us to think of different ‘realities.’ The argument becomes we transcend, in some way, physical reality (which, of course, is <1> also mindset, attitudinal realities and <2> bullshit). Don’t get me wrong. I firmly believe technology can elevate thinking, awareness, knowledge and possibilities, but, virtual reality, augmented reality, mixed reality, and the metaverse will never replace physical reality. In addition, Chatgpt, algorithms, and AI fundamentally cannot reason so they will never replace human reasoning. But tucked within those thoughts lie technology’s greatest opportunity. Instead of offering different realities, it should be leaning INTO physical reality and structurally enhancing the possibilities of, well, reality. That would demand we, people, began focusing on the right things and the right things within technology. Oh. And make sure we adopt the right attitude. By attitude I mean we need to get a grip on “everything is going faster” because, well, its not.

The reality is that the rate of technology change is no longer speeding up, what is speeding up is the social impact of all the technologies as they not only connect with each other, but become increasingly embedded in everyone’s social connectivity AND as a way of doing things. The embedded aspect is a bit important because technology has become a tool we use to shape our lives and livelihoods.

And that is important because this means is that technology is nothing until it is attached to a human – and, consequently, to other humans. I imagine my point is that technology can help shape the landscape but reality is dictated by humans. Uhm. Unless we elect to live in the re-creation of reality which would mean <1> accepting destiny is shaped by others not “I” and <2> we will have accepted living in the mere shadows of reality and not the rich & royal hues of reality.

That would be sad.

People shape reality and, in particular, the imaginations of people constantly reinvent a better reality – technology cannot do that.

Anyway. This is how technology can shape reality. It simultaneously:

• Creates more random connections
• Amplifies without prioritization
• Is unobviously emergent (unpredictable patterns)

All of those things occur, simultaneously as I noted, through what technology is – a networked distribution platform. It distributes data, information, thoughts, ideas and, yes, even expectations. Those are things that shape the map of reality, but it is simply a poor, incomplete, version of reality.

And maybe that is my point.

Technology can certainly enrich learning and awareness, but it cannot reason. It can only give us glimpses of reality – albeit LOTS of glimpses which we could confuse with reality as a whole. But if we elect to live THROUGH technology rather than living with technology as a tool, we do run the risk of, well, living in some poor-ish re-creation of reality rather than reality itself. I do not believe that would be good. For us as individuals as well as us as civilization. Don’t let technology confuse the discussion about reality. Ponder.

Dysfunctional Management at the Bar

“From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

Karl Marx

===

So. This is actually about business organizations and how the sometimes “less competent” <sometimes dysfunctional> people get promoted into leadership roles and how a group of well educated people, a large group by the way, maintained  in an unequivocal stance that there were a bunch of psychopaths rising to leadership positions <and are ‘the dysfunctional>.

Sadly that relatively large group of people are TED members.

On a side note … I recognize that you always have to be careful when discussing “how do such idiots <incompetents> get promoted?” to weed out the envious, the blind and the ignorant. But in the end … it is true there are a shitload of “less competent” people, and certainly some quite dysfunctional people, who get promoted into some very important roles in business organizations.

Uhm. Notice I didn’t say ‘incompetent’, but rather ‘less competent.’ I did so because when really putting organizations under a microscope the real issue is not the surprisingly less than competent people who get promoted, but rather the truly competent who are dwelling somewhere in the depths of the organization who have NOT been promoted.

This all began for me within a very disturbing discussion among some TED members. I was being faced with an overriding belief that “psychopaths” <or sometimes called ‘predators’> were increasingly becoming this generation’s business leaders. Leaders driven by greed, lack of values and ego doing whatever it takes to maneuver their way to leadership.

Well. I didn’t agree, but I was in a minority.  To be clear. I think these are real issues (all you have to do is read things I have written to know that), I just do not believe they represent the majority of leadership assuming they could do what they knew to be right.

Anyway. Until I read a post/discussion comment <from a Dr. Gupta> I had begun thinking I was either naïve, working on a different planet, oblivious to the greed and lack of values surrounding me … or actually one of the psychopaths and was so good at hiding it from others I was hiding it from myself.

Let me posit two things to outline my disagreement:

–          It is most often not any predator trait, but rather an ability, and desire, to manipulate, or manage, the system that gets a ‘less competent’ person into a leadership role.

–          Organizations play a significant role in how their employees decide how to behave to attain ambition/self-objectives even if it means a ‘bending’ of traditional ‘what is right’ conscience.

Anyway.

–          Why I believe it is not a predator/psychopathic trait:

I have met and worked with dozens of leaders and I can maybe think of one as having such a poor moral compass that I would place them in the true predator/psychopathic category. Yes. One.

Afterwards I knew that one situation couldn’t be solved, but I did know one thing — that company would ultimately fail. Not that day but that type of personality inevitably creates a larger dysfunctional company that just cannot compete (in the end). The organism dies because it has a bacterium that can’t be cured. I imagine my real point here is that there is a natural evolution of companies, i.e., the truly sick die all on their own. Maybe not as fast as we would like, but they die.

Regardless.

A quick thought about dysfunctional/less competent people in leadership roles. Let’s be honest. The true psychopaths are few.

Maybe I just have been lucky in the organizations and leaders I have met, but while all leaders want to make a profit I haven’t seen boundless moral-less/amoral greed. In fact, when interviewed, most leaders have a huge desire to increase the wealth of the “head, heart and wallet” of their employees.

All aspects of employee benefit.

But practically speaking most leaders would admit “managing the balance sheet is much easier than the people management.” The typical quote you hear:

“I am more rewarded by the people but I don’t believe I am as good at it (or it is just too difficult).”

So, what happens?

As good managers do: they delegate.

They delegate to someone (or someones) who they perceive, or believe, is better at maximizing the heads and hearts portion.

<by the way … if you want to work on corporate dynamics for this aspect that is the gatekeeper to find … the one delegated to not the delegator>

Is there a way to weed out the dysfunctional? Or, at minimum, identify the harmful incompetent?

Sure.

I know I have suggested to HR departments, or the keepers of the culture and staff, that no organism/organization is flawless (unless it is made up of robots, maybe has less than 5 employees or is somewhere in corporate utopia, i.e., a different planet). Therefore their job isn’t to eliminate all the bacteria just be sure you have systems set up to identify the bacteria that could kill the organism.

There are varieties of methods.

I would suggest pattern tracking over time (because even good employees are infamous for doing something bad, or questionable, to get to where they want to go and exhibiting different /better/behavior once there). In other words, one time behavior is completely different than ongoing patterned behavior.

Pattern tracking actually is effective because no matter how sneaky or talented at hiding predator/psychopathic-like behavior that employee does give clues which when tracked uncover the underlying flaw.

Obviously this falls apart once someone shifts companies, but you gotta start somewhere.

But.

The truth is that most less competent leaders didn’t elevate because of any ‘lack of conscience/predator’ trait, but more likely because they knew how to manipulate, or manage, the system. Sure. There can be some less-than-desirable characteristics exhibited when managing the system, but the majority of the time it is all about taking advantage of others mistakes and taking advantage of the opportunities. I mention that to say if people are doing things you don’t like, than change the system, not the people.

–          Why I believe it can be driven by an organization:

Ok. How can an organization contribute to encouraging a thread of predator behavior?

Before I get specifically to that point let me share the premise behind the thought. Research has shown us several things.

–          All people are born with a conscience <or a sense of right or wrong>

–          And even true psychopaths have a conscience <they just do not act upon it>

“In the end, we found that six- and ten-month-old infants overwhelmingly preferred the helpful individual to the hindering individual. This wasn’t a subtle statistical trend; just about all the babies reached for the good guy.”

Professor Bloom

—

So.

In my mind the research and information is clear. Children are born knowing inherently what is moral and ethical and that over time as they experience the real world their natural born tendencies are shifted into whatever spot their experiences put them in.

I purposefully wrote it that way.

This isn’t “children are born good and the world is evil.” And. This isn’t “leaders are born psychopaths and the world is good.” Like it or not, behavior can be shaped by systems and contexts.

We now have intriguing scientific evidence pointing to that inherent human faculty.

—-

At the age of six months babies can barely sit up – let along take their first tottering steps, crawl or talk. But, according to psychologists, they have already developed a sense of moral code – and can tell the difference between good and evil.

An astonishing series of experiments is challenging the views of many psychologists and social scientists that human beings are born as ‘blank slates’ – and that our morality is shaped by our parents and experiences.

Instead, they suggest that the difference between good and bad may be hardwired into the brain at birth.

In one experiment involving puppets, babies aged six months old showed a strong preference to ‘good’ helpful characters – and rejected unhelpful, ‘naughty’ ones. In another, they even acted as judge and jury. When asked to take away treats from a ‘naughty’ puppet, some babies went further – and dished out their own punishment with a smack on its head.

Professor Paul Bloom, a psychologist at Yale University in Connecticut, whose department has studied morality in babies for years, said: ‘A growing body of evidence suggests that humans do have a rudimentary moral sense from the very start of life. “With the help of well designed experiments, you can see glimmers of moral thought, moral judgment and moral feeling even in the first year of life. Some sense of good and evil seems to be bred in the bones.”

—-

This is simply the fact children have a relatively blank experience slate on which the first words are not necessarily ‘self interest’ but rather ‘interest in feeling good’ … which can be a social or individual thing.

Now.

I know that is all about children but let me use it moving into the discussion on ‘psychopaths in the workplace’ (surrounding the discussion on why so many crappy people end up in management positions) and adults entering into the workplace.

So. Most people understand social contracts intuitively. They don’t have to reason them out. Ordinary people are also similarly attuned to questions of risk. Interestingly psychopaths typically exhibit similar levels of intelligence to the norm. Nor does their lack of guilt and shame seem to spring from a deficient grasp of right or wrong. Ask a psychopath what he is supposed to do in a particular situation and he/she can usually give you what non-psychopaths would regard as the correct answer.

<by the way … this is all pulled from research>

So what goes wrong? It is just that he/she does not seem bound to act upon that knowledge. They understand the rules of social contracts, they just do not believe they are defined by the rules.

<please remember that last thought because I will use it again … but this time within a business organization framework>

This is the life of a true psychopath:

“Imagine – if you can – not having a conscience, none at all, no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no limiting sense of concern of the well-being of strangers, friends, or even family members. 

Imagine no struggles with shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken.  And pretend that the concept of responsibility is unknown to you, except as a burden others seem to accept without question, like gullible fools. 

Now add to this strange fantasy the ability to conceal from other people that your psychological makeup is radically different from theirs.  Since everyone simply assumes that conscience is universal among human beings, hiding the fact that you are conscience-free is nearly effortless.  You are not held back from any of your desires by guilt or shame, and you are never confronted by others for your cold-bloodedness. 

The ice water in your veins is so bizarre, so completely outside of their personal experience that they seldom even guess at your condition.”

Martha Stout Ph.D.

—

In other words, a psychopath is completely free of internal restraints with an unhampered liberty to do just as you please with no pangs of conscience.  You can do anything at all, and still your strange advantage over the majority of people, who are kept in line by their consciences, will most likely remain undiscovered.

Many mental health professionals refer to the condition of little or no conscience as “anti-social personality disorder,” a non-correctable disfigurement of character that is now thought to be present in about 4 percent of the population – that is to say, one in twenty-five people.  This condition of missing conscience is called by other names, too, most often “sociopathy,” or the somewhat more familiar term psychopathy.  Guiltlessness was in fact the first personality disorder to be recognized by psychiatry, and terms that have been used at times over the past century include manie sans délire, psychopathic inferiority, moral insanity, and moral imbecility.

All that said, do I personally believe a true psychopath can rise to any significant leadership role in any viable company?

Nope.

Do I believe an organization can unburden some of the typical ‘conscience’ restraints a normal person has?

Yes.

You bet.

Absolutely.

Remember what I said before about psychopaths: ‘They understand the rules of social contracts … just do not believe they are defined by the rules.’

Similar to a child, an employee entering an organization has the ability to discern right from wrong which tells me that we not only believe there is a difference but that our natural inclination would be to do right <versus wrong>.

Are there people born who do not have consciences? Whew. I doubt it. Or they are few and far between.

As a corollary … do I believe there are people who enter a business organization who do no have a conscience? Once again … I doubt it.

So what happens?

Most likely the organization, through its rewards & promoting behavior, create a new conscience framework in which it so dulls their conscience senses that they no longer believe in the traditional ‘right versus wrong’ behavior <or guides their senses in a different direction> and thus, those who elect to follow the new framework, appear to have no consciences <or have a more expanded view of what is conscientiously acceptable>. By the way, this is my main argument for why I believe “company values” is bullshit. The system frames the conscience framework, not some words.

Let me be clear.

The employee understands the traditional rules of social contracts but the organization has defined a different set of rules they believe they can play by.

So. If you believe that then, in general, the really competent people who don’t get promoted have decided, in some form or fashion, to maintain their sense of ‘right versus wrong’ framework. They just decide to not play by the different set of rules.

And, let’s be clear, I am not suggesting they are better people because of this decision, but rather each person makes their own decision. And each should feel comfortable with their decision because both are playing by the rules.

I have never begrudged the ‘less competent’ rising to a leadership role as long as they didn’t exhibit the nasty predator-like characteristics. Because if they didn’t, than they just managed the system better than others did.

Last thought.

Maybe we should think of businesses as microcosms of Life itself.

There is something called the concept of Natural Law <I did not make this up>.

The concept of Natural Law implies that human beings inherently know what is ‘good from evil’ and what is ‘right from wrong’ <our conscience compass>. It refers to our belief that inherent in nature itself is a moral law that has validity everywhere for everybody, regardless of race and culture. Human beings can use our reason to discern that natural moral law so as to derive binding rules of moral behavior which we make into our everyday positive law.

I believe that when a new employee enters an organization they begin with Natural Law embedded, therefore, any changes to the natural law are created by experience within the organization itself.

Ponder that.

Because you almost have to believe that or you have to believe that a disproportionate percentage of the true psychopath population <like all of the 4% they represent> end up in business instead of hanging out in strip clubs & low income housing.

Ponder.

Maybe I am naive.

But I think I would rather believe even the ‘less competent’ leaders have a conscience and a sense of ‘right versus wrong’ than believe a bunch of psychopaths have run amok in leadership within organizations.

This is the kind of stuff that drives me crazy:

In a new study, Brynjolfsson, and Raymond and Li show that generative AI significantly impacts labour productivity in certain jobs. The research reveals that generative AI can boost productivity by 14% and enhance lower-performing employees’ performance.

The technology accelerates the learning curve, enabling workers to gain six months of experience within just two months.¹ Putting the machine in reverse. The mess we create we made the mess worse and then have not taken steps to make the mess less of a mess. I spoke with authors Erik Brynjolfsson (Director of Stanford Digital Economy Lab) and Lindsey Raymond (MIT).

Notes:

• Generative AI systems can improve productivity by 14% in certain office roles and raise the performance of lower-performing employees.
• AI accelerates the learning curve, allowing workers to gain six months of experience in just two months.

A Goldman Sachs paper suggested that generative AI could improve productivity in the US by 1.5 to 2.9% over a 10-year period. Globally, this could translate to a 7% growth in GDP. In the context of the UK and US economies, this means an additional $210 billion and $1.6 trillion, respectively.

Source: public and newsletters

Why does this drive me crazy?

First. This is indicative of people crafting a silver lining in the midst of a torrential downpour. Everyone knows automation is going to cost people jobs and they also know that the existing business world is fairly unhealthy in terms of productivity, meaning and worker engagement, but, lets ignore all of that and bolt on some widgets and ask workers to produce more. Business will ignore structural flaws because now they have a short term success story to point to. Its nuts.

Second. This is the type of short term thinking shit that has driven business down a fairly nonproductive path for quite some time. Once again business will take advantage of some short term productivity widget and then, well, it plateaus and they either grab onto the next short term whizbang thing or they just say the heck with it and automate (note: they will). Yeah. Ignore the short term stuff, I just told you the long term future of work. That is not a prediction. It just is.

I am not suggesting all this new technology doesn’t have some good attributes and benefits, just that focusing on productivity is not what we should be focused on at the moment.

===

Architecture is a way to create a physical version of an idea or a feeling. It is the way to construct reality as we wish it to be, rather than as it is.

Deyan Sudjic

===

“If I had to represent man ‘as he is,’ I should have required so bewildering a tangle of lines that a pure treatment of the element would have been out of the question; there would only have been an unrecognizable blur. Besides, I have no desire to show this man as he is, but only as he might be.”

Paul Klee

===

The basic ingredient of architectural design consists of two elements: mass and space. Interestingly, I would suggest this is the basic ingredient of social connectivity. Ponder that. I’ll get back to that later.

Anyway.

If the essence of things is the relationship between these two things, I would suggest, in today’s world, mass has taken on a disproportionate value compared to space. We seem to have a preoccupation with mass to such an extent it almost seems like we have become space blind. This is not a healthy situation to be in. Awareness of space engages in our full range of senses. And, I would argue, engaging all our senses is the pathway to engaging what is possible – for the individual as well as the community engaged with the space. Or maybe I could suggest that our progress is found within our capacity to perceive space from the spaceless. In layman’s terms that is a deepening perception of context and a deepening understanding of the situation possibilities. In systems thinking terms that is a deepening sense of the system as a whole.

Which leads me to say that space is made up of two elements: movement and stillness.

Not to get to “quantum” but these things can happen simultaneously.  This is the people’s canvas with which they can paint whatever experience they would like. And while we may put a higher value on mass, within space, the reality is the mass and space equation can be experienced by anyone, some moving and some still, on an equal basis. The test of our humanness is actually found in whether we can approach space and deal with it as a whole to maximize total potential. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out this demands that we do not think too early in terms of how to form the experience. Form should derive from, not be dictated by, either the design and the structure of the space or what we desire to design from that space. Making arbitrary decisions with regard to the experience too early too early in the process tends to stunt thought and inhibits or stop the flow of basic creativity within the space. I say that because once articulated structured experiences are hard to get rid of and tend to impose themselves where they do not belong. I’m suggesting that presence should be emergent. To be clear. I fully recognize we relentlessly attempt to ‘manage space’ and use ‘mass’ (and masses/people) to craft the space experiences all the fucking time. Emergent experiences are not happily embraced by people – generally speaking. In particular, leaders (a mass in and of themselves) invest a lot of energy managing spaces in the attempt to manage people and, well, manage power. In many ways, many ‘mass’ things, people included, are architects and architecture. Architects build for emotional and psychological purposes, as well for ideological and practical reasons. That said. Architecture is about power. What an architect can offer, in part, is the sense they are creating a space in which there is some sense of meaning and purpose or, maybe, that the meaning and purpose can be explored if not found within that space. At its best it includes a sense of belonging to a wider world, but at the same time celebrating the individual (the power) and his or her place in that world. But architecting, and architecture, is far too often concerned with the instinct to control, to order, to categorize, to shape life as it should be lived in a space, to choreograph every activity within every space. In other words, shaping a demand of a certain view of the world.

Which leads me to the interesting relationship between mass and space.

It is one thing to constrain space by structural devices such as walls. It is another thing to infuse space with activities that constrain minds. One could argue that the highest level of value as both mass and space working well together is to heighten the sense of ‘the mind’ and minds. What this pragmatically means is that while there will always be mass there must be enough space to provide for different activities and to allow things to articulate themselves in such a way that possibilities emerge free of constraint. The relationship between mass and space should be a continuous flow of experiences where each moment of time is preceded by a previous experience and becomes the stepping stone for the experience to come. If we desire a continuous flow of ‘progress experiences’, then the relationship of spaces and masses should not be one of constraining but rather releasing. Just to remind everyone, one of the objectives of space is movement. The purpose of a space is to affect the people who use it therefore its composition must encourage a continuous unbroken movement, flow, of impressions and experiences. Maybe what I am suggesting is that mass is a participator of space and should be viewed as an engine of movement, not just stillness.

Which leads me to stories and narratives.

Structures, buildings, meetings and gatherings are all expressions of mass and space of the culture within which it resides. They demand notice and are narratives and stories themselves. These stories are informally created as well as formally created. We, all of us, should think about what I just said. Far too often we emphasize the stories and experiences we construct and craft as the stories and narratives that matter. Yet, structures, buildings, meetings and gatherings generate narratives all by themselves. To be clear. Crafted “space narratives” have always been dependent upon the allocation of resources and manpower. Which means the execution of crafted narratives has always been at the discretion of those with their hands on the levers of power, i.e., those who wield the mass within the space. Although many spaces may appear to be rooted in pragmatism, or even diminished into some definition of ‘just space’. it is a powerful tool of human psychology. Far too often it is a tool for inflating the individual ego to the scale of a community, a city, a nation and, yes, even a business. It reflects the motivations, ambitions, and insecurities of that particular ‘mass’, therefore, if someone squints hard enough they can see the nature of its belief in power, its strategies, and its desired impact upon people. Space, in and of itself, is a form of mass communication. By understanding what it communicates, and the relationship between psychology and power, offers a key insight into what exists and, in fact, our own existence. And there is where I will end. With a cautionary tale for those who thrive in ‘crafting spaces, experiences and stories.’ Space, left to its own devices, tells it own stories and narratives and offers its own experiences. These are the ‘informal stories.’ These are the stories the ‘masses’ tell themselves when some ‘mass’ isn’t telling them what to think about that space or within that space. Ponder.