===

“No matter how careful you are, there’s going to be the sense you missed something, the collapsed feeling under your skin that you didn’t experience it all. There’s that fallen heart feeling that you rushed right through the moments where you should’ve been paying attention.

Well, get used to that feeling. That’s how your whole life will feel some day.

This is all practice. “

—

Chuck Palahniuk

====

“It’s never as good as you want it to be; It’s never as bad as it seems.”

—

William Chapman

====

Well. Chuck Palahniuk writes some really deep shit. Stuff that really makes you think. That said, I have to admit, when I read the opening quote a lot of things about living Life, in business and personal, made a helluva lot more sense to me.

Maybe it’s just me, but, it seems like most of Life is tainted by sense of constantly missing ‘something’ … as in something maybe better than where we are and what we are doing and feeling or in what we have done. It isn’t always this huge disappointment. It’s just like a little nagging sliver in the palm of your hand.

All the while this sense is interposed with glimpses of … well … what is actually better. We, being we humans, naturally don’t accept the sense we missed something. Therefore we begin becoming more & more careful with how we invest our time and more careful about what we do <or don’t do>. Basically, we start treating our lives carefully assuming that if we do so, we will have less sense of something missing and more glimpses of ‘the better we feel like we are missing sometimes.’

Boy.

Are we wrong.

Boy.

We sure are investing a shitload of energy chasing something I believe Life simply dangles in front of us to tease us with thoughts of ‘what could be.’

It is quite possible we should learn to accept the nagging sense of missing something as … well … good. Good as in it makes us a little more alert for ‘things.’ Maybe it just makes us pay attention a little more.

Maybe we should accept the feeling isn’t lostness nor the thought that maybe we were not on the right path in Life.

Maybe we should just accept it as a characteristic of a good life.

Anyway. All of this leads me to a quote, and a thought, I vehemently disagree with:

======

……. me reading this quote ……

“People who succeed tend to find one goal in the distant future and then chase it through thick and thin.  People who flit from one interest to another are much, much less likely to excel at any of them.  School asks students to be good at a range of subjects, but life asks people to find one passion that they will follow forever. “

David Brooks

<The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources Of Love, Character, And Achievement>

=======

That is just bullshit.

Life does not ask people to find one passion that they will follow forever. That’s like saying that I love ice cream, but I am only going to eat chocolate ice cream for the rest of my life because it is my favorite flavor.

What a potentially boring life.

What a potentially ‘missed opportunity’ life.

The whole ‘passion’ discussion makes my head hurt so badly I start rubbing my temples so hard that then the sides of my head hurt too.

Let’s be clear. It is not passion <although glimpses of passion is always fun>. Life asks you to do the best, be the best and pursue what you believes makes you the best of what you could be … that’s it.

That’s what you follow forever.

Is success achieving that ‘one goal in the distant future?’ Maybe for some. But ‘people who succeed tend to find one goal and chase it’ is bullshit. What happens if I suck at picking that one goal or maybe my sense of direction sucks as I ‘go thru think & thin’ getting to the horizon <only to find I am standing in nowhere land>?

Look.

I am all for people pursuing goals.

I am all for people being passionate.

I am all for pursuing thru thick & thin <assuming what you are pursuing is ‘real’ and not some fantasyland>.

But I am not all for putting the blinders on, the bit between the teeth and then run like hell toward some goal on the horizon. I do believe you should be inspired in your actions … but inspired is very different than passion.

Passion.   I have a passion … it is for something.

Inspired.    I can be inspired by many somethings and moments and experiences and … well … you get it.

Here is a Life truth. The people who tend to succeed are inspired … by one thing or by many things … doesn’t matter. They are just inspired people. 

===

“All the effort in the world won’t matter if you’re not inspired.”

Chuck Palahniuk  

===

All that said. Let me circle back to the beginning. No matter how careful you are, no matter how much and how hard you pursue something … you will still have a sense of having missed something. Everyone has an undercurrent sense, a feeling, of missing something.

Look. We all pursue one thing — happiness. We may couch it in some ‘idea I have’ or ‘money’ or “purpose” or, well, anything else life has to offer, but we all want, and therefore seek, happiness. I would suggest what Chuck suggested we think about is not really acceptance of ‘lesser than what we want’ but rather accept the balance Life offers us.

The balance in that we will almost naturally have some sense of ‘something better’ no matter how careful we are in managing our lives or the pursuit of some goal.

The balance of actually getting a glimpse of that ‘something’ and not having rushed thru some important moment versus the missing feeling.

Well. Having said all that.

When I read the opening quote I had a better understanding of why so many people are unhappy far too often.

Because if we DON’T accept the sense of missing something as part of living a full Life … well … that means you will spend your entire life chasing that sense <to suffocate it in some way>. If you do that, well,  that pursuit will inevitably suffocate your Life <and that is an unhappy Life>. Ponder. Maybe I am missing something. And maybe I am not.

==========

Originally posted October 2015

===

“We find the true person only through group organization. The potentialities of the individual remain potentialities until they are released by group life. Thus, the essence of democracy is creating. The technique of democracy is group organization.”

Mary Parker Follett, The New State

===

I just had a conversation about employees with a good friend of mine who runs a business where “A clients need A players” came up. To be fair, he quickly said “I know you believe all employees have at least some A-level qualities/skills.” I do. Generally speaking, I believe most businesses squash the A-level ability in most people and the waste of human potential is immense. Certainly, some people have specific skills better than other people and ambition fluctuates person-to-person (ambition should never be conflated with skills), but, there is such a waste of human potential particularly in what many call ‘the workers’ or the blue-collar jobs or what leadership typically deems “the doers.” The bottom line in the discussion I was having was “I can’t tell you if you should be hiring anyone, or even who, if I don’t know if you are maximizing the people you have.”

But let’s get to potential.

In the 1980s Professors Edward Deci and Richard Ryan from the University of Rochester defined the six main reasons people work: play, purpose, potential, emotional pressure, economic pressure, and inertia. Since then, most research has suggested the first three motives tend to increase performance, while the latter three hurt it.

• Play is when you are motivated by the work itself. You work because you enjoy it, e.g., creating learning programs or problem solving how to break through to each person. Play is our learning instinct, tied to curiosity, experimentation, and exploring challenging problems.

• Purpose is when the direct outcome of the work fits your identity. You work because you value the work’s positive impact on, or for, other human beings.
• Potential is when the outcome of the work benefits your identity. In other words, the work enhances your potential.

Since these three motives are directly connected to the work itself in some way, they will improve performance to different degrees. If we want employees to have the cognitive ability, flexibility and agility needed to solve complex problems and collaborate effectively (whether face-to-face or remotely) as well as being able to develop and apply qualities such as critical thinking and creativity, we need to consider what we can do to enable those abilities to flourish and thrive and potential seems to be a rich mine for personal progress.

Which leads me to leadership (or nudging).

The conscientious nudger seeks to design systems and processes to help people make better choices for themselves. That said. Any choice architecture begins with sensemaking. For example, losses loom larger than gains in our minds and this steers motivation within sensemaking and choicemaking. Potential is found not only in curiosity & learning but in accepted risk and acceptable losses. All of this can be crafted in effective sensemaking. What I mean by that is if everyone makes sense of situations in the same way, or with similar characteristics, the choice architecture (and its boundaries) is crafted by the sensemaking and not through any leader (this is called The Law of the Situation). Therefore, the leader simply nudges people with a common sensemaking framework toward potential solutions, nudges curiosity and nudges probabilistic thinking so that people can explore – which is where potential is always found.

 

“Having a better theory of emergent organization would have a lot of practical benefits, allowing us to generate or simplify sets of rules that will result in productive ends.”

John Miller, Science of Complex Systems

==

Unfortunately, too many leaders inhibit people from asking questions that once seemed too absurd to consider and thus they prevent people from probing for patterns and insights that once resided in the realm of the unknowable. Potential explores limits and imitations. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t acknowledge limits but in doing so it should not amount to a dismissal of potentials.

Which leads me to principles.

Any time we seem to discuss A players, B players or any types of players we inherently create a warped competitive environment. I am not suggesting a business shouldn’t encourage some competition but it should be competing without feeling like it is competition or you are being competitive – you compete with stagnancy & entropy. This is when you are simply attempting to maximize your own potential and skills assuming your best will be, well, your best – win, lose or draw. This also assumes you believe your best will demand everyone else to bring their best so that even in a competitive environment if you ‘lose’ it Is simply because everyone played it the best they could.

So let me offer some principles:

• Human potential represents an organization’s main source of productivity

• Technology augments people, people don’t complement technology, potential emerges from augmentation

• An individual’s potential is not defined by one skill, but rather all skills/abilities (of all depths/dimensions) an individual has

• The highest organizational productivity, progress, profitability is found through maximizing opportunities efficiently and, simultaneously, effectively maintain productivity, progress & profitability

I tend to believe if you follow these principles you will just have team players, no A, B, C or whatever, and you will increase the probability these players will maximize their potential and, as a consequence, the business successes will increase. Ponder.

First. Because I am involved in business I am constantly inundated with the buzzwords associated with the “new and unique” and all the pontificators (jesters) who spout them and how people are constantly suggesting the world is changing – like it has never changed before.

Second. Because of the age I am at I am constantly inundated with how people of my generation suggest <state> how today is more difficult for people than ever before.

I admit.

I kind of chuckle when I hear all this.

I often seem to create a maelstrom of conversational misery when I state things like “change is the constant companion of every generation” … or say something like “it isn’t any more difficult for this generation it is just different.”

Frankly.

Most people my age think I am nuts when I say it.

Shit.

Most people any age.

Or think I am out of touch with what is happening around us.

Ok.

If I were sensitive, I would care. Or more likely I would care if I didn’t find quotes like this.

“… my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age in which we live. No nation can now shut itself from the surrounding world and trot around the same old path of its fathers. A change has come over the affairs of mankind.  … intelligence is penetrating the darkest corners of the globe.”

This sure sounds like something you may have heard on CNN or BBC from someone talking about what is happening in the Middle East or Russia.

Or maybe on CSPAN talking about the shifting global economy.

But.

Think 1850 (or abouts).

Think Frederick Douglas in a speech in NYC.

Think about the fact that each generation has faced some radical change and thought process and attitude.

Yup. The more things change the more they stay the same.

What also stays the same? Each generation gets “left behind” as another races toward what will be.

This creates friction between generations.  It is friction created because the generation always being left behind is the older one.

The one that is supposed to be smarter.

The one that is supposed to know the best.

Well.

Is this a generalization? Sure. But the truth? Mostly.

Pieces or parts smarter and know the best?  Yes. Sure.

On the whole?  Nope.

To be fair.  A minority of those being left behind actually enjoy the ride. They empower the youth. Fuel it. Guide it. Not restrict it. Those few get to enjoy a longer thrill ride.

But they are few.

On the whole the majority of an older generation holds on for dear life <a stranglehold in fact> to what they know and makes them comfortable. And it would possibly be okay if they did that and remained silent, but instead they complain about what is lost within the following generations and try and slow change.

It is too bad.

For by focusing on what is lost they neglect to have the amazing opportunity to see what is gained.

Regardless.

In the end.

Change comes upon us whether we want it or not.  As Frederick Douglas said in 1850: ‘you cannot ignore the intellect of the world.’

True in 1850.

True in 2022.

True in 2172.

Which leads me to business.

The business aspect of this thought is older generations holding on to older thoughts, or worse, older processes.

This is the craziest aspect.

Big business is always (ALWAYS) slow to change. It is part of their personal survival-thinking DNA.

But its actually death-thinking DNA.

It is death thinking because it is stratifying thinking and stratified businesses lose value in a daily basis.

Creative Destruction is all about the small (entrepreneurs) disrupting and destroying the status quo and that of ‘the big’ and through the destruction they begin recreating what is right and good for the economy.

So. After reading that you may think “old” entrepreneurs would be part of the minority “happy few change agents” (the few who recognize that the more things change the more they stay the same).

Well.

Nope.

Most typically they are actually the worst ‘non-change’ offenders.

Yes. All generations exhibit more conservative less risky behavior as they age. But. Successful entrepreneurs, turned successful independent business owners, seem to most often exhibit this conservative (on steroids) behavior. My guess it is driven mostly by fear of losing what they gained (by the way, thinking this way isn’t exactly a stupendous growth strategy nor a healthy business environment if you want to have younger people as employees). But I also believe there is an aspect of refusal to let go of things that brought them that success.

It is slightly strange, but that which made them successful they now disregard, and have discarded, under the guise of “maturity” or ‘mature businesses need to be managed differently than growth businesses’.

Oh.

And it is all compounded by their belief that past failed attempts should be avoided (even if someone has a thought on how that “failed” scenario could be viewed differently and therefore maybe the learning from that experience may have been flawed).

Now. I am not suggesting all past experience should be ignored. Or that successful entrepreneurs need to completely relive their aggressive risk (but smart) behavior that carved out their success. But older business owners need to let go of some ‘beliefs.’  Not because they are wrong, but rather because they are wrong ‘now.’ (note: yes, context matters, even with beliefs)

In addition sometimes new people provide new perspective on their growth (success & failures) experience.  The new people possibly have just seen “from the other side” and discern different learnings. They see what Taleb called “half invented ideas” and know how to fully invent them.

It is fresh perspective.

And most independent business people lose perspective as time goes on because they have cocooned themselves within their “successful behavior” <and their successes>.

Regardless.  Let me end with several overarching thoughts.

Each generation faces radical adversity.

Each generation facilitates extraordinary change (beneficial as a whole).

Each older generation is extraordinarily reluctant to release that which is comfortable to them (and what they “know” … or believe to know).

And, lastly.

We older folk, manager types, should reflect upon this.

Why?

Because we are managers. And we are managers of those who will beget what will be better than what we have done or created.  We are mangers of the future. That doesn’t diminish what we have done. And we should embrace the fact we have created an environment for others to go farther than we were able to go.

We wonder why managing young people is so difficult?

Well.

It is not because of some pop psychology generational differences.

It is because we are holding them back (in general). It’s like trying to tame mustangs in the Wild West. Except we, unlike the savvy old cowboys, don’t reflect on the beauty of the wildness of the mustang as we try and tame them. We simply see the wild untamedness and believe it is a shame they are so wild.

Older managers, to be successful, need to admire the beauty of the untamed.  And not seek to break the mustangs but rather guide their energy to enable them to take the herd to the heights it deserves.

A poetic metaphor (bad one)? Maybe.

But certainly something worth pondering.

All I really know is if you look close enough, pay attention to what really matters, the more things change the more they stay the same.

====

“How many people long for that “past, simpler, and better world,” I wonder, without ever recognizing the truth that perhaps it was they who were simpler and better, and not the world about them?”

R.A. Salvatore

====

This was going to be another rant, or criticism, of 50somethings. but, I watched a fabulous documentary on cartoonists and cartoon strips called “Stripped” which details the past, present & future of cartoons and it made me scrap my rant and begin over again.

The documentary made me think of 50somethings and how today’s “flux” found in the massive business transition taking place is affecting this generation gap unlike any other generation gap in memorable history <we can look back in time and see others but not any we have lived thru>.

I imagine while this may be about ‘letting go, holding on’ I think it is more just about recognizing the sense of ‘lostness’ that can be found in any flux.

Look.

Facing progress is one thing; facing massive cultural change is another. One permits someone to ease their way into the progress and, in some cases depending on what you do, you may even be able to ignore the progress and still maintain the life and work life you currently enjoy until you decide to stop working. On the other hand, massive cultural shift cannot be ignored. In addition the people within the shift are bombarded with an uncomfortable sense of ‘what is happening ?’ … because there is no well-defined horizon <the shift will define it in the end>.

Anyway. In the documentary some of the older more established <very popular> cartoonists just looked … well … lost. And, frankly, I think a lot of 50somethings are lost in the cultural flux created by the technology-driven/hand held technology driven Life.

This doesn’t mean that 50somethings don’t embrace the features <the smartphones, the tablets, the wi-fi> … it is just that they struggle to see or accept all the benefits.

Oh. It reminds me there is no “guide to being lost” manual you can pull off some shelf.

Regardless.

In this flux time many 50somethings want their cake and eat it too.

Want the new, but don’t want to lose the old.

Now. This ‘holding on’ aspect is truly a reflection of not only ‘it was always better when I was younger’ <and it is worse now than it was before>, but also an underlying desire to have something solid underfoot … like ‘the benefits of the way it was done before’.

Admittedly … this holding on aspect can take on some aggravating & ‘difficult to deal with’ aspects … like … they sometimes think they are living in the present <their perception> by implementing what is comfortable <the past> therefore their behavior is incredibly difficult to impact because their mind is telling them what they are doing is actually different than what they are actually doing.

Sound complicated?

You bet.

So complicated this attitude is next to impossible to change or impact.

And it gets complicated even further by the fact this 50something generation has made a lot of money doing it ‘their way’ <kind of proof for the method>. Regardless. For once I am actually defending the 50somethings. Not sympathy … just some understanding. This just isn’t a normal every day future, this is an uncharted future. One I which more of ‘the past’ is being shelved than we have seen for many generations.

===

“The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.”

L.P. Hartley

===

It is like going to a foreign country where they may use the same words but many of them have new meanings.

They may live in a culture which values different things.

And, well, say you have been drinking coffee all your life … and … they only drink tea.

That said.

So, when facing the difference, you may know you are in a different country … and you may want to respect the way they do things … and you may want some sympathy, or help, as you get lost … uhm … but … after a period of time you start reflecting on ‘how much better this foreign country would be if they would do it our/my way.’

That’s natural.

And inevitably, as time goes on, and you get farther away from what you were comfortable with and what you know, the more you feel … well … lost.

Now.

Where I don’t have sympathy or understanding is I do believe many 50somethings are lazy. Not in terms of working hard but rather they accept what they know at the moment as ‘what is’ and remain cynical of all that “is not.” And, worse, they believe their laziness is earned, earned from years of accumulating information and knowledge and money as well as earned because it was successful.

And then?

The 50somethings place a value on this ‘thing’ they feel they have earned over time as if it was some product that had been manufactured and was ready to be sold.

The problem?

It is almost like 50somethings have forgotten that if someone is paying you a $100 they should feel like they are getting something more than $100 worth. Maybe worse they think the past learning <even though a lot it is no longer relevant> has a higher value than it does. The product has become semi-obsolete.

And.

Uh oh.

Maybe the worst? It seems like they have forgotten that knowledge actually naturally diminishes without some constant nurturing <therefore the value is actually depreciating over time>.

When will 50somethings recognize that they really have earned little <okay … less than what they think> of real value to the emerging world unless they unlearn some aspects of what we know and reapply what we do know to encourage a better future.

Well. Let me go back to defending the 50somethings and their lostness.

Unlearning is tough <and unsettling and often scary>.

Massive flux is tough <and unsettling and often scary>. Many 50somethings are just lost. They know they have value but the current value looks an awful like ‘none to limited’ value as everything swirls around us. I would also point out that I do believe many 50somethings would gladly reapply what they know to make things better if someone could just show them the path or tell them where to go and what to do.

Uh.

‘Show them the path’ and ‘tell them what to do’ , attach that to my point on ‘believe they have earned’, and you have the formula for holding on tightly.

If unlearning is tough imagine how tough it is to give up control when you believe you have earned the privilege of controlling.

I was reminded the other day that I don’t often give 50somethings credit or the benefit of the doubt.

They may be right.

The documentary reminded me that ‘lost’ is an incredibly bad feeling and when felling it … well … it often doesn’t bring out the best in people.

Which makes me ask.

If we invested the energy to help the 50something generation feel less lost, would we all benefit from how they responded when they knew where to go next?

Nostalgia, or viewing the past as something better, is one issue, but ‘lostness’ is something completely different.

Maybe I have been looking at this wrong all along.

All I do know for sure is that I may give my 50something friends a little more benefit of the doubt.

Look.

If you even partially agree with me on his ‘lost’ thought … think of the numbers … think maybe 75% of 50somethings working in the cartoon business, television business, stock trading business, travel agent business, book business <libraries, publishing>, newspaper business, well, this could become a fairly long list … a shitload of 50somethings in a shitload of industries with a shitload of quality experience … is in a shitload of hurt.

They are, well, lost.

They know their craft well. And, yet, they don’t know the world their craft lives in anymore.

This is no excuse for the curmudgeons holding on tight to the past and the way things used to be done … it is simply an explanation for why so many of them are gripping the past with white knuckles.

—

“All morons hate it when you call them a moron.” –

Holden Caulfield <Catcher in the Rye>

—

Morons is a harsh word and a harsh concept, but, let’s face it, most of us have experienced that maddening discussion where we explain that seemingly simple concept or that seemingly simple common sense point of view to someone and not only can they not grasp it, but may actually argue a completely moronic point of view that flies in the face of:

<1> facts,

<2> truth, or maybe even

<3> common sense.

In fact during the discussion we may even try several different approaches to the idea, using every metaphor <or parable or analogy> within reach to throw into the discussion that we think the person should reasonably be capable of following.

In the end, sometimes we succeed, mostly we fail and always it is painful <to us> and obviously moronic <to us>. It is painful because , yes, there are morons.

It is here I will bring up the idea of intelligence <despite the fact it may sound odd in a rant on morons>.

First.

Just to set the groundwork, most everyday functions of modern life require an IQ of around 90. Those functions include driving a car, mailing a letter, paying bills and making a bank deposit. The more specialized the function, the more intricate, the higher the level of intelligence necessary.

Second.

I am not using the term ‘moron’ as a classification of any mental deficiency despite the fact that technically ‘moron’ translates to denoting a mild mental deficiency. I am going to suggest being a moron denotes a certain deficiency just not a mental one. Therefore <here is where I link intelligence and the topic of morons> we can dispense with the idea that morons are stupid or have a lack of intelligence.

Morons are not stupid – the deficiency within morons, or being moronic, has nothing to do with intelligence <or at least IQ>. Most morons have IQs at or above 90 <I made that up but I tend to believe it>. Let me take it one step further. Try this on for size. You cannot be a moron unless you actually are intelligent. Yup. I say this because morons are actually people who have intelligence … but they waste it either by using it <their intelligence> poorly or misusing it or not even using it at all.

Wow.

Bet you didn’t think I was going to head down that path, did ya?

Morons are actually intelligent? Yup.

Morons are simply purposefully ignorant … but they are smart.

Uh oh <warning … warning ...>.

That means morons are as intelligent as you and I <okay … maybe at least me … you are probably smarter and this is simply my issue>.

All that said it suggests that the moronic issue resides elsewhere than intelligence.

Robert Heinlein said that stupidity characteristics <or characteristics of morons> are actually tied to ignorance <so I am going to steal that idea because I agree with Bob>.

He suggests that stupidity cannot be cured using money, remedial education or some governmental edict because inevitably it resides within a different reason – a purposeful or intentional ignorance.

Purposeful.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm …

This means that morons actually know something to be wrong with themselves <it may be subconscious but somewhere within they understand>. They are intelligent enough to understand and, yet, rather than correct themselves and abandon that ‘something’ they practice intentional ignorance clinging to that ‘thing’ and inevitably insist that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

And this is where morons are dangerous.

Very very dangerous.

—

“Because, fanaticism and ignorance is forever busy, and needs feeding.

And soon, your Honor, with banners flying and drums beating, we’ll be marching backward, backward, to those glorious ages of the 16th century, when bigots burned the man who dared bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind.”

Clarence Darrow <Inherit the wind>

===

Morons march backwards. Busily marching themselves and trying to herd the rest of us backwards to some glorious age.

It is a Life truth that fanaticism & ignorance is forever busy <and a busybody>. I fully understand that fanaticism and ignorance are often impossible to extinguish, but that doesn’t mean it should be tolerated. Particularly if it is actually harmful.

Regardless. Tolerance, in the end, is an acceptance of the morons. And with this acceptance, albeit grudging acceptance, the morons simply see it as permission to be moronic and they gladly step up <in their forever busy way of theirs> and do harm. Harm in the form of stopping <or even reversal> of progress — harm in marching us backwards. Or they teach and promote falsehoods to others <others including children which is disturbing> with the hope that this younger generation will grow up and can possibly march us backwards.

All this translates into a lot of time and effort and energy lost as ignorance and its byproducts step up and suck time & energy from progress.

Ok. A Bruce thought.

I believe we can no longer afford the luxury of moronic ignorance or tolerate the presence of morons. Tolerating them leads to the creation of a sense that this moronic ignorance actually equals some sort of knowledge <which then makes them some sort of “knowledgeable person” and you know where that leads – ‘trouble in River City’ to quote The Music Man.

==

“<there is a> … false notion that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

Isaac Asimov

==

Morons are wily. They have the notion that their smarts, combined with their purposeful ignorance, is just as good as real unfiltered knowledge. This is tiring to deal with. In fact, if you find yourself surrounded by morons, rather than just shake your head, you have to purposefully accept the challenge to deal with their moronic thinking with the knowledge that they actually have the intelligence to be non-moronic <but actually choose to be moronic>. Wow. Just typing that made my head hurt.

It would take a monumental effort to create the unlikely evolutionary change where morons become extinct <that may be an unattainable objective but it is certainly an admirable objective>. And it will take your best monumental effort to deal with a moron because there are instances where the lines are blurred and where argument and debate and discussion regarding two sides of an issue are actually warranted.

But.

You should seek solace in that there are also issues where right is right, and wrong is wrong, and anyone who argues it looks like the guy who believes Yoda exists somewhere and The Force can be attained with focus & practice.

Oh.

Here is where morons really thrive. Numbers & science & studies & statistics <oh my>.

Science is smart and science is stupid. Both are true and there could be studies done to prove it. One of the smart/stupid things about science is something called the ubiquitous study. They are excellent scientific research formats but while all studies <and most research in general> are interesting they do not reveal eternal, all-encompassing truths.

They simply provide a glimpse into one small, carefully cordoned off area of interest. Extrapolations from the data are based on statistics and therefore do not necessarily apply to everyone and everything. I say that because in today’s world we seem to find exorbitant comfort worshiping at the altar of the ‘numbers’. All of us seem to be considering study results and numbers to be the indisputable truth.

What a fantasy.

But it is often a fantasy land morons live, eat & drink in <and thrive in like a bacteria in a petri dish>>. Numbers are their friends and constant companions.

Huh?

Morons thrive on the isolated statistic.

Some random factoid or piece of information that has no context nor admits it has Truth only within a limited set of circumstances. And they win a shitload of debates using this technique.

How does all this happen?

Well. It sounds simplistic, but I believe we allow it to happen for a couple of reasons. First is a well-intentioned, but subverted belief in freedom of speech. Subverted because inevitably it is often simply ‘freedom of opinion’ these days. What I mean is that we often do not demand accountability for facts with opinions. We feel it isn’t worth investing the energy to make someone fully accountable for their opinion.

Second is ‘opinion’ forces us all to seek something tangible in which to reach some conclusion therefore we seek statistics or numbers to identify truth <and isolate something we can all agree on>. And numbers do not necessarily translate into Truth. Especially isolated non-contextual numbers. I could also argue that we too quickly accept something as a fact without attaching the context that makes it factual.

In the end we seem to be damned by a society that has ingrained in us this strange belief that because we encourage freedom of speech and freedom of thought that all ideas deserve respect and consideration that no one individual <or idea> is “better” or more “worthy” of consideration than any other.

What a bunch of bullhockey.

This has created an environment in which any moronic idea can hover around like an aggravating gnat as legitimate idea.

It is crazy.

A moron is a moron.

A moronic idea is a moronic idea.

It is time that we learned to have the balls <or spine if you are a woman> to call out the morons.

Morons don’t like to be called morons.

Why?

Because they are frickin’ intelligent enough to know better than skate by on shallow feelings and beliefs.

And all the while you must swim in the shallow end of the intellectual debate to debate with them you must be careful of your own ignorance more than theirs because purposeful ignorance does have a sneaky way of creeping up on you.

What I mean is that it is easier to be a moron than to not be a moron. It takes less work, intellectually and curiosity, to maintain an ignorant point of view than it takes to not only grow personally but to actually help a moron grow <which is a quite taxing job>. Frankly it is just easier to quit debating than to take on a moron. I imagine it becomes a test of character.

Regardless.

I imagine in the end that is my point <the test morons give us day in and day out>.

Morons are morons because they are smart enough to engage in purposeful ignorance.

To be ignorant on purpose?

Yikes.

You would have to be a moron.

But.

In the end morons hate to be called morons simply because they are smart enough to know they could do, and be, better. Even morons know somewhere under their purposeful ignorance they should be better than what they are. I imagine the only way to beat morons is to actually get them to face that fact.

Wow. There is a tough job.

But. We cannot let the morons win. Purposeful ignorance is a disease. A disease that can affect entire civilizations & cultures. That thought makes it scary to even think about tolerating the moron. Ponder.

===

“I have scars on my hands from touching certain people.”

J.D. Salinger

===

Some people come into your life and scar your heart.

Some people come into your life and scar your hands.

Here is the difference.

The ones who scar your hands effect what you do.

The scars are best practices, “the way things are done” and any number of rules of the road. Simplistically, scars are rules that suggest principles, or being principled, are less important or even unimportant. The consequence, or cost, is lost craftsmanship. The ability to craft things – life, events, work, etc.

But then there is a different scar. Values. Yeah. I just said values. From the moment you are born you have people suggesting what you should value, what life values and what people think is valued. Every parent, teacher, school, club, coach you touch will scar your view of life’s value exchange. But it gets a bit worse from there. Not only do you get messages on what is valued, and they are rarely aligned among all input, you begin getting counseled on values. This spans from the general vapid ‘value’ to some specifics. It can become a confusing mix of scars.

Honesty is important, but its okay to keep some things to yourself.

People’s dignity is important; but some people are deemed more important than others.

Integrity is important; but winning may trump integrity on occasion.

Oh. Winning. Yeah. How you win matters; but losing makes you a loser, so do what it takes to win.

And the churches tend to offer some specific values and, yet, offer a parachute in terms of “everyone sins.”

So. The values are rigid; until they are not.

And then the business world starts whispering “shared values” (which is different than shared attitudes) which morph into some posters on the wall, some nice words in a handbook, and some inevitable chafing on existing scars you already have when you touch the new shared values construct.  Why? Well. Sometimes the values of an individual (the values you value most) are a bit different than what is outlined in shared values and it is like trying to jam a round peg into an elliptical hole. And maybe just a bit worse is that these ‘shared values’ aren’t really principles, just broad words that create some massive spaces within which some fairly dubious behavior can be justified.

All that said.

I began with the thought that hand scars effect what you do. Actions. “Doing” choices. And that is where the rubber hits the road. Doing choices, for the most part, are individual choices. Scars or no scars, they are your hands and you can do with them what you choose to do. Ponder.

===

“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 media could have been seen as sweeping generalized manipulation of attitudes and beliefs, technology is using fragmentation to have those with power divide and conquer.”

Alvin Toffler, 1981

===

It is too simplistic to suggest any society, or nation, is divided. The reality is that society, and communities, have become fragmented, each isolating into its own cocoon of mindsets, attitudes, beliefs and even performative metrics (proof). If we step back, this is a natural consequence of years of rhetoric and unhealthy narratives. What else would we do after years of businesses suggesting business was a war and the other businesses were out to get us and it was a battle of us versus them, kill or be killed. Or your church is telling you only you will go to heaven and everyone else is designated for hell (or heathens). Or some Cause suggests it is Armageddon if you do not agree with them and if you don’t you are part of the problem. Even issues like climate change, abortion and vaccinations have become battlegrounds of us versus them. And the politicians, well, they are an onslaught of ‘the other party is evil and will destroy this country” or “that country is evil and out to destroy us” or whatever us versus them derivative they can create. Each, individually, divides, and each contribute to fragmentation. There are two main consequences to all this which leads to the creation of smaller groupings, communities, of like minded people:

• –         The more dividing issues occur, the more complex the world seems and the more inept, or unable to contend with, any centralized center of power is, which leads to decentralization (of everything) which only compounds the sense of lack of coherence.
• –         From a whole cloth perspective this cacophony of dividing creates an overall sense that everything is out of control and the world is spiraling downwards into the depths of despair (this is the roots of cultural despair).

But then we get too technology.

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, communities 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 and societal coherence. The extension of technology into our lives has only seemed to accomplish the fact that people everywhere sensing their control over their lives slipping away as the world becomes increasingly complex. With that mindset/belief people begin discerning specific scenarios within which they can find meaning, self identification & success and then go about creating a subsystem, a likeminded community, where desired actions and direction are created, further intensified by a sense of their own survival within the larger system. There is a general feeling of remoteness from the centers of decision making so they create their own decisonmaking centers. These choices are supported by a feeling (which becomes a belief) that those in power don’t care what “people like me think” which only increases an increasing sense how little capacity individuals, alone, feel they have to shape events. Individuals recognize they cannot flex power to manipulate any meaningful levers of control, they end up groping around almost desperately for ways to bring back some order and sense to their lives, and inevitably smaller likeminded communities are forged. What ends up happening is that society becomes an interaction between these likeminded communities and their changing micro boundaries at a community level all trying to exist in a macro larger system attempting to shape boundaries and pull levers itself for the collective good. The consequence of this conflict/tension tends to make the likeminded communities only double down and increase close identification with those within that particular group. This means that society has become fragmented and not divided.

To state again, a major part of the issue is that people have come to believe that whole systems are simply too complex to meet their needs or serve their wants. So, they’ve sought to regain control by turning to subsystems, in likeminded communities, less complex relatable groups, in the hope that their interests can be better served and some control is regained over the distant impersonal forces that intrude upon their daily life. Simplistically, people have simply given up on the distant big structures of power striking a “big is threatening” and “small is effective/beautiful” pose. Technology has simply taken a gentle sloping trend rising towards skepticism and doubt, laced with some conspiracy theories, and exponentially made it a steep climb.

This has become a period of cultural despair and creation of likeminded communities is an active response to fight despair. I say that because this smaller group creation is an adaptive response to the problems of complexity; not an abandonment of responsibility. The creation of likeminded communities should not be equated with indifference nor is it an expression of apathy or cynicism. Development of smaller communities is simply a search for new structures around which to organize scenarios and which the individuals’ micro needs can have macro consequences. I highlight this to make two points:

• –         This is active participation in society, not a passive reaction. These people are not retreating, they are going on the offensive toward things they actively care about. This is important if we attempt to engage with a collective future in mind. As with any self-decentralization if we seek to regain some centralization or, at minimum, coherence, the fragmented communities must be solicited with sincerity, not disdain or a belief they are not ‘smart enough’ to know better.
• –         Technology feeds on active participation. This is more a warning than it is anything else. If a likeminded community ‘feels’ something, the internet will feed that feeling until it hardens into a belief. It will also actively feed other likeminded people into that community. Contrary to opinion, technology can create blindness and will actually encourage people to go blind.

Which leads me to proof in a complex world.

In order to have some legitimacy and just survive within the larger system the likeminded communities construct scenarios, assume responsibilities, and assign analytics to everything they are involved in. In other words, likeminded communities have their own analytics, they have their own narratives and, unfortunately, sometimes they have their own facts. In fact, the larger the macro societal crisis the more likely it will involve a shift at the subgroup level performance criteria that they will attach to their own legitimacy. This expanded use of metrics may dispose people to rethink what has long been taken for granted and decide to shape their own performance criteria themselves. I would be remiss I remiss if I didn’t point out that media plays a role in subgroup performance criteria development. For example, what Fox News cites is important can often become a community criteria. This criteria becomes a measurement for the larger system – even if the larger system may not have the same criteria. So, while the larger system may actually be quite effective in totality, if not the very specific issue at hand, the performance analytics are not aligned and the conflict only creates further dissonance between the groups and the system.

Technology is the ally and the enemy.

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 and this polarization leads to radicalization (of ideas, opinions, behavior) and, well, society does not benefit. A fragmented society is not one that will effectively build a future good for the collective whole.

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.

The solution resides in being able to see clearly.

It may be difficult for a likeminded community, from all views within a healthy community, to recognize that humanity – even theirs – is lagging our technology. It may be difficult for a fragmented society, specifcally the smaller communities themselves, to see beyond their loose talk about obsolescence and the rot at the core of our society and institutions and business when the existence of that community may be grounded in some apocalyptic view about every systemic crisis. It would behoove each of these smaller communities to understand it stretches credibility to extend each individual systemic indictment to the entire structure of business, government, justice, and institutions. Every debatable action does not demand some mandate to destroy the entire system and every disappointment or concern about the larger system is not a mandate to shrink away to a smaller community mindset. We need some optimism, not just in humanity, but in the grander systems and institutions. Not blind faith, but optimism. I always recommend reading Rutger Bregman’s Humankind to remind everyone about humanity. I recommend for the ‘We’, those who seek to find solutions to what seems like a dysfunctional society, we need to recognize the difference between fragmentation and divided because the solutions are different for each. Divided is about building bridges and fragmentation is about building coherence. Ponder.

“Because of the different rates of change of its components, a building is always tearing itself apart.”

Stewart Brand

—————-

“The unapparent connection is more powerful than the apparent one.”

Heraclitus

———————

Is everything moving faster? Is change occurring at a mind-numbing pace? While it may feel this way, and at almost any conference someone will be espousing this, the non-hyperbolic evidence suggests different. Gravity is still gravity, a minute is still 60 seconds and actually meaningful innovation has slowed to a crawl (in innovation terms). But the feeling of faster, and having to move faster, remains.

That said.  “Since 2016 the Earth started to accelerate.” Yeah. This is reported from the Lomonosov Moscow State University. So maybe its possible we just feel earth spinning that fraction of a second faster (note: doubt it). Beyond the earth, the acceleration of innovation we have experienced in recent years, although real, has not appeared to have increased productivity growth as much as the hype would suggest. Some people would call this issue ‘speed versus velocity.’ Regardless of what you call it, the business consequence of this is you can constantly feel at any given point we are stuck in the past (or the status quo) while discussing what’s next – all the while feeling like you are constantly missing out on something you are fairly confident everyone else gets and you don’t. There is a natural reason for this; reality is made of layers.

Which leads me to Stewart Brand and Pace Layering.

The idea is that there are multiple levels of pace in the world spanning from nature to fad/commerce speeds.

“The outer layers—fashion and commerce—move fastest while the inner layers of nature and culture move much more slowly. Because they’re all moving at different speeds, the system is better able to react to shocks. Some parts respond quickly to the shock allowing slower parts to ignore the shock and maintain their steady duties of system continuity.”

Stewart Brand

Circling back to the point on rate of innovation, pace layering can even be applied there because many people would argue speed of innovation has increased, yet, the majority of those ‘innovations’ have a short shelf life (source: Professor Bram Timmermans, co-editor of Industry and Innovation). So, innovations can exist on different pace layers too. What this means is when we talk about business, we are constantly trying to parse out what is on the outer fastest pace, the fads, fashion and hyped, and what is on the slowest pace – culture, people, and nature. In other words, discerning what is important and what is not. Generally speaking, business doesn’t handle this discussion well.

To be fair.

It’s quite possible in a complex world with so many dynamics your brain can quickly turn to fluff that we attempt to simplify things into the graspable.

It’s quite possible that’s why business is often discussed in 2-dimensional framing and ‘this or that’ decision-making.

It’s quite possible in doing so we over simplify and end up in some simplistic-summary-world or an oversimplification which appears useful, but is useless.

It’s quite possible we heighten “we must do this” as a technique to overcome an overwhelming sense of uncertainty.

That said. The reality is the world is not changing faster than ever, it just feels that way. Certainly, many things are fundamentally moving faster and its possible that all levels of pacing are moving slightly faster, but to suggest nature (biology) moves at the same speed as culture is nuts. BUT. It creates a sense that everything is not only moving faster, but things are moving too fast to grasp. It creates a sense we are living in a totally liminal space and, frankly, when we feel that way, we will hold on to whatever appears to be stable.

All of this gets compounded because, within all this complexity, people will inherently pick & choose what they want making “the more things change; the more things stay the same” a simplistic trope encouraging everyone to ignore purposeful change as a necessity because stability simply becomes not only a means to remain sane, but also because it is unclear what change is the change to do.

So what do we do?

Vision, tactics, coherence, and possibility plans. The reality is business, and in particular marketing, demands action now. Most actions bridge then and next absorbing aspects that worked then and embed brand value into the needs of the now with an acknowledgement of building future value. The trick is always to not get too caught up in the now, in other words, blinded by the outer layer of fads and cultural whims and short-termerism which sacrifice brand value creation. This demands some vision to navigate the layer noise.

I believe it useful to think of the layers in terms of technology and people. Why? The truth is technology almost always wants to work faster than most people want or can. Maybe worse is that technology engages people on a superficial level, which can create some activation, therefore neither embedding the full product value nor engaging in a substantive way.

Which leads us to “possibility plans.”

In general, a business is better when they have plans, but not all plans are created equal. Plans should be built to work toward something rather than working to do something. “Doing something” creates fragile businesses through ‘objective blindness’.  Here is a counterintuitive thought, plans are good because broken plans represent disciplined opportunities, therefore, well made plans are more about possibilities than they are simple execution. Remember. The best laid plans always fall apart. Always. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have a plan. And even a plan for when the plan falls apart. And maybe even another thought on another plan. All those things involve change. And then of course there is the plan you hadn’t thought of that actually becomes the plan you actually do. Simplistically, all of those broken plans are about possibilities. Possibilities are change at its best.

The truth is the best business people don’t waste time stopping or slowing down to try and glue a plan back together again. They keep moving and make the best of what pieces are still within grasp. Maybe create some new pieces of the plan to replace some that broke off. They keep an eye on the vision or the goal and let some pieces catch up later if they can. Yeah. Success in navigating multiple levels of pace is you don’t stop to fret over broken plans, you simply seek out new possibilities (in fact often finding innovative fresh thinking on the move) and leave behind anything not key to achieving the goal (and that can be people and materials) always plucking out the possibilities that may exist on a different plane and different pace (but are pluckable at that time & place).

• ** quick note on the feeling of not keeping up. Far too often in a world shouting at you that speed is the only thing that matters, people will grab onto things that are only going fast. This is a mistake. In fact, broken plans may actually reflect dispensing of pieces & parts that are going too fast. Your plans should reject ‘too speedy things’ – fads would be included in this – as being too asynchronistic for what the greater objective narrative is. I am not suggesting this is always the case – you can eject too slow, too burdensome components also – but simply maintaining something because it is ‘fast’ is absurd.

Possibility plans are not exactly linear, but evolving. This is true because of pace layering. The best plans interconnect the different paces cognitively, tactically and within the vision, i.e., coherence. The plan fits into the flow of business activity.

Navigating the pace of now and next, well done, captures possibilities.

Navigating the layers of a business’s pace, well done, captures present & future, now and next.

Navigating the pace of the organizational strategies, well done, captures what if’s, what nexts, what (and where) could be’s.

In the end navigating the pace of now and next effectively means your business is not tearing itself apart, but rather building it up. Ponder.

===

“Everything solid melts into air.”

Marx and Engels

We talk about uncertainty in a number of ways, but for most everyday people its experienced like quicksand – the ground you are standing on, solid, melts into air. It’s a shock to the system. It’s kind of like someone you trusted suddenly becomes untrustworthy or an institution, which has reliably met its responsibility, is suddenly unreliable and exploitive.

Anyway. So google uncertainty you will gets millions of hits with tips to deal with or coping with, but none on the moment in which solid melts into air. This is a really important point because, conceptually, ongoing certainty degrades thinking and while research suggests ongoing uncertainty upgrades thinking, there is the wretched space in-between. It is within this in-between answers are elusive, it is difficult to discern right from wrong and much of what was important has simply melted from solid to air.

Which leads me to society.

For a variety of reasons, a lot of what people deemed as part of ‘solid society’ has melted into air. As a consequence, we are seeing is the emergence of a new social configuration that may be at odds with the ideas that constituted the beginnings of the social life as they have developed up until now. This social transformation involves major efforts by individuals within that society to redefine their social places with the outcome of these efforts almost always being uncertain and, yet, driven by a certainty of some purpose. It is the odd conflict a feeling like their social identity has been uprooted and therefore attacking social configuration to actually uproot social identities as they are currently defined. What is at stake is certainly a new relationship between individual interests, social rights, and economic efficacy. But the outcome, in terms of a new solid fusion of all of these things, is uncertain. It is interesting that in this uprooting we are simultaneously seeking freedom for self and, yet, defining bounded social practices.

Which leads me to individualism as solidity.

Right or wrong, many people shrink back into individualism when faced with a moment of solid melting into air. This is important because virtually all the present major social issues focus on the individual right to self-define one’s situation and possibilities for action and on the definition of the boundaries and rights of the collective an individual is associated with. Much of this tension emerges from a foundational belief that human beings are not only enabled, but compelled to self-create their own rules of life. This is a semi-important thought because nobody ever creates rules from nothing in an empty space – context and history matters. It was Karl Marx who said “human beings make their history themselves but they do not do so voluntarily, not under circumstances of their own choosing, rather under immediately found given and transmitted circumstances.” I imagine my point here is that when something solid melts everyone struggles a bit to be able to proactively reflect on underlying assumptions. I believe it was Andrew Grove of Intel who used the term ‘learning to effectively worry.’ You worry, a bit, about some of the basic assumptions commonly made and whether they work within the situation at hand – or do they put a modeling constraint on which, in this situation, can be set aside.

This means, in the moment, someone needs to assess how the mood, or your mood, affects how you are addressing the situation. While this unique type of uncertainty tends to breed some aspect of fear (uncertainty itself), how you are framing the situation affects the mood – problems create anxiety (and desire for probabilities rises) and opportunities breed optimism (and increased risk acceptance).

Which leads me to recreating something solid.

The ability to regulate, and reshape, our own attitudes & behavior provides us the hope that melting is fleeting and navigating the sheer complexity of a seemingly simple moment between solid and melting is possible. The suddenness of solid melting into nothing does not, and should not, imply total destruction of all, and everything, that is solid. Most often when solid melts into air it is simply taking some time to reshape itself into something sold again. It may not be the same ‘solid’ as before, but it will end up just as solid. It is within that, well, where we escape the series of quicksand solid-to-air moments. Ponder.

==

“It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth cannot be produced by human institutions, but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to great titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society – the farmers, mechanics and laborers – who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors for themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their government.”

Andrew Jackson

==

The future is always dependent upon the development of talent. I don’t care if this is business, philanthropy, education, science, humanities or simply society in total, if you want to be better tomorrow than you are today as a civilization, you need to cultivate talent. When society loses its ability to cultivate talent the implications filter across society and all its trappings. First and foremost, the worst consequence is missed potential. Researchers called this “the lost Einsteins” or the talented overlooked (typically found in minorities and poverty/less fortunate) and it costs countries multiplicative-level potential innovation and thinking.

This came to mind when someone tossed out the infamous “merit based” system for talent.

Simplistically, a merit based concept is the eugenics application of talent. A horrible idea. It sure sounds good, but it isn’t. Talent is not a race. It is a tricky concept, one which is not always a measurable thing and even when measured one could argue the highest scoring do not always offer the highest talent. Regardless of your belief, as a society we suck at cultivating talent. We tend to to give the mediocre wealthy disproportionate advantages from the non-mediocre less-than-wealthy. We tend to dismiss the importance of some foundational young age talent optimization stepping stones like daily nutrition, home security and positive support network as integral to future talent optimization. We tend to treat talent as a race meaning that when we assess ‘talent’ we always view those who are ‘ahead’ as the ones who have the most talent. Basically, we tend to not only not cultivate talent, but in some ways don’t even assess the talent well.

And maybe, while this is certainly a societal issue, the core issue is us – people.

What I mean by this is that I sometimes believe one of the hardest things you can learn in your career is that your best is not particularly special, i.e, your ‘talent’ may be a bit closer to average than you feel comfortable with. This is the realization, a Life fact, that your talent, in reality, is matched by a shitload of people. Learning that your best is relatively easily matched by a shitload of people. Basically not understanding that your own talent could have been matched by 1000’s of other people if it had been recognized and cultivated somewhere in the past. Whenever asked about this (because a bunch of people feel uncomfortable when I say this) I bring up the Janis Joplin documentary: Little Girl Blue.

“… at 27 i realized there are a lot of people with talent, the difference is ambition.”

Janis Joplin

Talent is talent.

Smarts are smarts.

And expertise is almost always relative.

At any given point in Life and your career you can look around you and if you are self-aware you will note you are rarely the most talented, rarely the smartest one in the room and rarely the only expert. You realize that even on your best day you may not actually be the best. I imagine that is a tough thing to get your head wrapped around. Okay. Let me say it is a tough thing to wrap your head around.

It’s not that you truly want to be the most talented, the smartest or the most expert, most of us don’t really care, you just want to feel that at some point you are smart, talented and an expert at something.

Which leads me back to cultivating talent.

I would argue if someone cannot recognize their own talent is not that special, they will inevitably suck at cultivating talent. Why? Because you will only seek out the ones who have figured out how to run the ‘talent race’ well up to that point and attempt to capture them – no cultivate, just capture. Cultivating talent is not, and never has been, about just the best of the best. It has always been about maximizing each person’s potential (because everyone has some talent). Cultivating is not comparing the blooming flowers, but rather simply attempt to have all seeds bloom the best they can bloom and planting seeds of talent. Stewarding the transition from generation-to-generation transition is all about cultivating rather than capturing. We have a responsibility to the future to cultivate talent. Ponder.