===

“Across American life, we had refined a set of extraordinary tools – for building wealth, firing bullets, and circulating information – that were so powerful, they altered not just the arrangement of American politics, but also the chemistry of it.”

Evan Osnos

===

“Capitalism is reckless of the health or length of life of the laborer, unless under compulsion from society.”

Karl Marx

===

“No one will emerge as a winner in a trade war. Some people blame economic globalization for what has gone wrong in our world. It is true that economic globalization has created new problems, but this is no justification to write off economic globalization all together.”

Chinese President Xi Jinping

===

Politicians are infamous for dumbing complex economic issues down to one simplistic soundbite often using whatever convenient, single, data point to make their point. The reality is that economics, and economies, are complex, ambiguous, with no clear, easy, actions/solutions; none of which slow politicians from wielding the politics of economics to attempt to sway public opinion in their favor. And while I have no love of politicians or politics, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out they are stuck in a system of which they have few choices, but to play the narrative game this way if they seek any success. What I mean by that is there is only one logical solution when success is defined solely by economic growth (which has a halo effect of perception of personal success/wealth). A politician is forced to choose between the technological/business solution, which is the only reasonable one for career success, and any other solutions. The ‘other solutions’, while infinitely more likely to contribute to long term economic and social progress, offer abstractness in the present and dubious short term ‘economic successes’ which offer only danger to personal political success. The harsh truth, today, is that no politician has any real choice, but to chase economic success no matter how hollow the ’success’ may actually be for a healthy society. Oddly, this chase simultaneously decreases the power and role of politicians (maybe not politics) as it is recognized any real advance comes thru business/technology – so responsibility is shifted from humans to machines, data & technology – and, yet, increases their power thru narratives. Suffice it to say the inevitable choice every politician makes is between democracy/society and business/economics, hence, the politics of economics because that is where their self interest resides.

Which leads me to the truly insane situation the politics of economics puts us in.

Any sane person recognizes the government cannot be solely responsible for economic success nor is the market truly a mechanism of the pursuit of self-interest in which the interests of society will be served well. For example, Noah Smith has noted several times transforming the U.S. economy in order to more effectively compete with China and Russia will involve industrial policy. There’s a very basic economic reason for this. The industrial structure the free market will tend to produce, if left to its own devices, does not take national interests into account – it produces not what the market needs, but what profits the business. Thus, if we want to have an economy that’s optimized not just for consumption, but for the good of a nation/society, government has to play a role with economic interests. The slippery solutions they must craft reside somewhere within what Adam Smith suggested in the Theory of Moral Sentiments in that however how selfish soever man may seem to be supposed there are evidently some principles in our nature which interests us in the fortunes of others. Economic interests need to take a more rounded view of human behavior which acknowledges the coexistence of both the self-interested and altruistic sides of human nature. To be clear. Humans are neither inherently altruistic or selfish, they are what research people call conditional cooperators and altruistic punishers. I believe this is called “reciprocity” and defined as ‘a predisposition to cooperate with others and to punish even at personal cost, if necessary, those who violate the norms of this cooperation even when it is obvious the personal cost will never be recouped.’ I would argue this is the true invisible hand, not the market, in that there is no rationality other than ‘the structure of the system will define behaviors’. I say that because one cannot blame individuals for most failures, but rather the system itself. Yet. We tend to highlight the accountability of ‘the individual’ in some unhealthy ways within economic narratives. I say unhealthy because, well, as Hanzi Freinacht has suggested the entire idea of individual or collective is outdated in today’s world. And in the Cluetrain Manifesto they suggested “I am parts of you, you are parts of me, and the whole is a malleable mix of parts of all of us – even those we interact with outside the internal system within the business.” I imagine my point here is that business and our little personal circles of existence are simply a system within a system, or of the system, and people are systems in and of themselves and true self-interest really doesn’t exist because no one ‘self’ can exist without the whole. That’s today’s world no matter what the politics of economics may suggest.

Which leads me to economic support in government is inextricably linked to how it is viewed in the public’s eye.

Ordinary people, the public, tend to have certain biases particularly when it comes to government and the role of government in economics. Those on the left tend to be more altruistic and when things don’t go well, they see it as true as greed and self-interest. Those on the right tend to see welfare programs as ineffectual and a waste of their taxes because people become lazy nor have self-reliant/self-interest mindsets. However, the truth, as pointed out earlier, of how we accept economic policies gets driven by reciprocity. Strong reciprocity norms tend to encourage people to categorize the disadvantaged into the deserving and the undeserving and programs that reflect this distinction tend to enjoy broad support. Programs that run counter to these norms, even if it’s just by perception, and benefit perceived undeserving people tend to be controversial. The easiest example of this is welfare programs that give benefits with no requirements such as work or training. My point here is that politicians exploit our biases within the politics of economics. The truth is most people are not lazy, requirements tend to exclude some people who really could use the system and the most people who abuse economic policies are actually not the ones who need the programs.

Which leads me to Peter Drucker ‘s “No More Salvation by Society” (from 1989 book “The New Realities”).

Drucker reflects on how businesses, governments <and politics> were shifting their focus from delivering ‘an everlasting society which achieves both social perfection and individual perfection’ to seeking ‘economic salvation.’ He clearly believed that businesses, and managers, have a responsibility to Society by creating ‘better people’: better as in values, moral compass and, in general, ‘do the right thing’ attitudes and behavior. The issue, to him, was that beginning in maybe the 1970’s functioning society changed direction — from societal priorities to economic priorities.  In other words, we shifted from a society being driven by social power <values based> to a society driven by purchasing power. People did not make this decision on their own, in fact this big shift was driven by politics (and politicians) which began integrating economic promise into their platforms thereby replacing social betterment (or salvation by society) as a governmental platform. Ultimately, the ‘politics of economics’ holy grail became “increasing the purchasing power.”

This is a big issue and has implications in the business management world (later Drucker addressed further implications in “Management as Social Function and Liberal Art”). The real point is that this politics of economics arose when politicians decided economics should be noticed beyond kitchen table discussions. This mattered because when an economy’s role as part of the social fabric of society isn’t truly understood, politicians never really had the power to wield in their self-interest. So as businesses sought to exert more influence over ‘labor’ at the dawn of industrialization the Will of the Institution crossed self-interest paths with the Desire of the Politician and the politics of economics became the dominion of business & politician “experts.” Now. Any sane person looking at today’s society will conclude these experts have failed us miserably by hollowing out any social morality or dignity. Fundamentally these policy decision makers experts have evolved into pseudo-logic bullies empty of any moral compass as they lean in on ‘economics’. When attacked for this hollowness they stubbornly defend using simplistic selective vanity metrics of economics conflating them with social value creation. It was John Ralston Saul who suggested we have become “a vast, incomprehensible, direction less machine, run by process-minded experts whose cult of scientific management is bereft of both sense and morality” where civilians then end up dwelling in a world of illusion. Politicians use this world of illusion to manipulate people by seeking out asymmetrical moments <a never-ending supply in a complex economy> to make some simplistic point. Consequently, this encourages people to choose the least difficult paths/situations of the least resistance. They do so not because they are lazy or any dubious reason beyond the fact the politicians have poisoned our minds to such an extent wherein any desire beyond ‘a sustainable life’ just doesn’t seem worth the effort. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out these political techniques actually limits potential/possibilities and actually create a Gordian Knot of policies which mutually reinforce each other creating a general entropy. The politics of economics creates a reinforcing system which naturally limits potential. Ponder that.

Which leads me to: what should we do?

“Every profound innovation is based on an inward-bound journey.”

W. Brian Arthur

We begin by looking inward – as in ‘us.’ Our hope rests on the fact ordinary people are often able to take a broader view on pragmatic realities of a community then one taken by experts. This may sound counterintuitive but this is a thought consistent with strategy & execution, i.e., where the rubber hits the road. This may also sound counterintuitive because ordinary people are typically the ones who tend to feel most powerless. But everyone does not need to act, but rather simply support the small groups of people who have already started.  I would also add I believe leaders should respond to the forces shaping society. Instead of highlighting simplistic metrics supporting the view du jour we should be seeking to acknowledge social trends within the economics and respond to them, not just the economics, to help shape the world we desire. I also believe either politicians/business leaders choose to do this or the inevitable forces of disruption, driven by ordinary people, will dictate an evolution of their thinking. It was Otto Scharmer who suggested this will demand a disconnect of finance from the real economy, ecology, institutions, consumerism, governance, and ownership and address the three basic divides – 1) the ecological divide, 2) the social divide, 3) the spiritual-cultural divide – which actually shape the economic world. Society, ordinary people, with the aid of experts, must demand mechanisms of choice which apply common sense, experienced knowledge, public interest and morality with the intent to develop economic solutions and frameworks that withstand the whipsaw of shifting political winds.

All that said.

We should all be wary of the politics of economics game being played by the politicians.

** source for several words, thoughts and phrasing: Volataire’s Bastards, John Ralston Saul

=====

cyanidegrrrl:

I like selfies because I am in complete control of how I am being presented that is powerful

… like boys on facebook laugh at the “stupid girls taking mirror selfies” and media mocks “generation selfie” but maybe that is because girls are controlling how they are presenting images of themselves to the world

and that is scary to them

======

“I’m not vain. I’m just recovering from years and years of low self-esteem. “

why I’m taking so many selfies

—

Selfies seem to have evolved in the newer world of Tiktok <kind of video selfies> and Instagram <selfie morphs into ‘influencer’>, but at its core, the whole conversation surrounding selfie has taken on a slightly absurd generational hue.

What do I mean <part 1>. If you want to really get an interesting discussion going in a group, bring up selfies. Shit. Even my 90something mother has brought up selfies in a conversation. Regardless. Rarely have I heard such unequivocal points of view with regard to a topic – from all ages.

What do I mean <part 2>. Let me point out that people have been doing ‘selfies’ for years … decades … if not centuries.

Huh?

The most famous … Rembrandt, Picasso <whose selfies are quite disturbing> and pretty much every great artist of their day.

I tend to think more older people should remember that.

Generalizing selfies as narcissistic or ‘regrettable actions of an unthinking youth’ is silly if not stupid.

Yes.

The digital age has made ‘unfortunate moments’ less easily forgettable moments. But that simply shapes the conversation as “if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it make a sound?”

What I mean is … simply because there were no smartphones when I was growing up and doing stupid things <that I am pleased to say never appeared on film anywhere> does that make me any more responsible then the current generation? What I mean is lots and lots of trees fell before the wacky world of smartphones and the internet, its just that the sounds were limited.

In addition.

Does my generation REALLY believe we wouldn’t have been doing exactly the same thing if we had smartphones when we were growing up?

Really?

C’mon. We have this absurd filter we put on rising generations that things they do we would have never done or, if we are particularly lazy, simply say “we never did things like that.” What a crock of shit.

—

“All grown-ups were once children … but only few of them remember it.”

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

—

Anyway.

Sure. Selfies can be silly, irresponsible and regrettable.

On the other hand. They create a true mosaic of life.

The perfections and the imperfections of each and every day.

And isn’t that really the point if we want society to progress? Would we rather not see the imperfections and learn to embrace them <rather than unrealistic perfection>?

I don’t know.

I am sure the real answer is; sometimes yes, sometimes no.

That said. We all know life is not perfect nor is there a perfect life.

In fact.

Selfies teach kids that.

Huh?

If you don’t think some kids take dozens of selfies that they do not send before they find one ‘perfect’ <or appropriate for what they want to communicate or showcase> then you do not understand what is happening.

Selfies increase awareness of how life is made up of each and every moment.

Selfies teach about regret and … well … mistakes … and forgiveness as well as moving on. I would argue that in the evolution of selfies that this heavy burden of ‘the perfect selfie’ has lessened as “authentic” – which, in this case, has arced toward embracing flaws, imperfections and ‘real’ – and the first selfie is more often the right one because it is, well, what happened.

Now.

We adults may not like what we see.

We adults may wonder what they are thinking when we see some selfies.

We adults may question taste or the decision to show something.

But if we adults don’t believe they know exactly what they are doing or the repercussions of what they have decided to share.

We are nuts.

And even more nuts?

Again. We would have done the same thing they are doing if we had the same tools they do now.

And our parents would have been tearing their hair out just as we are today.

Selfies are self-expression.

And they are absolutely about controlling self-image.

And in that we see the ups & downs of growing up in real time. And while we adults know that, for the most part, growing up is a harsh phase, it gets better. So. Simply shaking our heads with disapproval at selfies with that knowledge is a simplistic response which only suggests to young people that <a> we don’t get it, or <b> we have forgotten what it was like, or <c> we don’t respect what they are going thru.

In my mind, selfies are simply a different version of a daily diary.

The thoughtful, questioning, sometimes painful words have risen from private pages and become public images.

I imagine I end there because as adults we then question the public versus private decision.

And think ‘some things are better private.’

Sure.

Maybe.

But is our version of private the right version?

Is it not personal taste?

And is it not inevitably our choice … and shouldn’t someone have the right to their individual choice?

And who am I to judge someone’s individual choice? <answer: no one>

And, I would also note, in a 24/7 internet world I am actually unclear what private and public is anymore and whatever we ‘want’ truly matters in a world of ubiquitous smartphones.

My point is we adults need to get over it.

Selfies may stay.

Selfies may go.

They may evolve through things like Tiktok or even the metaverse.

The new private may simply be a public version of ‘you.’

In the scheme of things, does it really matter?

In the scheme of society and being part of the fabric of thoughts, ideas and progress, maybe your image, your selfie, is part of the collage of what will make us collectively stronger and maybe its the young, and their selfies, who are showing us the way? Ponder.

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

“Better to write for yourself and have no public, than to write for the public and have no self.”

Cyril Connolly

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

So.

If you write, your biggest desire is to be read.

If you write, your biggest fear is to be read.

You want to write things that matter, but to do so you have to not only take a distinct stand but you also have to inject some of your own distinctness. While you feel best when you put things down on paper that meet that criteria, it is this that which leads to your biggest fear — it will be read. Because that is judgement time.

Writing is wandering the ragged diagonal between duty and desire.

Regardless.

I guess in some way we, who write, want people to be pleased, and to pay attention. You wouldn’t be human to not want this in some form or fashion.

That said. Primarily, maybe what is most important is, as long as you write for yourself and can be pleased by what you write and say you have spoken your mind, well, you are ahead of the game.

Secondarily, if at some point you entertain someone else and happen to stumble across the truth to share and someone sees it, well, consider yourself lucky — it was a good day.

I’ve written over 2500 pieces. I’d be lying if I didn’t say not every day was a good day. That said. The good days are really really good. And that’s why you write.

====

“So the universe is not quite as you thought it was.


You’d better rearrange your beliefs, then. Because you certainly can’t rearrange the universe.”

Isaac Asimov

====

We talk about changing the world and ‘rocking the universe’ not only when young, but in discussions where we are thinking about maximizing our potential or maybe we do it simply to convince ourselves we can do something that matters.

In other words …

We have a plan.

Ok. Maybe its not a specific step-by-step plan, but we have a general schematic of a plan which showcases key lines and dimensions of what, where and how.

It is kind of a rough blueprint sketched out on a cocktail napkin.

Uhm.

But then some stranger randomly puts their drink on your napkin and the ink runs a little and there is an obnoxious ring cutting thru a key line or two. In other words, things get a bit fuzzy.

In other words, basically the universe you had planned against has conspired against you in a seemingly random way.

Yeah.

The universe is as it is. Despite all your wishes and dreams and desires to disturb or disrupt the universe you, well, you cannot. The universe arranges itself without consulting you or your plans.

That doesn’t mean you don’t have any control of what happens to you nor does it mean you shouldn’t attempt to shape things so you may achieve what you desire, it is just that sometimes you need to rearrange your beliefs.

Now. I write a shitload about maintaining you character and the core of who and what you are as well as maintaining a focus on the more important things <because a shitload of unimportant things are gonna be bright shiny objects that can easily distract you>.

To be clear. The universe is not something that is distracting; it is a consistently inconsistent environment in which distractions appear. Despite that, you need to stay the course of who & what you are and all the while rearranging some of your beliefs with regard to … well … what I will call ‘strategy & tactics.’

Simplistically, in my mind, you reside in this consistent inconsistent universe maintaining your individual ‘brand essence’ <distinctly different than personal branding> and grounded in a sense of purpose, i.e., what you want to contribute and maybe an idea of what matters to you, and rearranging your strategy & tactics to accommodate the universe.

This may sound intellectually challenging and mentally tiring and … well … a lot of work <when you were kind of hoping Life would be a little simpler>.

Well.

It is kind of tiring.

But that is kind of the price of living a full Life, well, okay, maybe at least some kind of ‘non-stagnant’ life.

I imagine everyone has a choice.

Try and stand still and weather the universe as it rearranges itself or attempt to move <forward, sideways, diagonally, or whatever direction you can  – because progress is not always ‘forward’>.

Most of us?

We just go on.

We step forward, backwards, diagonally and sideways, all with an eye on whatever version of progress we may have in our heads.

We do so because … well … what is the alternative?

====

“You just do it. You force yourself to get up. You force yourself to put one foot before the other, and God damn it, you refuse to let it get to you.  You fight. You cry. You curse. Then you go about the business of living. That’s how I’ve done it. There’s no other way. “

Elizabeth Taylor

Anyway.

It is quite possible that the business of living is grounded in the thought of ‘rearranging your beliefs’ because the universe is certainly not going to rearrange its beliefs.

Ponder <but do some rearranging while doing so>.

==

“Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.”

H. G. Wells

==

“You know, sometimes in life you can get kinda stuck and you feel like you should have changed chapters by now, but you can’t.”

Wish I Was Here <Aidan>

==

“Constantly absorbing and commenting on things that have just happened sounds to me like a recipe for feeling powerless. Online, I frequently feel both stuck in the past but presented with a grim projection of the future. There is very little focus on the present, which is a place where we derive agency. We can act now.”

Charlie Warzel

===

A lot of life feels like you are stuck between things. Not always stuck stuck, just tucked in between things. I would argue that this sense seems heightened these days. Charlie Warzel posited in this piece it is because we are always stuck in the past. Similarly, I read this piece “can technology reveal too much about the past?” and pondered the thought that if we are stuck in the past, and that past is constantly revealing new bits & pieces, well, that would make it seem like we are constantly stuck in an uncertain, less than solid understanding, of the past.

I noodled this a bit and I think I would phrase it a bit differently in that I believe we all feel stuck because we never attain resolution on things. Social media, life, business, all keep slinging things in front of us and while we may get some things done, we are leaving an increasing number of things in the past unresolved. This asymmetrical ‘completion’ creates an uneasy tension between the past, present and future. Maybe said another way, we are stuck in a continuum of unresolved things.

Which leads me to suggest this means we simultaneously gravitate to that which is stated most declaratively and become increasingly skeptical of the most declarative. This should force some reflectiveness and maybe some recognition of the fallacies of some of our thinking but, circling back to the opening point, we just get stuck and nothing truly gets resolved. Technology, for all its potential and actual good, is simply bad for helping people focus beyond surface skimming. Sadly, this suggests Stacy Horn may be right when she says: “cyberspace does not have the power to make us anything other than what we already are. It is a revealing, not a transforming medium.” While I do not necessarily agree with her in totality, I will agree that human nature is like gravity and if you seek to defy gravity, as ‘cyberspace’ can, it needs to be purposeful. In other words, skimming when faced with an onslaught of information is natural, resolution is dubious as a consequence and while a person may feel like this behavior makes them unstuck, their sense of being stuck only deepens.

Which leads me to in a world where we are simultaneously bombarded with a great deal of stimulation, we learn to focus our attention on what we believe are the important stimuli while filtering out that which we deem less relevant stimuli. This is a brain survival technique to reserve, and preserve, our focus resources, which are actually fairly finite, to apply against all the stimuli that need processing. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that this is exactly the situation, we find ourselves, cognitively, in a 24/7 technology world exacerbated by social media and the internet wherein we are constantly battling for our experiential and sensory survival. And while in this survival mode we simplistically dumb everything down to make the gazillion events look similar, and manageable, the unfortunate truth is that no event is actually identical to the previous event. We approximate shit seeking to get out of the inbetween only to find every new data input is not in fact identical to the very similar looking data that came before so, well, nothing truly gets completely resolved.

“Man is a rationalizing animal not a rational one.”

Robert Heinlein

Which leads me to winners and losers.

When you are stuck somewhere in between identifying real winners and losers is difficult. What I mean by difficult is that in this scenario I am outlining, an onslaught of new data daily, a sane human will settle on some vanity metric to point to. Vanity metrics are simplistic heuristics for complex situations. In this world we become heuristic imbeciles defining success and failure. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that success always rests on a fairly fragile balance between the needs of the individual and those of the collective and it would behoove us to understand that balance does not naturally occur in a technologically driven world, it needs to be monitored, calibrated, recalibrated almost on an exhaustingly minute-by-minute basis human by human. This sounds incredibly exhausting if you buy into the thought we are constantly facing unresolved things, but, if you don’t, power moves to anyone who has the most data, about the most people, and can convert it into understandable narratives, who would in effect be the only owners of the main resources that could be converted into things of value (or non-value). I will point out that if data is used the right way, it can actually make us smarter collectively, not just richer personally, but that is a societal winners/losers discussion. That said. The problem is that we are now at a moment where the social contract is being renegotiated involuntarily because while we are stuck ‘somewhere in between’, some dubious characters are crafting ‘the social contract’ which will replace the one we may know and like. I imagine my point here is if you are stuck somewhere in between your ability to picture what the future may, or should, look like is impaired and the world is then simply shaped by the tools, not the humans.

Which leads me back to ruts versus stuck.

• Getting in a rut is sliding down the slippery slope of the everyday grind of Life. You simply fall into a space where day in and day out you are checking shit off your list and justifying the relatively unsatisfying space you are in by showing everyone, and yourself, the list of things you have checked off.
• Getting stuck is a more frustrating Life situation. This is where you know you are not where you want to be and doing things you don’t really want to do and … well … you are stuck. You have shit on your list or at least one thing on your list, which you WANT to do, but day in and day out you look at your list and that little nasty shit of a thing never gets checked. That may sound pedantically trivial, but this relates back to the larger “nothing ever gets resolved” mentally. And what is worse you know you are usually stuck in one of two ways:

Your own head.

In your mind you may not recognize it for a while, but then it hits you: I am not moving.

I am stuck. This sucks.

Others around you.

You may not recognize it for a while because you feel like you are moving, but then it hits you – everyone else is moving faster <or it at least looks like people are>. Life, which often looks blurry in the midst of all the shit you want to do, now looks just a bit clearer, but everyone around you looks blurry. They are moving and you are not.

But here is the worst “stuck.”

When you get stuck between who you are and who you want to be. You know there is a better version of you but you are stuck being the current version of you. it may not be a bad version, it may not even be a sucky version, you just know there is a better version and this is where not having any resolution on anything really sucks – you are never really sure what better version is.

Getting stuck is usually really difficult to get out of. Stuck, more often than not, occurs DESPITE the fact you are doing whatever you can to not permit it to happen.

Anyway. If you google “get unstuck” you will get over 200,000 results in .48 seconds. The majority of those results are about ‘changing attitudes’ or ‘simple techniques to get unstuck’ or even ‘breaking habitual patterns.’  Most likely none of this shit will help you. Mostly because the advice is more about getting out of a rut and not about getting unstuck. But I would also suggest there ain’t a shitload of advice because … well … getting unstuck is difficult, there are no ‘techniques’ and your ‘stuck’ is most likely contextual & situational and is a consequence of a level of lack of resolution that simply checking shit off your to-do list will not solve.

Being stuck is frustrating. Sometimes even maddening. And sometimes it makes you angry.

I don’t have some secret to share about how to get unstuck. All I know is that it sucks, it feels sucky, and you have to sometimes suck it up and be creative in your pursuit of what you want to get unstuck.

In other words, its complex. Oh. The word complex comes from the Latin root plectere: to weave, entwine. In complex systems, many simple parts are irreducibly entwined so when you are stuck inbetween you are actually stuck in a knot of intertwined shit – some good and some bad. But I imagine my point here is that the world itself, technology, politicians, businesses, seem to have a tendency to create a context within which you have to make an extreme effort to craft meaningful resolutions.

You can’t see forward, you can’t look back

There’s nothing that you need, nothing that you lack

And it ain’t gonna last this way

Sunshine/World Party

Which leads me to the thought that society seems to constantly encourage us to dream but then shift those dreams to certainty under the belief in doing so dreams can be ‘attained.’ It seems like we should be encouraging people to not only embrace the liminality between dreams and certainty (possibilities and pragmatism), but we should also be teaching people, in an increasingly uncertain world, the principles necessary to navigate the unpredictability of that uncertain world, i.e., teach how to navigate the wretched hollow of somewhere inbetween. It is with that liminal navigation where we find the pragmatic stepping stones to maybe not get certainty, but enough certainly to make progress against our dreams (possibilities). The internet has created an incredible amplification system extremely ineffective in enhancing people’s ability to focus, to organize thoughts, to be reflective, to sensemake and refine truly meaningful, non superficial, messaging. The declarative is winning over the deliberative and we seem to either gladly embrace a system that doesn’t really encourage deep deliberation and does encourage shallow reaction or we are just lost in the non-resolution of somewhere in between. I imagine part of what I am suggesting is that ‘somewhere inbetween’ fucks with our dreams and our response to that is to attempt to make the dreams concrete believing this not only makes dreams more achievable but more tangible. For some reason I tend to think this devalues the real value of dreaming, but that’s me.

Which leads me to end with a thought from Rob Estreitinho.

As with most philosophical questions, it comes down to either:

1. Are you doing the thing that in principle is right
2. Or are you doing the thing that is most effective

Of course, reality happens somewhere in-between, but that’s the spectrum. And although part of me wants to believe in effective altruism, my spiritual tendencies are more inclined to the former right now. Key words: ‘right now’. This stuff fluctuates.

Meaning: as individuals, we have a degree of control and agency that, in isolation, means little, but collectively, means loads. This is true for voting, sustainable habits, and to an extent our overall sense of wellbeing. Which is another way of saying, as long as you consciously sweep your front door and try and encourage others to do the same, it’s possible you’ll have done enough (or at least far more than most).

While we appear to invest a shitload of energy thinking through the seemingly infinite dimensions of societal foibles and technological hijinks, it can actually be quite freeing to simply admit they are unreformable and irredeemable and the only thing that will get is out of somewhere in-between, and find meaningful resolution, is humans. And lest you think this piece was solely about life, people and society, go back and reread from a business perspective. Businesses can reside in the somewhere inbetween too. And it is just as unhealthy for them. Ponder.

==========

“I’ve been injected with false hope so many fucking times I’ve lost count”

via concealthefeeling

===========

“We all suffer from dreams.”

Bernard Cornwell

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

Well. I am unequivocally a hope guy.

I believe leaders should be dealers of hope.

I believe hope is stronger than … well … pretty much anything.

I believe no one should be empty of hope.

I believe everyone deserves someone to give them hope when hopelessness seems the only thing available.

That said.

While, technically, false hope is a simple definition, realistically, there are a couple kinds of false hope.

Ok. Actually a shitload of derivatives of false hope.

In my words there would be, on one end of the spectrum, the more heinous version of ‘offering a fantasy unrealistic thought’ all the way over to the other bookend of ‘grasping for some glimmer of a semi-impossible reality.”

And then everything in between.

Hope, in even a false way, has many dimensions. And within any and all dimensions I would suggest even a sliver of hope has an exponential value beyond its mere size. It is quite possible that is where false hope becomes a little dangerous – that exponential value beyond its actual size.

Even with a glimmer, hope can shine so bright it can blind you to the relentless onslaught of truths and realities. The truths which are more likely to showcase the horizon you are not only gonna be stuck looking at, but visiting at some point <which is not the horizon you had actually hoped for>. But false hope is maybe even slightly more dangerous than that <if anything could be more dangerous than be blinded by reality>.

It actually is more likely to blind you on the important little shit than the meaningless bigger shit. False hope inevitably drives someone to focus on the bigger more audacious, and less likely, objective. This translates into the fact that same someone is more likely to overlook the smaller more important shit that would actually have increased the odds of attaining the hopeful objective.

How does that most often happen?

You are more likely to make some smaller, more impactful, poor choices and decisions hanging on to the sliver of false hope like it is a security blanket from the dangers of the reality you know must be out there.

By the way. That is the main difference between real hope and false hope – in the nuts & bolts aspects.

Real hope. Real hope, which truly has aspects of reality embedded within, actually permits you to navigate reality’s obstacles as you pursue the real hope of something. The real truth is that real hope does not blind, it actually opens your eyes. That said. Contrary to belief the most dangerous false hope is not the one which is complete fantasy it is the type that actually has some reality embedded.

Yeah. False hope is not always some fantasy.

Yeah. False hope is not always something with “no knowable chance of coming to fruition.”

Yeah. As I stated in the beginning someone who purposefully propagates a true fantasy, something so unrealistic, well, that really isn’t false hope that is propagating a lie. And exploiting a lie is a heinous act <but that is NOT false hope>.

So, to be clear, false hope can be propagated not as some false promise or lie, but rather in a weird ‘well intended way.’ Say, for example, someone has been elevated to a position who is unqualified and untested … but has some tested competency. They sit down at their new desk with all the intentions to succeed and all the words to suggest everyone should believe they will figure it out and succeed.

Well. Let’s say they have strong well intended hope that they will do the job and deliver what they promise.

That is a trickier version of false hope. It is propagated from someone who quite possibly has some false beliefs with regard to their own capabilities, but true belief in a good objective.

Uhm. But what if they do figure it out?

Well. They have delivered on hopes therefore, in some weird equation of Life, a false hope has becomes a real hope delivered.

Look. My point is hope is hope.

And unless someone is lying just to get everyone’s unrealistic hopes up, any hope is better than no hope. You can either not have hope, or have false hope, or real hope <albeit ‘real’ and ‘hope’ is a tenuous relationship>.

To be clear … all actions should be determined by reason, logic and practicality within a construct of strategic hope. That is the main Hope equation.

But hope is, well, hope. And it is hope for a reason. You want something better and at exactly the same time you are not omniscient nor a future prognosticator therefore any and all hoe is fraught with some potential falseness an some potential truth.

Hope, in and of itself, is and has always been an abstract concept.

Fortune, luck, hard work & preparation can guide someone toward hope or away from hope.  Hope is never, and I mean NEVER, representative of certainty. Therefore to accept any hope, false of true, you have to accept the existence of possibilities – good and bad.

To me, in my pea like brain, all false hope implies is that the odds are against you and success is slim, yet, people believe they can overcome any and all obstacles. And, in that point, is where I could argue that false hope is as good as any hope out there.

For in that statement if that is what makes someone get out of bed in the morning and go out and try to do something good or even just try, well, that’s not false that is real.

Having led people I do not use hope flippantly even though I believe in hope as a leadership responsibility.

I do believe people want truth.

I do believe people want to feel safe.

I do believe people want someone to accept some of the burden of the bigger more visionary aspects of Life.

I do believe people want to contribute, personally, within progress toward a specific hope for something better.

I do believe Hope, false or true, is hope.

And we all deserve hope.

===========

“People aren’t interested in the truth.

They’re interested in what keeps them safe.

They’re interested in being looked after. They’re interested in a tale being spun… Mighty men have moments of great despair that common people do not want to know about.”

Melina Marchetta

=====

originally published December 2016

===

“The universe has no single secret. It does not even hold a single nest of secrets to which some one study holds the key.”

Mary Midgley

====

Many years ago, I wrote “The Secret ain’t really a Secret” after someone gave me a copy of The Secret suggesting I may like it. At the time I thought it was absurd that people would think there was “a” secret to life. I also thought “thank god the business world isn’t that stupid.” Well. The business world has become stupid. Or maybe the secret sellers have just become more clever. What I mean by that is while in the good ole days a trickster would candidly call something they were selling (the solution to whatever woes that kept you from the riches of business success), but now they don’t call them secrets. They call them ‘insights’ or ‘best practice’ or whatever snake oil solution they can make a buck from.

But the problem isn’t them, the problem is us. “I have met the enemy and it is I.”

Which leads me to people’s response to so much information.

Interestingly, the world wide web has made everything simultaneously less mysterious and more of a mystery at exactly the same time. We have more information available to us then we have ever had before. The mysteries of the past now have explanations. Yet. Each of those ‘explanations’ have chinks and often a little vagueness. And it is within that vagueness questions arise and the world wide web does a deep dive into often ludicrous depths in which the darkness smothers some relative ordinary truths. From that experience we, the enemy which is us, start feeling more and more uncertain and unstable on, well, what to do. So, we begin scavenging for secrets and there is no lack of trickster scavengers to peddle a secret for whatever uncertainty you have. I bring all of that up to suggest that our search for a single answer is a reflection of, or consequence of, the information overload we encounter.

Which leads me to the persistent allure of one dimensionality.

Linear is not only easier to visualize, but it is likeable because it communicates transparency (not uncertainty). Embracing dimensionality means you forfeit some, if not a lot, of transparency. This makes situations looks messy with not one defined solution that can be achieved. But in a business world increasingly complex AND increasingly less forgiving to mistakes or decisions that do not bear fruit immediately the desire for the correct solution, usually a short cut answer, almost encourages us to reduce things to, well, a search for a secret, i.e., a single answer. And, to be clear, business appears to have an insatiable appetite for ‘single answers to the universe.’ I remain baffled by this. I clearly understand how the desire occurs I just remain baffled by how easily business gets sucked into the newest ‘answer’ being peddled. If business seeks a single answer, I would suggest they rummage around within this framework:

• Self interest/self impact
• Collective interest/collective impact
• Value offered/value recognized/value impact

The ‘answer’ of any successful business resides in the cat’s cradle of “what I do”, “what we do together” and “is what we are doing valued and does the market value it”. Business is, inevitably, about value and impact. Business is, inevitably, about an intricate connection of people and things working in progress toward value generation and impact. I imagine some trickster may suggest that is “the secret”, I will not. There is no single answer for any universe. Ponder.

Humans spend 93% of their time indoors. Ok. Actually, they spend 87% indoors and another 5%ish in cars (transportation). The % split is dancing on the head of a pin compared to the astronomically high 90%ish number in the scheme of things.

So. Let’s just say 90% of our time indoors. That seems like a crazy high number to me. That said, let me speculate a bit. Let’s say 300 years ago people spent 50% of their time indoors (I’m trying to find a spot before Industrial Age and maybe during agricultural Age). Let’s say 1000 years ago people spent 25% of their time indoors. You can see where I am going with this. This has to affect us. While all this indoor time certainly doesn’t mean that business (civilization) isn’t extracting the shit of the outside (we don’t need to be outside to actually harm the outside), but it has to effect, well, us, as people, inside (like inside our heads & psyche).

But it’s possible I have a larger point to make.

Affect versus effect. Affect is a verb and means to influence something. Effect is a noun and means the result. While I believe, over time, spending more time indoors does create an effect, that affect takes time to create the effect(s). Change is layered.

As we run around this crazy world we tend to stare at effects (which are actually simple behaviors of the moment) and drive ourselves nuts on whether Armageddon is upon us in some way.

Kids watching too much tv, addicted to smartphones, even decline in organized religion, are examples of how we stare at our navels worrying over what we see as effects and tying ourselves into knots declaring some affect as the evil doer.

Most of the big change stuff, how we think, molecular, civilization, is slow moving stuff. Driven by some tectonic shift in the nature infrastructure of Life. That doesn’t mean things like smartphone technology can’t create change, because it does, but rather it most likely amplified an effect of a tectonic affect which occurred years ago.

Do I believe a shift from spending more time outdoors to more time indoors created an effect? Sure. And it most likely had cascading consequences – both positively and negatively. That’s the thing between affects and effects. It is often not some simplistic balance sheet entry but rather, because of pace layering, a nature affect ripples out and has multiple, if not infinite, effects.

Do I believe shifting from an agrarian society to an industrial one affected us? Sure.

Do I believe shifting into a world in which knowledge, truth & lies, became available 24/7 affected us? Sure.

Do I believe automation will affect us? Sure.

What I am less sure of are the effects. Well. Some of the older affects allow us to examine the layers, ripples, of consequences. But that said, in general, I am unsure of the effects. And maybe that is what makes science fiction so interesting versus some of the futurist nonsense we see and hear in business. Science fiction makes no claims of effect predictions, simply effect possibilities. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that not all science fiction, or fantasy, is all dystopian – or utopian. They reflect possibilities of both good, and bad, consequences. I would also be remiss if I didn’t point out this is how you can assess business ‘futurists.’ The ones who predict anything are charlatans, tricksters, and the ones who are unsure and express possibilities and probabilities pose the most interesting thinking.

Lastly.

Not all affects are created equal in term of their effects. I say that because we often seem to treat all affects in equal terms – especially if one embraces a dystopian view of things. I encourage everyone who has any desire to ponder the consequences of an affect to sit and think through the layers and where it resides. A ‘fad affect’ is just that – a momentary glimpse of nonsense (and, yet, it will have an effect). A ‘nature affect’ is just that – a tectonic shift in the structure of all that stands upon it.

I’ll end with the fact about 71 percent of the Earth’s surface is water–covered, and the oceans hold about 96.5 percent of all Earth’s water. If earth’s surface became 82% water covered, that affect would certainly create not just an effect, but cascading effects. Just as if 90% of a workforce was in offices and it shifted to 70% of a workforce was in offices is an affect, with cascading effects. Nothing linear in what I stated, but causal, and it should make everyone spend a bit more time thinking about affects because, well, in the end I am unsure of what any effect will be but I surely would like to be aware of an affect.

** note: to be clear, I am relatively sure I mangled affect versus effect somewhere within this piece, that said, I stand by the thinking.

===

“You’ll have to help yourself.”

Lemony Snicket

===

“It may be the wrong decision, but fuck it, it’s mine.”

Mark Z. Danielewski

======

“More than anything, to me, he was dad. And what a dad. He loved us with the passion and the devotion that encompassed his life. He taught us to believe in ourselves, to stand up for ourselves, to know ourselves and to accept responsibility for ourselves.

Justin Trudeau at his father’s funeral

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

Personal responsibility is hard. Much much harder than conceptually it sounds like it should be.

I do not have any research today to show how people who have a strong sense of personal responsibility attained that character trait <although if you google it there are gobs of people with an opinion on it>.

For everyone who had great parents who taught them, I can give you a dozen examples of people with crappy parents who have a strong sense of personal responsibility.

For every victim mentality person, I can show different contextual situations that got them into that state of mind and, just as well, the path to a strong sense of personal responsibility is numerous and rarely a straight path.

But, even without research I will suggest a couple of things:

1. Personal acceptance.

To have personal responsibility you almost have to have a strong foundation of personal acceptance.

I imagine I could suggest that if it doesn’t than you are simply ‘posing’ in an attempt to look like you are responsible <and that rarely can stand the test of time>.

Regardless. Somehow, someway people with a strong sense of personal responsibility have developed a strong sense of self. Not necessarily confidence, just self. They recognize ‘they is what they is’ and accept the flaws <and try to improve in some way> and accept their strengths <but never take them for granted>.

In their personal acceptance we, around them, see ‘solid.’ We love these people on our business teams and friend teams, as peers or as leaders, because regardless of their IQ or leadership skills or professional skills they are lighthouse people in their own right.

These people can also be baffling to the perfectionists in the world because part of ‘personal acceptance’ is understanding, if not embracing, imperfections. Ponder.

2. Lucky to be here but many others are just as deserving.

Let me suggest that people with an incredibly strong sense of personal responsibility will also most likely be the people who suggest they had a little luck along the way – lucky in life situations, lucky with mentors, lucky in opportunities – and, even though they had worked hard with integrity, they had done nothing to actually deserve the luck.

As a corollary to this thinking, they would also believe, as part of the luck aspect, that there are many others just as deserving. This attitude creates a sense of responsibility for actions, behavior and attitudes. Mistakes are owned and successes are shared.

Some people may suggest that personal responsibility and accountability is a reflection of integrity or humility.

Well.

It may be.

But I rather believe it is more a sense of understanding that successes are more often than not a reflection of just hard work, but also circumstances. And, to that point, inherently someone with a strong sense of accountability balances success with the understanding that a portion of success is luck – luck of circumstance & luck of being the one where many were just as deserving if provided the opportunity. Ponder.

Like I said in the beginning. This is not based on research and you can toss this into your ‘Bruce bullshit bin’ if you want. But I do not need research to state that personal responsibility and personal acceptance takes work. Lots of work and lots of fortitude.

It is the kind of thing you spend your entire life working hard to not only ‘be’, but to live up to the character standard you have set for yourself. A standard which you will never measure others against because, well, it is personal. You are accountable to your own standard and responsible to meet it. And everyone not only has the ability to set their own, but they also have an unequivocal right to do so without anyone else telling them “how to be accountable.”

————

“It was instead something that we would have to spend the rest of our lives to work very hard to live up to.”

Spike Lee

————-

Personal responsibility is actually one of Life’s lightest burdens if you choose to accept it. That is why I am so often surprised by how many people actually do not accept this burden.

But, in the end, personal responsibility is a personal choice. No one can convince you to do it or be that way. You have to help yourself on this one because no one else can.

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

‘Rather than simply work within existing parameters of operational excellence (incrementally optimising your business model to meet customer needs), pioneering leadership sees you embarking upon quests. Such quests allow us to systematically explore complex and uncertain futures. We don’t set goals in the hopes that a particular future will manifest — rather, we explore multiple possible futures, and prepare proactive stratagems to capitalise on each.’

Dr. Jason Fox

—

“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.”

Marly Parker Follett, The New State

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

Research shows time and time again smaller teams are more effective at getting things done. The typical business response to this is to, well, build small teams. Simplistically all they have really done is create mini departments within larger departments – silos within silos as you wish. Yes. Some of the teams may be interdepartmental but whether you call them squads, teal dots, whatever, eventually they become a static group of people working together.

In order to be truly emergent, and ensure a business brings forth its best “team” against an emergent opportunity, the teams themselves cannot remain static, they must be malleable. This doesn’t mean I am suggesting no teams stay together nor does this mean breaking up all teams all the time. What it does mean is that the organization, and the teams, are malleable to adapt to contextual opportunities. The organization becomes molecular.

This is an environmental, attitudinal, organizational idea which, if embraced, enables the conceptual thinking, autonomy and emergent abilities. To slightly paraphrase “The Individualized Corporation”:

Companies cannot renew their business unless they first revitalize their people. This will not happen thru workshops, inspiring corporate commitments or powerful incentives if the internal environment is like an oppressive, energy sapping environment of downtown Calcutta in midsummer. This environment either created mentally by the people themselves or by poor leadership, saps all initiative, creativity, commitment & belief/hope. That said.

I believe all innovation & creativity already resides within an organization, therefore, any transformation objective should be to create an environment from which that potential emerges. No inspirational speech will motivate & energize in Calcutta in midsummer.

Rather than focusing on individual’s behaviors, the more important challenge is to change that internal environment, the behavioral context, that in turn influences people’s behaviors. To reshape these behaviors, a business must transform their behavioral context. Instead of Calcutta in the summer they must transform to a forest in spring.

Therefore, I would argue one needs to think about the model, the environment, in which the people will work.

Despite the binary discussions which occur in business, what makes a business work is the marriage of collective and individual intelligence, in other words, complex and dynamic (not binary). One of the typical issues business faces is, over time, a sentimentality toward what they have done in the past (systems) which reinforce perceptions of what makes them successful; and what makes people successful. Unfortunately, correspondingly, those perceptions diverge farther and farther away from reality. Regardless. I would argue that as long as a business keeps cloud knowledge distinct from institutional knowledge & wisdom the system will maintain a design resilience to standardization and commoditization of behavior, attitudes and institutional practice.

This actually leads me to the past, Alvin Toffler in 1985, to define this environment.

 

THE CORPORATION OF THE FUTURE

“.. the bigger the world economy, the more powerful will be the smaller players. This is because they are more flexible, faster and more economical – not burdened by layers of bureaucracy. Computers and telecommunications, now affordable to small companies, allow them to compete globally, and deregulation and globalization of financial markets gives them access to capital. Computer-driven technology also makes it possible to produce small runs of customized “higher value-added” products aimed at niche markets. Products produced “just in time” save money on inventory, and they can be quickly improved to compete with rapidly changing technology and tastes. Big companies will break up into confederations of small, entrepreneurial units. Small interacting firms will form themselves into temporary mosaics to be more adaptive and productive.”

Alvin Toffler

—-

• ** note: while “corporation” implies this concept is only for larger organizations, I would argue that this concept is applicable to all size businesses. In fact. I would argue many smaller businesses, without really thinking about it, do a smaller version of this idea simply out of necessity – limited resources demand using all of what you have; people potential included.

By 1985 Toffler had, at least conceptually, defined aspects of the corporation of the future (Future Shock, Third Wave & culminating in The Adaptive Corporation). He recognized that business success resided in emergent skills to adapt (have the agility) to a constantly morphing complex business world.

It became a command/control leader’s headache that knowledge could slink into any office space and anyone smart enough to use it could become smarter than the person they reported to. It is easy to see that this organization fragmentation driven by real/actual knowledge could easily become chaos unless leaders begin showcasing a different ability than maybe we have valued up until today.

This means today’s leaders need to be assimilators of fragments and creators of concepts.

They need to encourage empowered individuals and groups to accumulate knowledge and then redirecting or gathering disparate pieces of knowledge into new forms in which the organizations, and ultimately, the tribes/teams/molecules benefit from. The control of knowledge is the crux of an organization’s struggle for power, and more importantly, effectiveness. It is also then a leader’s biggest challenge in tomorrow’s businesses.

Compounding the issue is that the speed in today’s world is making facts, and differentiation/products, obsolete faster.

Therefore, knowledge built upon certain facts becomes less durable. This has 2 key impacts:

• –              truth is fleeting <and decision making has small windows of opportunity>
• –              business has become more abstract <as knowledge streams non stop into and within an organization>.

The reality of any complex business is that it is a quivering mass of vulnerabilities. In a Conceptual Age this can actually become a strength. The natural tendency of business is to ‘even up’ things and put constraints on anything they view as chaos. In other words, “we feel like we are at our best if we do the same things day after day.” The Conceptual Age organization should actually seek to exploit unevenness and exploit their vulnerabilities. If a business believes technology augments humans to maximize potential (productivity, innovation, imagination, ideation, etc.) that business should reflect on, well, human-ness (the characteristics that come along with humans). None are alike, each has potential to maximize and they are inherently imperfect. What that means is if you augment them, without constricting, you will not have consistent behavior, attitudes or even outcomes. Instead, should you empower the individual, you will create unevenness organizationally. In other words, expansion is not linear and unevenness represents geometric, or multiplicative, growth opportunities.

Which leads me to De-standardization and Molecules and Managing Complexity

             Destandardization.

De-standardization is the “anti-evenness” business idea. Toffler dedicated a chapter in The Adaptative Corporation on de-standardization. Somewhere along the way since 1985 this simply smart concept got bastardized into a lazy person’s version of it – personalization. They are different. Chasms apart in fact.

• De-standardize reflects the fact the world has become increasingly complex and context drives business outlooks, therefore, mass production (of anything) is more likely to miss relevancy than to meet relevancy.
• Personalization, in its most simplistic form, is order taking. Business cannot exist solely on order taking, it must be constructed to adapt to market shifts.

Regardless. Standardization, at minimum, suffocates complexity. Organizations, simplistically, relentlessly pursue consistency (replication) with the objective of maximizing efficiency and, as a consequence, pursues what is a potentially (mostly) reductionist strategy. Counterintuitively, over-standardization actually complicates complex systems. Therefore, in order to make complexity expansive a business has to be in the business of optimizing de-standardization.

I will note that in a utopian ‘de-standardized’ business, everything COULD be de-standardized, but only embraces its de-standardized qualities situationally. That’s not practical. The business of the future will know how to destandardize effective to maximize its complexity potential.

• ** Note: automation/robots/technology: What a crisis/pandemic has certainly done is make sure businesses examine resilience & redundancy aspects. Automation/robots/blockchain technology will benefit and, most importantly, will be overemphasized ‘standardization’ feature solutions to meet resilience objectives. In other words, the majority of businesses will confuse resilience with fragility.

             molecules

A molecular organization structure is a nuanced version of teams, organizations as organisms, teal, etc. it offers a more scientific aspect in that through alchemy, chemistry & science molecules are constantly created in new formations so their different elements emerge. It’s an emergent structural idea.

Molecular is not ecosystem, it’s a morphing of molecules to address specific needs – they can be ongoing needs (accounting, process, etc.) or situational needs, yet, because of its adaptability even the ‘consistent efficiency’ aspects can collect different ideas and evolve.

A molecular organizational structure is a derivation of the Brand Molecule (Grant; The Brand Innovation Manifesto) where we can see a malleable organizations as a collection of ideas, and people with ideas using machines/technology stored with idea fodder, working in a coherent fashion. Grant made tangible what Toffler offered us, a polymalleable organization in 1985 in intangible form.

I will also suggest that molecules thrive within complexity. It is difficult to talk about 100% emergent, and a molecular structure, without at least mentioning complexity.

• Complexity and emergent

The concept of a totally emergent organization in which the organization itself (grounded in an AI structure) always offers lily pads of the complexity, or optimal certainty, to grasp. It is possibly chaos-proof yet inherently emergent.

Navigating, or managing within, complexity is multidimensional. Its remote work, and its not, its autonomy, and it’s not. Its disconnected, yet connected. Its adaptability, yet, its consistency. It’s the optimal mix of standardization and destandardization.

I would argue that a conceptual organization, while certainly seeking concepts, is constantly scanning about for insights. I say this because I believe complexity is expansive and to unlock it’s potential one must seek to either relieve a complication (this can come to life as an external emergent opportunity or relief of an internal emergent issue) or release the potential of an emergent opportunity through some smaller “fractal” (what I envision as smaller more causal relationship which leverages velocity in some way) which can be exploited to the benefit of the business  and not at the expense of society (this is addressed in the Part about “in & of society’). this is where we circle back to algorithms, data, data fitting and data literacy.

• ** note: What many businesses have failed to recognize (mostly because they tend to focus on skills not potential, features not benefits & technologies not behaviors) is that everyone is actually a nomad now which expands the possibilities, and capabilities, of people.

Being emergent DOES demand structure, but a structure that allows people (and organizations) the freedom to try new approaches and react to changing market conditions. Suffice it to say molecular without adaptability tied to data, or intelligence driven software, is a waste of time. The potential of molecular attitude is right people, right resources, right knowledge, right ‘synergy’ at the right time. Let’s call it ‘emergent efficacy’ which is the ability to proportionately, not as a formula or a balance, apply appropriate knowledge, resources and adaptability to specific contexts.

• ** note: this will demand a business become comfortable with ‘not neat team’ structure

As noted elsewhere, this idea is messy, untidy, and businesses abhor untidiness. It will demand a different attitude, and skill, within leadership, a different way of viewing HR department responsibilities and a heightened level of human conversation within an organization. I make that last point because while it may appear at the core of this business model idea that technology bears the greatest burden of ‘conversation’ (the sharing of knowledge through technology) the real value is generated in the conversations and interactions between human beings. People working together to craft concepts and “do” what needs to be done to exploit emergent topics.