“It’s always the same with these bogus equivalences: They start by pretending loftily to find no difference between aggressor and victim, and they end up by saying that it’s the victim of violence who is “really” inciting it.”
Christopher Hitchens

======

Conflate and false equivalence are possibly two of the most underused (when used properly) and most important linguistic tools available to us today. In a world seemingly devoid of nuance and unnecessarily gifted with simplistic “this versus that” narratives these two tools are what is needed to combat that shit.

I thought of this when I saw Fateme’s list of words (which I agree with) on LinkedIn.

Authentic gets conflated with genuine. Empower is a false equivalence to responsibility. Hustle is a false equivalence and conflates with ambition. You get it. The list gets mangled in simplistic ways ignoring the important nuances that make them truly meaningful.

Anyway.

The reason I call these two words/phrases linguistic tools is because they can be used to disrupt patterns of misguided narratives. Misguided narratives blends shit together into simplistic spaces where simple minds thrive.

Conflate is a sharp tool to use instead of saying “you have incorrectly mixed together two different things” <to the ‘simple’ folk, one word versus 8 is sharper>.  False equivalence is less against mixing shit together but rather when people mistakenly compare two things as equal in value. You can use both, or either, when someone is saying something that doesn’t coincide <conform exactly – which summarizes almost everything in Life>, but you get on tricky ground when someone suggests the things ‘correspond’ <they have comparable elements>. Why is this tricky? Because correspond can very quickly get you into the ‘correlate’ space <a reciprocity without sameness> and all of a sudden someone can try and convince you authenticity correlates to genuine <they are only in the same galaxy> or hyperbole <stretching the truth> correlates closely to ‘lying’ <they are only different planets in the same solar system>. But even the examples I just shared can not be agreed upon in today’s society. Why? In my opinion its laziness or a lack of mental acuity to understand that the distinctions, and nuances, are not only real and important, but meaningful.

Regardless.

Comparisons shouldn’t be flippantly vague or purposefully misused. Comparisons aren’t “unorganized phenomenon” <Noam Chomsky>, but for the purpose of clarity they should be systematic and organized. They are not. So conflate and false equivalence should be used as a battering ram against poor quality comparison relationships. Why? Because understanding, the really important understanding, is found in nuance. If we are aware of the relevant nuances, we can shape our thoughts <mindset, beliefs, attitudes, opinions> in a much more effective way.

But let me be clear, we use these words to combat what I call an oversimplification crisis.

In a world, and society, divided by more less-informed opinions than possibly any time in history, people are leaning in on oversimplification. They do so in order to skate on the superficial surface of truthiness. This skating permits them to throw just enough things into the same bucket so bad things don’t look bad and good things look less good. In other words, this oversimplification exploits our innate desire to feed a “both sides” narrative of any given topic or discussion. The horrible situation this puts us in is, while there truly may be two sides to some issue, each side may not be equidistant from the mean. Pseudoscience is not equal to real science and lies are not equal to ‘spin’ and equating them can be done by conflating the pseudo with actual or by making a false equivalence between selective fact usage and no facts.

What I do know is:

• politicians, and political conversations, tend to thrive on false comparisons

• business tends to thrive with conflating things

• and “both sides” is a sweeping generalization to cloak the fact some shit is equivalent to a ton of shit

Look. I have written almost 3000 pieces on my site and I have actually used ‘conflate’ in only 6 pieces <albeit one was called “thought viruses”>. I use it only to combat oversimplification, thought viruses and ‘both sidism’. I have used ‘false equivalence’ even fewer pieces and, yet, will not hesitate to use it to shut down some stupid oversimplified comparative shit.

In the end.

Conflate and false equivalence are really not linguistic tools in today’s world, they are linguistic weapons which are necessary to kill superficial narratives. Even better, they tend to put a full stop on stupid.

Wield your ‘conflate’ and ‘false equivalence’ well, the world needs less stupid.

“The apple never falls far from the tree.”

How often do we hear this as an explanation for why someone is, or does, as they are?

My quote?

“It doesn’t matter how far the apple falls from the tree it only matters where it lands.”

We spend a lot of time trying to explain why someone is like they are. The most common explanation we toss out is “the apple never falls far from the tree.” Well. This is partially true and partially not. its mostly not true because we view this thought in a very simplistic ways, i.e., parents/father/mother. What is true is that people, individuals, are victims or products of the systems they exist and behave within. What I mean by that is the family, or parents, is just one system. Friends, school, church, community, are other systems which connect and intersect with each other all shaping who you are and become.

I say all that because while we often point to parents as the major influencer with regard to how kids ‘turn out’ or their behavior later in life there are some very interesting research studies out there that suggest a kid’s peer group is a stronger influence on their future behavior.

“… how the parents rear the child has no long term effects on the child’s personality, intelligence or mental health.”

“The Decision Book” page 46 “Why Parents are Unimportant” model

That will drive some parents a little crazy <and give another smaller percentage a built-in excuse for the crappy job they may already be doing with regard to bringing up their kids>. That said. The belief ‘apple not falling far from the tree’ was driven by behaviorists’ belief that parents influence their children’s development by the rewards and punishments they dole out, and the Freudians’ belief that parents can mess up their children very badly and often do so.

That was ‘behaviorist beliefs.’

No real studies or research.

Just a bunch of published ‘here is what I believe’ mumbo jumbo which then quickly shifted into some ‘common sense’ that everyone took for granted.

In 1955 psychologist Judith Rich Harris attacked this belief.

To be clear. There is no question that the adult caregivers play an important role in the baby’s life. It is from them babies learn their first language, have their first experiences in forming and maintaining relationships and get their first lessons in following rules.

But the extent our personalities are shaped by our upbringing had never really been examined and, specifically, whether children elicit particular behavior in their parents and not vice versa.

Harris contradicted the Freudian based behaviorists and development psychologists by suggesting we modify our behavior depending on the environment we are in.

Yeah. Context matters. Yeah. Systems encourage behavior the system encourages. Yeah. Children are shaped not by their parents, but by the peer group in which they are socialized. Yeah. Being within a system shapes mindsets, attitudes, behaviors and, well, who we are.

Harris poses that in home learning certainly sets the pattern for what is to follow, but that the actual content of what children learn may be irrelevant to the world outside their home. The truth is many young people shed the in-home system as soon as they enter into another system <or keep some aspects and shed others>.

The evidence developmental psychologists use to support the nurture assumption is not what it appears to be: it does not prove what it appears to prove. And there is a rising tide of evidence against the nurture assumption.

The nurture assumption is not a truism; it is not even a universally acknowledged truth. It is a product of our culture–a cherished cultural myth.

No one questions it because it seems self-evident. The two things that determine what sort of people your children will turn out to be are nature–their genes–and nurture–the way you bring them up. That is what you believe and it also happens to be what the professor of psychology believes. A happy coincidence that is not to be taken for granted, because in most sciences the expert thinks one thing and the ordinary citizen–the one who used to be called “the man on the street”–thinks something else. But on this the professor and the person ahead of you on the checkout line agree: nature and nurture rule. Nature gives parents a baby; the end result depends on how they nurture it. Good nurturing can make up for many of nature’s mistakes; lack of nurturing can trash nature’s best efforts.

That is what I used to think too, before I changed my mind.

What I changed my mind about was nurture, not environment. It isn’t all about genetics. The environment is just as important as the genes. The things children experience while they are growing up are just as important as the things they are born with. What I changed my mind about was whether “nurture” is really a synonym for “environment.”

By the way.

This doesn’t mean that a parent doesn’t influence a child’s ‘end adult space.’ They can place children in social environments and initiate a variety of actions that could impact final sociological behavior, in other words, purposefully push or encourage children to interact within “accepted systems”. But social systems are difficult to control and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see how children speak the dialect of their peer groups and assume attitudes/behaviors of their peer group <varying from group behavior to individual style>.

Before I get to my main point today let me make sure you don’t think this is sheer bullhockey <baloney, absurd, whatever>.

Reflecting on parenting is difficult.

Experiences in life appear very good when we remember or anticipate them, but quite ordinary or downright bad in the moment. I say this because when you think about parenting most people will suggest it was a challenging, but fairly positive life adventure.

Parents often look back on their attempts at steering their children toward social responsibility and a career or looking at their youth as a life filled with unconditional <sometimes tough> love and a list of shared moments. But the truth is most of the day-to-day tasks of child rearing are mind numbingly mundane at best and harrowing at its worst.

Well. That was certainly jaded, but you get the point. As with most things in Life the majority of parenting is a grind and in our reflective memory we find the reasons why it was all worthwhile, but in doing so we judge <or misjudge> that system within which the young person existed.

*** note: this is Daniel Kahneman’s “experienced memory” versus “remembered memory”

What is neglected are the systems, the numerous moments and interactions a child spends outside the parents’ auspices within other systems all the while assimilating learnings, experiences, mindsets, attitudes & behaviors.

But here is my larger point.

I did not write this to suggest that parents have no responsibility nor to suggest that they certainly cannot influence how their children will turn out as adults, but rather to point out systems exist within systems and each of the systems can affect our mindsets, attitudes and behaviors. There is certainly a bunch of research that actually suggests poor parenting drives children deeper into their peer group <socialized life learning> for behavioral cues, but the larger narrative is that a poor system does NOT necessarily create bad behavior but instead it can cause someone to reject that system and seek out an alternative. This is important because if everything is interconnected and you can ‘system hop’, explaining people or defining people can be really difficult.

That last thought isn’t just important to parents, but to businesses, ‘culture’ people, organizational design, social dynamics and strategists.

Maybe we should be thinking a bit more about who someone hangs out with – as a choice.

Maybe we should be thinking a lot less about “the apple never falls far from the tree” and think a lot more about where the frickin’ apple falls instead.

—

“I could say that her eyes were as blue as the sea, but that would be an understatement.

Her eyes were more like mirrors to a raging ocean of melancholy and despair, and for some reason, all I wanted to do was go for a swim. “

Noah Geffroyd

==

“A grey curtain unfolded from the clouds and came galloping towards them like a herd of horses.”

Cicada by Moira McKinnon

==

Ok. Colors and black & white. Or. Maybe colors versus black & white.

What do I mean? Try thinking about this.

Who doesn’t like black & white things in their lives?

Who doesn’t like color in their lives?

Yikes. We like them both, but, colors and black & white seem to have an adversarial role in today’s world.
We put an extremely high value on ‘black & white’ things and thoughts <when most things actually reside in the gray> and … uh oh … we also put an extremely high value on ‘color’ — being colorful, having a colorful personality or even standing out in some colored way in a metaphorically dreary gray world.

This clashing can be quite uncomfortable.

– Be too black & white and you are stubborn & uncompromising and possibly a little difficult to be around.

– Be too colorful and you are overbearing & unstable and possibly a little difficult to be around.

– Be too on either end of the spectrum and you will always be too much of something for someone: too big, too loud, too soft, too edgy.

But here’s the deal <part 1>.

If you are gray, there is no edge.

<note: and edges define shit>

But here’s the deal <part 2>.

Black, white or color … choose one or all … in doing so you will always be too much of something for someone.

 <note: yikes … what if you want to be just the right amount?>

Suffice it to say that Life doesn’t make it easy for you with this whole color & black & white thing..

Shit.

We don’t make it easy on ourselves.

We seek both black & white and color.

We naturally want some things to be clear cut – black & white. We naturally dislike ambiguity. We naturally like certainty. We naturally are uncomfortable with certainty.

And yet we enjoy colors.

Uhm. And yet each of us has a different ‘liked’ color palette. There are those who love fire engine red, those who love pink and those who love scarlet. And those are only the ones who like versions of red for god’s sake.

I imagine we sense we just cannot win.

I imagine we covet both and in coveting both, and having everyone covet both, we end up owning not enough black & white OR color.

Well. How maddening does that make life?

In fact, conversely, how brave does that make someone who chooses black & white … versus choosing some color?

Shit.

I don’t know.

What I do know is we are in a tug of war daily between black & white and color. And I do know that when faced with a tug a war of choice, it ain’t no place for a coward.

That may sound harsh.

—–

“I am not a place for cowards.”

Caitlyn Siehl

—

But it also sounds … well … true.

Facing some version of a Life harsh truth I sense.

Facing some version of a character choice and standing by that choice.

Yikes. That’s the hard choice isn’t it? A character choice. Because it is not really an accomplishment, well, at least in a tangible way.

Do we stand with black & white or do we stand with color?

The outcome of the choice is obvious — standing there is more a reflection of character.

Ok. Let me make a point on black & white and color and character and the fact it really has nothing to do with smarts <or intelligence>, but rather resiliency. I could have called it ‘conviction of self’ but instead I think I’ll focus on resiliency.

There is a book <“How Children Succeed — Grit, Curiosity, and the Hidden Power of Character” by Paul Tough > that argues what actually matters most with success is character: skills like perseverance, curiosity, optimism and self-control. In David Amerland’s book, Intentional, he speaks of grit.

I bring up both of those because that means success may not be dictated by just intelligence <or ‘learning’>.

Yikes. So this may mean that ability to cognitively learn and intelligence, which has been the prize and what we measure the most, doesn’t cultivate the most productive person. Instead it appears that molding, early on, a generation with a backbone, with dedication, with tenacity, with resilience, with grit, forms a person who is more likely to keep working, keep pushing, keep failing, and learning to get back up again and just keep moving <not quitting>.

Well. That certainly sounds like someone who is more likely to be successful in and with Life. And it certainly sounds like someone who can not only choose between black & white and color, but have the fortitude to stand by it and adapt when appropriate.

Look. The reality in life is we are always choosing between black & white things and color things — while we covet both. We covet the “and”.

*** note: it was Donella Meadows who suggested in “Thinking in Systems” that understanding the ‘and’ is more important than knowing what ‘one’ means. She suggests that if you understand the ‘and’ it is possible 1 and 1 could equal more than 2. Uhm. And isn’t that what colors and black & white is all about?

I imagine that is one of the fortunate, and unfortunate, aspects of life.

And reality is also that in an ever-changing world and continuously evolving world what was black & white may become a color, conversely, some color becomes black & white.

And, yet, while we covet both we would be amazingly frickin’ happy if that which was black & white remained black and white … and color stayed color.

But, shit, that’s not the way the world works.

—

“Color can do anything that black-and-white can.”

Vincente Minnelli

—

I don’t really have a point today other than to point out:

<a> we all covet black & white things – and value them

<b> we all covet color things – and value them

<c> we are rarely aligned on either what is black & white, or appropriate colored, nor aligned on the appropriate value.

—

And, while this drives us all nuts, we are resilient enough to not only to continue to covet both, value both and hold on to both as tight as we can when we find one pleasing to our mind’s eye. Ponder.

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

“The biggest human temptation is to settle for too little.”

Thomas Merton

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

“At any given point you have the power to say, this is not how the story is going to end.”

Anonymous

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

Well. I sometimes believe one of the toughest games we play in life is the tug of war between reaching and settling.

Ponder. We do it in business all the time.

“What is our reach goal? … okay … let’s make it a little more realistic.”

Uhm. Is that a reach goal … or a settling goal?

Every day and in almost every situation not only are you mentally, as an individual, assessing ‘reach’ versus ‘more certain attainment’ <which is an evil version of settling>, but everyone around you is sending conflicting signals – “we want to reach a little farther than we think we are capable of … oh … but not too far“.

WTF. This is enough to confuse anyone.

You either reach far or you don’t.

You either set a settling goal or you don’t.

But, for fuck’s sake, don’t make my head hurt more than it has to on some decisions and choices because you want to feel like ‘we have pushed the limits’ in some false way.

Look. I’m not suggesting this is easy. Our natural temptation is to settle for a little less than a true reach because then we are more likely to meet expectations and less likely to be disappointed. I would guess <no research to back this up> we settle in some form or fashion 90% of the time. I really cannot argue with doing shit this way.

It is simply a tactic to maintain our sanity as we attempt, in reaching our desires & dreams, to limit the roll of the dice between chance & choice. We do so because we know disappointment lurks around every corner of every choice we ever make. And, let’s be honest, the disappointment can show up in so many frickin’ ways it almost seems like meeting a reach expectation comes only in black & white … while disappointments can show up in a myriad of colors <a reverse of how it should and actually is>.

I would like to note here that it really doesn’t help that we constantly get crap advice like this: ‘I encourage people to create something that ONLY you understand. That ONLY you get, because that can make you feel like you have some sort of purpose.’ Look. I absolutely buy the fact a reach goal should be personal or at least contain some aspect of personal so that it just isn’t some bland milestone objective someone else has pointed you at.

But. Well. If you are gonna reach for something, truly reach, part of the prize at the end of the reaching isn’t holding something that only you ‘get’, but rather something you gain that others also see value in. In poetic terms, you want something that covers you in colors that others can see. 

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

“And now I’m covered in the colors”

Halsey

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

And maybe that is where settling really screws us.

We don’t reach far enough to access the true colors to cover our achievements in to make it worth looking at over and over again.

Regardless. We live in a black & white achievement and outcomes world, not a color world.

While we talk a good game with regard to good character and humanity and ‘purpose driven’ passions almost within the first 5 minutes of any discussion you are gonna get “what do you do” and “what have you done.” If all you can do is talk about “reaching shit” then … well … you are useless as a non-achieving dreamer.

But.

If you can point out a string of specific outcomes and achievements most people don’t ask or wonder if they were easily attainable or the fact you attained them was because you had ‘settled for something less than a reach’, all they do is think of you as a useful achieving productive person.

And therein lies the horrible fate of ‘reaching.’ While we hate the fact that meeting the expectations of others means something, well, it means something. We can try to live a Life not worrying about other people and their expectations but unless our ‘doing compass’ miraculously always points us in the right direction and unless our ‘reach’ is impeccably judged correctly every time and unless the cat’s cradle web of choice & chance happens to fall into perfect symmetry we are doomed to have to face someone’s expectations at some point.

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

“It’s time for you to live your own life without worrying about the expectations of others.”

Unknown

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

Every day we get tugged side to side … reach or settle.

Every.

Frickin.

Day.

Here is what I know. If you settle for everything, your story will be illustrated in the blacks & whites of certainties, achievements and outcomes. You will try and color the black & whites in some odd colors to spruce them up, but (sigh), they are black & white.

If you never reach for anything, you will end you story with chapters of regrets and ‘’what ifs.’ You will have touched only grays and your access to ‘colors’ will be limited. If you reach for something and fall short, your story will have two key chapters:

the first is one filled with the failure to reach & the disappointments

the second is written by how you react to the reach disappointment – avoid future disappointment or seek to try & do better.

If you reach for something, and get it, you will never be the same again. You will have touched colors and seen that life is much more than black and white.

Please. Don’t anyone read anything too much into the ‘what I know’ portion because while the last one I wrote sounds exactly like what everyone wants, there are no guarantees in Life.

Reaching comes with a cost.

Settling comes with a cost.

And sometimes the cost is not dictated by you but rather by some choice & chance metric <which you have little control over>. And sometimes the prize, the benefit, can only be seen by you <a different version of cost>.

I imagine all I really know for sure is that, in general, we settle for far too little far too often. Ponder.

===========

“For our own success to be real, it must contribute to the success of others.”

–

Eleanor Roosevelt

======

“The way to achieve your own success is to be willing to help somebody else get it first.”

Iyanla Vanzant

=========

Business, as businesses should, think about how to improve their business. The good ones balance effectiveness and efficiency, the poor ones triple down on efficiency. But. 95% (I made that # up) of businesses focus on customers, service, process, systems and “best practices” — in their pursuit of efficiency (with head nods to effectiveness). This means 95% typically think of people as interchangeable pieces who can deliver all the service, process and outputs. All the systems are designed to ‘output’ and people simply make the systems ‘go.’

I would argue this is at the root of why organizations begrudgingly train employees. I would argue this is not only a bad ‘grudge’ if you really want to improve your business, but it is also stupid.

I always made a promise to anyone who ever worked for me – “if you ever leave this job I promise you will be well prepared to do well at your next job.” I’m not sure I was particularly good at preparing people for life, but I always said if you had a title/job responsibility with me you would be able to do that title/job responsibility wherever you went.

3 reasons:

• I knew people outgrew jobs & organizations and often organizations sucked at meeting peoples ‘grow’ needs. In other words, there is an incredibly high likelihood a current employee would become an ex-employee. I felt a responsibility to prepare them for their next job believing I/we would benefit for as long as they stayed where they were.
• Word of mouth is the most powerful recruiter. If you give, you get. The more people I sent out to build successful careers of their own, the more people recommended new employees to me or past co-workers sent people to me.
• I didn’t care about training per se, I cared about preparation to do jobs well. That may sound like semantics, but I think its important semantics. I believe businesses get hung up on “training people and receiving benefit.” And they may be right because, if you view training as simply training, you will most likely will not reap any meaningful benefits. On the other hand. If you look at maximizing an individual and enabling someone to do their job well, you will not only build individual strengths & potential, but also receive the direct benefit of them doing the job well. Choose wisely.

Regardless of your own view on this topic, the bottom line is a decision to invest in a person. Not some nebulous, often vapid, “invest in your people”, but rather ‘a person.’

I, honestly, can’t figure out why this is so difficult for businesses to grasp.

Is it lack of trust in people?

Is it a leadership ego thing?

Is it simply a misunderstanding of culture as a ‘we’ thing .. that you can enable & empower individuals and still be a ‘we’ culture?

I don’t know, but I do know any lasting change or effect in a business is not organizational or on systems or even on some broader cultural narrative. People leave, therefore, if your modus operandi is to enforce or impose (this includes ‘best practices’) systems, I can guarantee you that enforcing or imposing is not motivating nor long term effective (nor even optimizing short term effectiveness).

Truly lasting change & organization effect is within people themselves. Effectiveness is emergent. And because it is emergent it is something they not only embody when within the business, but also take with them outside the business (in life, family, community and other jobs). Therefore. To effectively lead people you actually need to view people beyond the limits of the organizational boundaries. This may sound odd, even inefficient. Its not. It doesn’t ignore the job that existing responsibilities demand, but it also enables individual potential to cross and bridge normal divides & barriers. Or, as Peter Drucker said, ‘business is of the community and the community is of the business.” And that is where true benefits reside. We far too often discuss ‘getting out of your comfort zone’ when instead we should suggest there is no zone or even if there is you should just push out on the limits and boundaries and give people the freedom to grow (and the business will grow). When a person is engaged as part of who & what they are they have the ability to engage to their fullest potential.

“Why do you, or they, or anyone get to determine my limits?”

Veronica Roth

Simplistically this is investing in people, not an organization. This leads me to the eternal question in business: “why train employees (people) if all they are going to do is leave? (and someone else will benefit by my investment).”

This is a valid, and important, topic.

At its core is, well, business’s decision to make business better. It’s like believing if you plant healthy seeds they will bloom here, there and everywhere and the entire forest grows.

Believing this demands we view a business in a non traditional way – you don’t ‘push down’ beliefs, behavior, responsibilities, etc. because, honestly, any time anything is ‘pushed down’ the world shudders to a halt as the people who are actually doing the work take the round peg senior leadership has created and try to figure out how to put it in the square hole of reality. In order to do so, most times, instead of convincing leadership they actually need a square peg, the teams design a mish mash version of a round peg that will fit into the square hole.

“In our consumer culture, we are encouraged to assume roles that aren’t truly authentic to who we are. In a way, this culture is its own kind of simulation, one that requires us to make more and more purchases to maintain the integrity of the illusion.”

Stowe Boyd

To be clear. I am not suggesting a ‘bossless’ organization. And while I do believe business has become more complex than in the past, I have always believed maximizing an individual maximizes the business. What was true then is exponentially true as business becomes more complex.

Stowe Boyd said “We’re in a time of rapidly expanding insights about human motivation and connection, but meanwhile our companies continue to be run with a perspective on human psychology and sociology circa 1970.” I slightly disagree. While, as a generalization, it may be true, I would suggest some people have always known this is the best way to maximize an organization — its just that leadership doesn’t trust it to be done that way.

Of course I believe discussing new organizational models is important and, in some cases, a business should have a new business model. But at the core of any organizational discussion it really isn’t about models but rather “how do you think about individuals?”

Because until you answer that question autonomy, empowerment, self management, is all irrelevant. If you do not believe in people, than you do believe in control. Period. Full stop.

If you do believe in people, than you will stop talking about leaders, and what makes great leaders, but instead talk about resource management – how can we get the proper resources into the proper hands at the proper times to maximize each individual and group of individuals.

This expands the business by expanding the individual. Therefore leadership isn’t about direction or control, but rather managing/optimizing expansion. Ponder.

======

“If you don’t know history, you don’t know anything. You’re a leaf that doesn’t know it’s part of a tree.” – Michael Crichton

—-

“History is not, of course, a cookbook offering pretested recipes. It teaches by analogy, not by maxims.” – Henry Kissinger

—–

So. Studying history, and using what you have learned, is a tricky challenge. Often we study history, and the past, so that we can “not make the same mistakes.” Well. The attempt is one of valor <and good intentions>, but most actions using historical learning are misused <as they are misguided>.

Henry Kissinger actually said it the best:

“The study of history offers no manual of instructions that can be applied automatically: history teaches by analogy, shedding light on likely consequences of comparable situations. But each generation must determine for itself which circumstances are in fact comparable.”

Let me be clear. Studying history is always good <that is a Bruce postulate>. It is how you use what you learned studying history that is the issue.

Too often people want to use historical “learning” as a literal guide for what to do now or in the future.

You cannot.

Sorry.

But you can’t.

I do not care if we are talking about business, life or economics.

You cannot <I apologize for repeating myself>.

Hank Kissinger, discussing Foreign Policy, actually walks us through a nice way to think about this.

Intellectuals analyze systems & situations while statesmen build them.

And therein lays a vast difference between the analyst and the statesman. The analyst can choose what problem he wishes to study whereas the statesman’s problems are imposed upon him. The analyst can allot whatever time is necessary to come to a clear conclusion while the overwhelming challenge of a statesman is time. The analysts runs no, or little, risk. If the conclusions prove wrong he can rewrite and reanalyze. The statesman is permitted only one guess and his mistakes are irretrievable.

Sure. Typically the future is simply a version of the past. But what makes it challenging is that what appear to be superficial changes, that sometimes make it easily recognizable, are the things that transform situations into unrecognizable changed situations. Yeah. Not all variations are created equal. In addition, we tend to ignore the ‘collection of people’ variable <I will explain later>.

In the end? We use the past, we implement something, and invariably wonder what the hell happened <and why we didn’t learn from history> when it didn’t turn out as planned.

Well. Reminder. History teaches by analogy, not identity.

Unfortunately this means that the lessons of history are never automatically replicable.

This is mostly because the lessons are apprehended only by a standard which admits the significance of a range of experience, that the answers we obtain will never be better than the questions we pose.

Now. I do believe no significant decisions are possible without at least an awareness of the historical context.

For everything exists in time more than they do in a moment in time. What I mean by that is an explanation of ‘context.’ You may not be able to completely replicate the exact time, place, situation and experiences of any & all affecting what you are studying <or even replicate a majority of those variables/variations> however you can gain a sense of choices that were available and choices made. This is contextual learning or what some people call ‘sensemaking.’

Because people forget that what they are studying is a given moment which is simply a situation where it is not only a reflection of a collection of individuals <and their experiences>, but that situation also achieves a unique identity through the consciousness of a common history <those individuals are studying that particular moment colored by,or driven, by perceptions of beliefs of that time. or, the universe shapes us as much as we shape the universe>.

It is not often that we actually learn something ‘to use’ from the past and it is even rarer that we draw the correct conclusions from it.

Why?

The lessons of history <and Life experiences also> are contingent.

That means they teach the consequences of certain actions, but they cannot force a recognition of comparable situations.

Well. That is a BIG thought right there. One that many of us should think about more often.

Let me translate <for my own pea like brain>.

History is contingent upon a series of factors and to make it exponentially more difficult it is contingent upon a continuum <horizontally> as well as simultaneously <vertically>. In other words, patterns move across various layers as well as within a layer.

Yikes.

That means exactly replicating the situation in which you are ‘learning from’ is, well, dubious. The variations and variables almost seem limitless <try pointing that out in your next business meeting when someone says “what did we learn from past experience”>. Oh. Gosh. Doesn’t that kind of make you rethink every business book you have ever read?

Regardless.

History is just that — history. A series of factors & variables all aligned for one moment in time <vertically & horizontally>. Therefore change is not only the constant, but it also possibly represents the only legitimate path to progress. I say that to suggest that change may actually freedom from the past.

And to suggest that history, when one decides to live it and not learn from it, can cage you.

I know.

Learning to break free from the history that holds no value <or decreases value> is difficult. It is easier to simply use it as a handbook of ‘what to do.’ But if we truly seek to learn <and teach> we cannot be subjugated to history. If we truly seek to be better than what we already are, we cannot do simply as history ‘dictates.’

This makes ‘better’ a but tough because most people feel most comfortable mostly remaking things in the image of historical learning.

The corollary to that thought is in order to remake things better we have to be uncomfortable.

I believe what I just wrote will make a boatload of people very uncomfortable. Why? Well. This kind of thinking can drive you crazy particularly if you want to simply study and create conclusions <rather than hypotheses>.

So. The how do most people, and businesses, get around this type of thinking?

They suggest that they have isolated the most important variables and can draw a correlation to the current situation, draw some conclusive conclusions, and isolate the best plan of action <and offer predictive results>.

Well. They are nuts <if not crackpots or liars>. I do not doubt 99% of the intent of these people, but they are still wrong. History provides context not analogy. Now people <in general> do not like that. It makes them feel uncomfortable. They want to know unequivocally that they will not be ‘making the mistakes of the past.’ Sorry. Can’t happen. You may be able to reduce the odds, but cannot unequivocally guarantee it. Oops. Big trouble in the working world if you say shit like that.

But it is Truth. Truth in a business world. Truth in Life.

Another truth? <and something that most people will also feel uncomfortable with>

Studying history will make the in-the-moment decision better. I did not say “using history to make the decision”, but rather “people who have studied history will better be able to CREATE a unique decision in the moment.” Yup. I used the dreaded ‘unique’ word. Most decisions are discreet <unique to the moment>. That makes people feel very very <very> uncomfortable.

** note: “unique” does not have to be in totality but rather the decision will have some unique aspects/features to make it more malleable to the context within which it must exist and thrive.

Regardless. It is a Life truth.

In the end?

“Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought.”

Basho

Well.

That is a nice uncomfortable thought to end on. Ponder.

=====

originally posted March 2013

========

“The most successful businessman is the man who holds onto the old just as long as it is good, and grabs the new just as soon as it is better.”

Lee Iacocca

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

“I have found that hollow, which even I had relied on for solid.”

Henry David Thoreau

==========

Ok. Let’s get the harsh truth out upfront. I am a 60something and I believe the older generation, mostly old white men, hollowed out business to the shithole soul-less point we face today. I also believe we are facing the dying rattle of these old white men’s grasp on how business is conducted.

That said. Let me spend a minute on old white men <my generation> to explain why I believe this.

While a generalization, because there are exceptions, old white men have hollowed out the business world in their quest for “winning at any cost”, “efficiency”, and maximize “converting that win-to-cash <making $>” ratio. These men hollowed out business primarily thru extraction and exploitation <of value, values, and resources>. These men have guided business to a level of so-called, self proclaimed, “greatness” through a variety of ‘great’ business acumen thoughts & business culture attitudes which, in reality, were non-great hollow attitudes, were wins which in reality a reflection of hollow behaviors & techniques, and, ultimately, created fantastic looking hollow outcomes and achievements.

In doing so they successfully hollowed out business. I could argue, and will, “hollowing” has been the guiding light into this dark world of money grubbers with questionable moral compasses who deemed resources as infinite and people as finite machines they could plug ‘n play into their money creating machines. You want some specifics? Here you go. This is how they have hollowed out business:

Capitalism

Capitalism is not inherently bad. In fact it is an incredible engine for growth, innovation and increased wealth & standard of living for any and all.

But old white men hollowed capitalism. They took out all the good and added all the greed. I could partially defend old white men and suggest that they were simply participants in the arc of business history, but I will not. Peter Drucker pointed out the beginning of the arc in 1989, as I noted in Salvation by Society, and we old white men could have eyed the arc and, well, stopped it. Instead old white men viewed the arc as an opportunity to not be burdened by morality & soul, but rather an opportunity to build personal wealth.

     Humans

Humans are amazing things. Irrational, unexpected, inconsistent, bundles of untapped potential. Old white men hollowed humans as well as humanity in their total embrace of people as machines of productivity – scientific management was their religion. We cannot blame Frederick Taylor for this because it was these men who made Taylorism into a cult of business. they were creative in their scientific management slotting their little people productivity machines into thinkers and doers, stars and worker bees, right brain versus left brainers. They first wielded carrots & sticks to manipulate desired results and then fully embraced gamification. The intent was always to squeeze out productivity rather than let people potential emerge. It is within that last point in which old white men propagated their most insidious myth – humans are lazy and left to their own devices will do nothing. This became the underpinning to everything with regard to their treatment of humans as machines. Needless to say, business without humans and humanity is simply a machine. Old white men got exactly what they wanted to the detriment of business and humans, hollow widgets producing exactly what they are told to produce.

Branding

Brands are fabulous creatures and not inherently bad. They offer us every day schmucks a nice heuristic way to make decisions and isolate differentiation in which we can make true choices.

Old white men hollowed brands. The easiest way to point this out is that we stopped talking about brands and started talking about branding. Old white men started looking at brands as vehicles of wealth and not vehicles of differentiation. Brands should evolve and not be constructed or built like some building of cold steel and cheap Styrofoam ceiling tiles. Focusing on brands permitted old white men to hollow out the substantive work of creating products & services of substance. The whole concept of ‘building a brand’ is one of the most insidious concepts to infiltrate good and meaningful marketing and communications.

Profit

Profit is not inherently bad. Used wisely it contributes not only to personal, or individual wealth, but spurs on business growth in terms of innovation and employee development AND social involvement. But old white men hollowed the soul out of each dollar as they squeezed every cent of profit it of it. Profit is good only if it is not tainted by <a> greed or  <b> created at the expense of giving back <in terms of true societal salvation type things>. Businesses represent an important weave in the fabric of society and the moment a business ignores that weave and focuses solely on the profits of the entity itself the opportunity arises to let the soul of each dollar made bleed out into the ether. And, yes, dollars can have a soul. Making money shouldn’t feed stock holders, it should a business that feeds society.

Wealth dispersion

Making money and creating wealth is inherently a double positive: proof of the value for your efforts and increased standard of living <not just in materialistic comforts but in real living>. This is a good thing for individuals, society and the world.

Old white men hollowed out the middle and carved out the good aspects.. This is more a byproduct of their business acumen more than anything else because I cannot really point out any specific behavior they consciously took to do this, but, suffice it to say that more went to the old white men and less to the ones who actually made the money for them. Possibly worse is that crafty old white men crafted a tier of wealth creation in which they had to do nothing, but use other people’s wealth to, exponentially, create their own wealth. Basically, they hollowed out the value in wealth.

Communication

Effective communication has been, and always will be, complex and complicated. Effective communication inevitably feeds into the minds and enlightenment of the listeners. If you dumb down communication, inevitably you dumb down the listeners.

Old white men hollowed out communication. I imagine as they hollowed out everything else they found it inherently more productive to gain their objectives by also hollowing out communication. Everything became soundbites, powerpoint bullet points and ‘elevator speeches.’ Effectively communicating complexity took on less importance than a quick sharp stab of “here is all you need to know” <and then walking away>. Old white men mastered the art of emptying communication to a point where businesses end up walking on the slippery surface of irrelevance <cloaked in a beautiful robe called “what is important for you to know.”> Heinously, they hollowed out the value of words all the while replacing them with bullshit buzzwords <hollow shells of words> all under the guise of “simplicity.”

ROI

ROI <return on investment> is a fabulous tool. It offers us every day unimaginative pragmatic schmucks an almost heuristic way to judge some fairly complex and complicated things in business.

Old white men hollowed ROI of anything intangible and along the way scraped away some of the most meaningful things associated with investment in their desire for simplistic “this led to that.” Certainly some investments have linear outcomes and results. But not all. And these hollow men in their black & white pursuit of profit, efficiency and outcomes became color blind.  Old white men started looking at people as equal to numbers & dollars and not organic organisms of less than linear productivity <in terms of Life actualization as well as business actualization>. These hollow men fell in love with cause & effect, numbers and began diminishing the value of humanity and complexity <dynamics of business & Life>. They saw people as investments, like manufacturing robots, rather than, well, people.

Racism

Racism in the workplace is a stealthy virus invading the organism in ways that can create an unhealthy organism which sometimes seems to never attain its full potential despite producing results.

Old white men enable this virus to exist by hollowing out the meaning in any racism discussion, and real substantive actions, in business.

These old white men rose through the ranks of business surrounded by other white people, & few minorities, simply believing it was so because it was a reflection of those “who deserved to be here” (assuming everyone COULD be here if they worked hard enough). When in leadership positions & told about racism issues they didn’t really believe it, reluctantly doing things they were told they should do all the while thinking “it’s just political correctness”. The times old white men got trapped in diversity meetings & shared 5 things they did & were told were racist, in their heads they said “they can’t handle truth, they are too sensitive.” What this all led to was hollow efforts at addressing racism. They grudgingly implemented some initiatives, while publicly espousing their enlightenment, but privately thinking it was a waste of time, energy & monies. Underlying this purposeful ignorance was an ongoing belief white people never got any more breaks than anyone else or that there was never any inherent ‘privileges’ bestowed upon white skinned people.

What the business world ended up with was a generation of old white men who are the worst of racism ,and some real racists> – racism convinced it isn’t racism and racists convinced they are not racist. Ultimately, any substantive efforts to address racism in business were hollowed out by old white men who didn’t really believe in them.

Behavior

I hesitated to call this “the hollowing out of morality” mostly because that sounded a little harsh and I tend to believe the reality within this particular hollowness is more pragmatic. That said … it doesn’t make it any better just that I didn’t really want to get into a morality & ethical finger pointing game.

Leadership is a complex mix of personal, professional and pragmatic. When wielded well it is a beautiful tapestry of effectiveness, however, beauty is often in the eyes of the beholder when actual effectiveness becomes the measuring stick. As a reminder, old white men leadership grew up in a business of dictatorship leadership behavior or, at its best, benevolent dictatorship.

Old white men grew up in the hallowed halls of hollowed leadership management. This means that their ‘management twitch muscles’ inevitably provide reflexive business decision making based on this.

The easiest way to point this out is that businesses have developed a myriad of cultural initiatives and, yet, old white men leadership tends to simply treat them as “feel good politically correct” initiatives. They view them as “society dictated” thinking and not “business dictated” thinking. Therefore, a hollowness was inherent in the organization between how the old white men leaders attitudinally approached the business, how they viewed behavior and how the organization actually behaved. In other words, a hollow mindset affected expectations of attitudes and behaviors.

Old white men began talking longingly of straight talk, when people knew their place in business and ‘carrot & sticks.’  Old white men started looking at businesses in disdain as vehicles of political correctness and not stark effectiveness. The truth is that many of the old white men simply didn’t buy in to a better way of doing business and, therefore, when put in a corner & challenged revert back to the hollow management style of “do what I tell you to do and shut up.”

To be fair, old white men did not create this hollowness, they simply propagated it.

Pretty damning evidence of their hollowing, no?

All that said. These old white men, in their heart of hearts, inherently do not care about a ‘better world’ or even “a better way of conducting business” from a soul perspective nor do they care about any aspect of ‘being a better person’. Despite the fact we read headlines about business people embracing “Purpose” or creating panels to create a better business, it’s all words, no actions. Or maybe better said, there are actions but they are hollow actions. The truth is that for the most part they are indifferent to the bigger, more important, issues and solely attach ‘better’ with wealth, importance and wins and their own interests.

I get angry. I get angry because I do not believe ‘hollowness’ is the path to a better business world and society <let alone the world>. It certainly has not helped us reach greatness up to this point. And I am angry because I have believed this, and known this, for decades.

Look. This can be solved. And it can be solved by, well, old guys/people like me.

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

“At any other time it’s better. You can do the things you feel you should; you’re an expert at going through the motions. Your handshakes with strangers are firm and your gaze never wavers; you think of steel and diamonds when you stare. In monotone you repeat the legendary words of long-dead lovers to those you claim to love; you take them into bed with you, and you mimic the rhythmic motions you’ve read of in manuals. When protocol demands it you dutifully drop to your knees and pray to a god who no longer exists. But in this hour you must admit to yourself that this is not enough, that you are not good enough. And when you knock your fist against your chest you hear a hollow ringing echo, and all your thoughts are accompanied by the ticks of clockwork spinning behind your eyes, and everything you eat and drink has the aftertaste of rust.”

Dexter Palmer

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

Old white men created the problems and as so well said in the movie The Return of the Pink Panther: “you set a thief to catch a thief.”

Older people can reverse the hollowness problem in one fell swoop. I could do it with a small merry band of contrarian older people (women & men), who have chafed in this hollow existence, and could bring some good healthy substance back into this wretched hollowness. To be clear, to fix this it isn’t about attacking one of these issues and working on it, it is coming up with a business model, and a way of doing business, that resolves all these issues. In systems thinking vernacular, the system in its entirety needs to regain robustness and substance because a substantive non-hollow part, alone, will not improve the system.

This is a unique time in history in which business, country and politics have intersected. This is a unique time for older business people to right the wrongs of all they have wrought up to this point. I certainly hope this happens, as an old white man myself, simply for the sake of redemption for all of us old white men. Ponder.

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

“What a treacherous thing to believe that a person is more than a person.”

John Green

===========

“Don’t try to make life a mathematics problem with yourself in the center and everything coming out equal.

 When you’re good, bad things can still happen.

And if you’re bad, you can still be lucky.”

Barbara Kingsolver

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

Whew.

We score everything.

People.

Games.

Performance.

Life.

We almost treat Life as a balance sheet.

Heck.

We almost treat people as a balance sheet.

We most certainly attempt to make life, a specific event or time, a mathematical problem. And we then proceed to analyze that Life or event or time with some unequivocal mathematical solution in mind with the intent to measure it.  In addition, we have a nasty habit of doing this in particular when we want to discuss “improving”, i..e, wanting a person to be more than a person <or the person gthey are today>.

That said.

Ponder this Life math conundrum.

• Balance sheets are assessed by zeroing it out. Pluses equal minuses.
• Scoring usually goes 1 to 10. 10 being the best.

Uhm.

If the best people are the ones who balance out <they would then be a zero … oops … or are they then a 10?>, then wouldn’t they, uh oh, they don’t even show up as being worthwhile on the 1 to 10 scale.

Or how about this <if you want to ignore the balance sheet idea>.

What happens if someone’s 10 version is an 8?

What a treacherous thing to demand a 10 on an 8 score when they are truly a 10 as is.

What a treacherous thing to demand that a person be more than the person they are simply because you have a formula to attach to that person.

Unfortunately, society almost seems to encourage us to not only make Life mathematical, not only to label mathematically, but also to judge mathematically.

And, to be clear, the whole positive and encouragement and “think good things” industry certainly ain’t helping us in accepting a person as a person.

Yeah.

The whole “Secret” & positive thing can far too quickly translate into some wacky life mathematical problem people can solve in making a ‘better Life.’

You can do better!

If you are at 7 you should always be striving for 8!

Personally I believe we have bastardized real encouragement in combination with ‘numberizing’ people <a bad combination>.

People are not numbers, nor should they be assessed as numbers and, surely, they cannot simplistically be represented as something as simple as a number.

And what makes this even more treacherous?

There is rarely such a thing as a good or bad person in isolation.

What I mean by that is what may be good at one moment is bad at another. And what that means is, well, a number can trap someone in the past or being measured for but a moment. Therefore, not only does it become treacherous to believe a person is more than a person, but treacherous to believe a person is less than a person.

And, yeah, I know about 360degree reviews and measuring shit by tracking over time, but inevitably the math works out one of two ways:

• • An average of highs and lows <which diminishes true learning on how high is up and how low is low>

  • A snapshot in time <in which the person gets screwed if they are having a bad time and benefit if it is their one truly good time>

When I took a moment and really thought about this, I kind of thought this was related to the whole ‘perfect person and imperfections’ thing. We have a nasty habit of looking at the people who we dislike and immediately assess, judge what could and should be improved, and think “they could be a 10 if only …”

We have an even nastier habit of looking at the people we like, yes, actually like, judge how close they are to a ‘perfect person’ and think “gosh, they would be absolutely perfect <a 10> if only …”

That’s silly.

No.

That’s unhealthy.

No.

It’s just fucking stupid.

People are people.

On their best day and at their best they are … well … their best. And judging someone as if they can be, and should be, their best – or a “10” – every day is just fucking stupid.

A person is no more than a person.

And no matter how much we want to make a person a number and make Life a mathematical formula or equation we cannot.

And because we cannot we actually should not.

Yeah.

It is a treacherous thing to believe a person is more than a person.

Just as it is treacherous thing to believe a person is less than a person.

Don’t try and make life, or a person, a mathematical equation.

People are not numbers, they are people. And the risk we run is, well, this:

“We should always bear in mind that numbers represent a simplification of reality.”

Kenneth E. Boulding

—–

“We have to invent boundaries for clarity and sanity; and boundaries can produce problems when we forget that we’ve artificially created them.”

Donella Meadows

——

“Nobody’s lives just fit together. Fitting together is something you work at. It’s something you make happen – because you love each other.”

Rainbow Rowell

——-

It is popular ‘wisdom’ to suggest “context matters.” Heck. I say it all the time. In retrospect I wish I discussed some nuance a bit more in my rush to get people to pay more attention to the uniqueness of one moment versus another.

Now. The problem we try and solve when stating context matters is to push back on simplistic replication. We use it against best practices and anything that could be construed as ‘using what has been successful in the past.” In doing that the other end of the pendulum swung around and, all of a sudden, we began suggesting doing everything new in every moment is the most effective thing to do. That is absurd. Variations, are specific variants, between contexts is more important than simply suggesting context matters.

This is important because systems with similar feedback structures produce similar dynamic behaviors. And this is important because while we speak of context mattering, it does and it doesn’t. Completely different contexts can generate the same, or similar, dynamics, therefore, simply because a context is different does not mean something done in the past – or something very similar to what has been done in the past – will not work within this context. In fact, it just may well work.

And this becomes important for a number of reasons, but let me begin with sanity. I believe we make something like 30,000 decisions a day. Asking everyone to assess the context so all 30000 decisions can be customized is absurd. The truth is that within the 30000 there are ‘our rituals’, our heuristics, our defaults and, well, our certainty and stability. Everyone’s are a bit different <albeit there will be general commonalities> so the trick is to match up the best replicable aspects to the individual, the business itself, the customer and ultimately, the world/society AND provide the space for emergent/contextual change and adaptation, big or small, to sync up to shift things slightly into the ‘better’ category.

That’s kind of the holy grail of impact as well as ‘best practice’ as well as value creation.

What that means is there is no plug ‘n play best practice, however, it is a mistake to not assess practices and borrow what is applicable, and replicable, to you.

Which brings me back to context. Your context will demand some variations to create your own replicable aspects. Assessing someone else’s best practices is not a bad thing, but blindly applying someone else’s best practice is stupid. That said. I applaud the intent. I do so because the intent is to find the replicable things which create a foundation for value (quality and efficiency). And, lets be clear, all viable successful businesses have a solid foundation of replicable activity.

Which leads me to “and.”

Let me explain. “Ands” are the connections within a system. In order to understand <as well as one can> a system one has to explore the mechanisms/things/connections that makes things happen – the “ands.”.  This begins by simply watching how the system behaves. And, yet, even this is tricky. “You think that because you understand ‘one’ that you must therefore understand ‘two’ because one and one make two. But you forget you must also understand ‘and’” (Meadows Thinking in Systems). It is in interconnection <the ‘ands’> which may actually make one and one equal something other than two. That makes most people’s heads explode, yet, it shouldn’t because it explains velocity, scale and a variety of other exponential growth/progress ideas. Similarly, if you grasp the concept, now you must also accept that, in this case, one and one maybe actually equate to something less than two.

Which leads me to resilience.

If you seek to understand a business’s resilience you have to understand the connections <complexity science suggests ‘fractals’>. I say that because resilience is a measure of a system’s ability to survive and persist within a dynamic environment. It has elasticity embedded within in, not constancy. Resilience is restorative from conditions encountered. Its stability, not just static. All that said. Obviously, there are always limits to resilience but elasticity is found in the conversations, the connections, the “ands” and the ability to juggle, and find the appropriate equilibrium, of replicable and emergent. All that to say, all situations demand some level of replicable aspects to have some value creation resilience.

Anyway.

Here are some truths about context.

Most of your business, over time, will find many situations/contexts will have similar characteristics, common challenges and repetitive resource needs. There will always be similarities just as there will be variations. Situational effectiveness will be defined just as much on how you assess similarities as you do variances. Ponder.

Many of your defaults, over time, offer some useful boundaries, often subconscious boundaries, with a downside creating some bounded rationality. Overall, these defaults serve to formalize the world as it is engaged, even formalizing complexity in some ways, with the intent to effectively navigate and release the positive aspects of complexity. Defaults have incredible power over people and systems <they actually control many connections>. In fact, I would guess 80%+ of our daily decisions ease into our default mode. This is not necessarily bad, but it certainly has consequences. Ponder.

Majority of your strategies, and strategic thinking, will become dependent upon constantly applying ongoing learning. In the past context was defined and strategies developed against that context assessment. In other words, strategies used and applied strategy against that learning. In the future (and hopefully in the present), strategies will constantly incorporate learning. In other words, organizations will need constant learning and have the ability to use that information to constantly reframe perspectives in which strategies exist. Ponder.

What this means is that the majority of context management is actually quest management.

“Quests are anti-default.”

Dr. Jason Fox

How to Lead a Quest, Dr. Jason Fox

Quests are journeys and they demand looking at a system in its entirety, and understand it well enough to dance with it. This is not easy. It’s hard because many of the interactions are unseen or buried within a complex weave of connections and conversations. This difficulty gets compounded by time and space. What I mean by that is most systems don’t create immediate consequences <sometimes months and years away>. That’s why cooperation matters. Everyone needs to be focused on working together to optimize the system as a whole and minimize the random interactions which can create unsolvable – within acceptable timeframes – variations. Quests cannot be completed by optimizing individual pieces and parts of the system. Successful quests demand maximizing the replicable aspects as well as the agility aspects. in other words, business people will need to optimize both replicable aspects and emergent aspects by effective assessments of contexts. Ponder.

=====

“It is an affair of instincts, we did not know we had them: we valued ourselves as cool calculators, we were very fine with our learning and culture, with our science that was of no country and our religion of peace … and now a sentiment mightier than logic, wide as light, strong as gravity, reaches into the college, the bank, the farmhouse, and the church. It is the day of the populace; they are wiser than their teachers.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson 1861

====

Google “do people like to think” and you get 3,420,000,000 results 0.50 seconds telling you how much people do not like to think beginning with “Let’s be honest: We live in a culture and a society of people who do not like to think. People complain that thinking gives them a headache.”

Let me be clear. With some context here is what I think they are saying <albeit I I think they have it wrong because they are talking about an open-ended question about open ended thinking>:

• In a world trying to convince you to cram 100 pounds of shit to do in a 24-hour bag, 99% of people just don’t feel like they have the time for ‘possibilities thinking’ <no guarantee of value>.
• In a world in which 100 pounds of information, some shit and some not shit, is dumped on you every moment of everyday thinking becomes a job in and of itself <its easier to just ignore than go to work thinking>. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out in this point that overstimulation is a nemesis to thinking and the world wide web is nothing if not an overstimulation machine.

Without that context I think it is different if people can think about something of which they find of value.  Yes. I have a belief that everyone likes to think and I actually see thinking as intrinsic self-validation.

That belief drove my own thoughts on the business model of the future, it drove how I managed people and it drives most of my interactions with people. Yeah. This can make me a bit of a pain in the ass for what many people would call ‘run of the mill conversations, but, no one has ever claimed I am boring. Needless to say, when I suggest “everyone likes to think” I get some pushback. Most likely I will get some version of “does everyone really like to think?”

So let me explain.

In fact. I will actually begin with doing.

We are all craftsman, craftswomen, in that we like to accomplish something in our ‘craft.’ But there are dimensions to this and, yes, they are personal. I don’t care if you are a janitor, teacher, floor manager, tech designer or call center supervisor, you may not use the word ‘craft’ in describing how you go about doing what you do, but when you take pride in what you do – it is a craft of some fashion. And, yeah, while many people will hesitate to say ‘craft’, 99.9% of people, when pushed, will point out some of the nuances in what they do that makes it uniquely challenging and of us. Yeah. That is describing a crafy. And, yeah, your ‘doing’ is your craft <it is a sense of ownership for the labor>. But. I would posit that everyone, craftspeople of all, find some value in the thinking within their craft. For many, going home and sitting at the kitchen table and proudly talking about the new Ford Mustang they are part of building is “showcasing their craft value.” Yes. It is grounded in doing and meets everyone’s most basic question at the table – ‘what did you do today.’ But another level would be if they went home and talked about how they were a part of a team/group discussing how the Ford Mustang could thrive in the EV (electric vehicle) world. Their family would look just a bit differently at them and they would feel like they were part of future decision-making. That’s an entirely different dimension of thinking. And you know what? It is all within grasp of every person working in a business. So, I see ‘thinking’ as not just noodling over some decision, but actually embedded value in doing and the future outcomes.

Which leads me to people having thoughts.

The world does its darndest to compress our wisdom, and knowledge, into almost meaningless shapes and sizes. What I mean by that is the world tries to convince you that what you are doing is NOT a craft, but commodity work. In doing so it creates a sense that work is mindless doing. Well. That’s bullshit. You are either crafting or part of a crafting system. Period. Craftwork demands some thought work. Simply because someone is trying to convince you all repetitive work is mindless or simply because much of what you do is driven by heuristic thinking does not mean the majority of what you do has some components, or dimensions, of embedded thinking. So, when I say people like thinking part of what I am suggesting is actually acknowledging your existing thinking, and thoughts, about the work you do now.

Look.

There was a book called Imagine: How Creativity Works <by Jonah Lehrer> who asks where good ideas come from.  John Lehrer argues that to assume creativity is some lofty trait enjoyed by the few is both foolish and unproductive. He suggests that innovation cannot only be studied and measured, but also nurtured and encouraged. I believe the same is true of thinking.

Thinking is often found in some fairly random nooks and crannies of different people. Oh. And it may not be ongoing. Some people are good for one great thought in their lifetime … and that is it. And others are just, well, damn good at it. But. That said. Everyone can think and in a cooperation environment a mix of thinkers will often beget the best conceptual thinking that will pragmatically exploit an opportunity.

To be clear. Some people are better at ‘thinking thinking’ than others and better at actually generating the concepts themselves. But everyone can think, contribute to thinking, and enjoy the fact that the ultimate output contains some aspect of their thinking.

Which leads me to what type of thinking supports my own thinking the best – conceptual thinking.

• Conceptual thinking seems like it is positive, formative, creation, providing opportunities for possibilities and progress. At its best it seems abductive.
• Critical thinking seems like it is creative destruction at its core – either deductive or inductive or, at its worst, reductive. But it seems like it is negative to gain a positive.

Both can be extremely effective, but conceptual thinking seems more inclusive.

Now. While it may appear I am simply suggesting thinking, particularly conceptual thinking, has value in and of itself, I am not. I am simply suggesting conceptual thinking is not only a thinking positive but also a doing positive. Yeah. While I believe most people do like to think at some point that thinking has to come to fruition in some tangible way to create ongoing continuous thinking <and improvement>. Therein lies my rationale for concepts and conceptual thinking. For it is within great conceptual thinking that a business discovers meaningful progress or, in the business word du jour, scaling success is found as well as individual value from thinking is generated.

So, the formula is found within individual thinking+contribution+cooperative/collective thinking+concept+implementation+progress+meaning <of the individual & group>.

All that said.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t remind everyone that at the core of ‘everyone likes to think’ is the belief that no matter how mundane a job is, or how we make it out to be, there is an element of craftsmanship embedded within. I’d also be remiss if I didn’t point out that thought, and crafting that attitude, would, in general, improve the overall health of business.

Just ponder it all.

Postscript:

There will be, of course, a number of people who truly do not want to think. In my experience these are not represented by some nebulous ‘blue collar’ label or even the less educated, but rather the professionals who I would label ‘the purposeful ignorant.’ They have discarded nuance and embraced simplistic memes and reductionism. They know of Ockham, but misunderstand what Ockham suggested. They bludgeon everyone with ‘least’ and ‘one thing’ forgetting true value is created by ‘saying the most with the least’ and forgetting that brevity does not mean stripping away the meaningful. They are the most egregious non-thinkers in that they actually can think well, but don’t.