………… 2016 Presidential Election Results by county …..

======

Remember this image from after the 2016 election?

If I were to look at this map, I would believe the majority of the country, overwhelmingly, was conservative <or Republican>. That is false.

If I were to look at this map, I would believe the majority of people, overwhelmingly, was conservative <or Republican>. That is false.

If I were to look at this map, I would believe the majority of counties were, overwhelmingly, conservative <or Republican>. That is false.

Shit.

If I were to look at this map, I would believe this was representative of all of America. That is false <only about 60% of voter eligible people actually voted>.

As we near the 2020 election I wanted to revisit this because if I were a betting man (and I am not), I would guess a bunch of hacks are going to be slinging around a bunch of images like this trying to skew the truth. I am not a data wonk nor do I give a rat’s ass about politics and who is conservative and who is liberal.

All I care about is truth and good ideas which benefit the majority.

So what would be better than this incredibly misleading image?

I would imagine if I were to ‘dot map’ the country coded by zip codes I would most likely get a better sense for how even in some rural areas liberals lived side by side with conservatives, in urban areas there were neighborhoods of conservatives buried amongst the wackjob liberal and that zip codes reflect a mixed bag of people who think different thoughts and desire a varied list of things <and have a variety of legitimate issues>.

And then I would imagine if I tinted my colors by % split between Republican & Democrat we would find that it is very rare for some county <which may be coded in the above image as “red”> to be 100% ‘red’, but rather anywhere between 51% red to 80% red.

And how about I would imagine if I figured out some color coding to show the % split between Independent & Republican & Democrat & non voters, well, I imagine we would find that zip code by zip code, maybe even county by county all the colors are a shitload less bright and a helluva lot more lighter.

Yeah. This kind of shit is important.

Doesn’t it matter to anyone thinking about this if I have a 1,000 person county that voted 95% Trump and a 100,000 person county that voted 39% Trump <but he still won the county? <answer: yes, it should>

And then I would imagine that if I even went down into a household zip cluster we would find that there is a mixed bag of people even living in the same neighborhoods let alone a house.

But, no, some hack wanted to make some point and shoveled this shit image round for people to gobble up and spew out platitudes of mandates and elitism voting and working class bullshit.

This map is shit. If only the world were this simple. But it is not. But when hacks use images like this they drive home common perceptions and beliefs:

the internet has made people insulated from other people’s thoughts (yet they live side by side and share playgrounds, bars and high schools?>

there are blue states and red states (yet no state ever votes 100% for any topic and on specific issues, which get pounded into our heads as ‘majority’ issues, the majority in a state may actually vote/believe the opposite?)

Yeah. Sure. There is certainly “Trump country” and there are liberal zones, but when you walk around America you will find that these two distinct ‘description zones’ interconnect & interact more often than some hack is willing to tell you.

I make this particular point today to remind everyone who despairs about the “divided America” that while opinions may be divided, people are more generally not and if we stepped into real lives and real communities talking with what we call the ‘divided people’ TOGETHER is just not that difficult.

Anyway.

Now. I admit. In my past business life I have not been above not only using selective information to make a point nor am I not guilty of creating an image to showcase a vivid metaphor for the point.

However.

It doesn’t take you long in business to recognize that decisions are made based off of some simplistic net conclusions. And if you are not careful you could, well, present an image like the one I opened this piece with and make some really important overarching conclusions and, ultimately, some fairly important decisions are made.

Here is what I know about that.

In the business world people get fired for presenting shit like this and misleading people to make some misguided decisions. I know for sure I would get fired if I tried this crap.

Regardless.

Disingenuous use of information is what hacks do. They don’t know any better.

Purposeful disingenuous use of information is what assholes do. They know better.

And maybe this is where I get grumpy with people like FoxNews. I think they, as do all major news outlets, have a responsibility to their audience to not only say what people want to hear, but to also nuance it with some perspective so people don’t walk away with a misguided simplistic thought. Their responsibility lies in exactly the same responsibility I, as a business presenter, has — managing the net conclusion <because inevitably I know someone is going to make some decision based off of that>.

And, yeah, the burden of responsibility does vary depending on the entity & person. While I do believe everyone has the responsibility to use information properly, factually not selectively, and portray it in a way that makes your point in a non-disingenuous way, your burden increases or decreases depending upon who is dependent upon your information.

Someone like FoxNews knows they have a diehard conservative viewership, therefore, their burden to enlighten is higher than say someone who has a mixed viewership like an ABC, CBS or NBC.

Worse than maybe Fox? Republican Politicians. They are chosen to be honest representors of truth so that we, the people, can be better informed and more enlightened as to real issues rather than ‘false flag’ issues <which permits us to better evaluate what is being done and what is important and what are the real issues>.

<note: to be clear, I could choose a different topic and make the same point about Democrat politicians and their lack of responsibility on that topic, but, over the past 4 years what Republican politicians have done is morally reprehensible>

Here is what I know.

Hacks play to their audiences’ worst devils and play to existing perceptions & attitudes. It is the cheap way to use good information <and cheapens not only the information but cheapens the truth>.

It is the lazy way to present. And it is admitting no personal responsibility for portraying the real & total truth.

Anyway. As for this stupid map and stupid <but somewhat important> information.

Would I use an image showing voting districts? Sure.

But only internally. If my job was to elect someone and therefore I had to figure out where and how to spend my money, I would use it.

But everyone should be clear that voting districts have been bastardized to maximize their party voting base so much that voting districts are meaningless to anyone outside of those who are looking to get someone elected. They misrepresent general takeaways.

I say that because I think it is not only disingenuous, but also misleading to people by showing shit like this in a mainstream way. People who know better should be better than this. Its crap like this that not only divides people even more but encourages further discussion on elitism versus ‘working people’ when the truth is significantly more nuanced than that.

Using images like this only hurts the discourse and increases the sense of divide between the haves & the have nots, the intellectuals versus the manual labor and the city folk versus regular folk.

Look.

Set the maps aside.

A shitload of ‘elitist’ rich people voted for Trump.

A shitload of ‘creative artsy types’ voted for Trump.

A shitload of smart blue collar hard working people voted for Clinton.

A shitload of smart hard working ‘intellectual’ people <who poorly articulated their thoughts> voted for Clinton.

A shitload of rural/suburban people voted for Trump and a shitload of urban/suburban people voted for Clinton.

The hacks will show you dashboards capturing data and say things like “suburban women overwhelming supported X candidate” and all the while you are looking at a chart that says “60% of”. Yeah. That means 40% of those same people were not part of the ‘overwhelming.’ Yeah. That means you have a 40% chance you are shopping with someone in the same aisle who was not part of the overwhelming.

I have written far too much and far too often on the real issues behind the most recent election in frustration over the simplistic bullshit people throw out as for ‘why Trump won’ and ‘how Trump won.’

If I were to reference one thing I have written for people to think about it would be ‘the death of the malls’ which, to me, reflects the complexity and nuances of what hollowed out non-urban America and created some attitudes which governing officials have ignored <and Trump hasn’t acknowledge either, but a camel dying of thirst will drink any water … even poisoned>.

That said.

It is using information improperly in images like this that actually convince some of us everyday camels we are actually dying of thirst, when we are not <that is a warning to citizens and politicians>.

It is using information improperly like this that actually convinces some of us to make some fairly important misguided decisions <that is a warning to business people>.

I hate crap like this.

Fucking hate it.

In general, the country has issues it needs to be resolved. In general, the people have issues that need to be resolved. In general, we all have a common interest in getting everything resolved or, at minimum, as neighbors & citizens, would like to find a common path to resolutions. The hacks need to stop sharing images that keep us off that path.

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

“Good ideas come with a heavy burden; which is why so few people execute them. Few people can handle it.“

=

Hugh MacLeod

—

There are more good ideas than we know about. Good ideas, or the nugget of a good idea or a derivative <that could become a good idea> are scattered everywhere. You just need to listen closely and you will find a good idea every day <assuming you listen to enough people>.

But.

Hugh is absolutely correct in that few people accept the burden that comes with a good idea.

Good ideas are tough in two ways <okay, more but I will focus on two>.

First may seem contradictory to what I wrote at the beginning, but I am really qualifying what I stated.

There are a lot of good ideas, but the really good ideas are rare.

To clarify, by rare good ideas I mean the really meaningful ones. The ones that make an impact. The ones that make a difference. The ones that make people sit up and pay attention. Ideas are a dime a dozen and listening to them is like mental masturbation. But meaningful ideas make you sit up and think “well, this is the real thing.”

Which leads me to the second thought.

Getting people to sit up and pay attention (or listen).

Well. When people pay attention, and listen attentively, to a good idea they will challenge and debate and skewer <even if it doesn’t deserve skewering>. They do this because “meaningful” means, well, it means something to people – enough that they care about how it may impact them as an individual. 

Look.

The burden of a good idea is never (really) in coming up with it.

This is just a guess, but I bet there are more good ideas sitting in someone’s drawer <or a bunch of people’s drawers> then have ever been done let alone made public. There are more good ideas than we have time to actually do.

The real burden is in vocalizing, defending and figuring out how to implement. And not many people can handle that burden. They don’t, or can’t, because meaningful ideas are not flippant, they take work. They have depth and dimensions and to defend them you need to be able to not only articulate the depths and dimensions, but even defend the some vague outlines of parts (vagueness always exists with meaningful ideas because they tend to be ‘future value’ type ideas and, well, the future is not predictable).

And Hugh suggests few people can handle it.

I tell kids all the time that they are our future, well, only if they actually accept the burden of our future. So often those who are being asked to accept the responsibility of the future complain about those in the past <or they even resent those in the past> with regard to them shirking responsibility. Yeah. There is a lot of finger pointing that goes on with regard to ideas and the future.

Well. I have a bunch of things to say to that, but suffice it to say I will simply say “nuts.”

Nuts to all that crap.

Ideas are of the present and the future. Lingering in the past is simply a way to avoid the burden that comes along with an idea.

If you have an idea … good … share it.

If you have an idea and you want it to actually happen … good … do it.

Good ideas are a burden.

And it is the people who do not recognize that which will consistently fall into the ‘dreamer’ category. Meandering through life coming up with ideas and wondering <and sometimes bitching> about why no one does these ideas they are thinking about and talking about. These are the people who give dreaming a bad name.

And then there are the people who take on the burden. The ones who have ideas and actually scratch and claw and fight through all the negativity and doubters to make it happen. They wrangle not only with people but with words. They are the ones who embrace storytelling as a tool to create  a narrative around their idea (Carse), or embrace metaphors (Lackoff), or simply become lovers of words themselves as symbolic tools (Symbolic Species).

Oh.

Here is where the deal gets tricky.

Not everyone who has an idea and fights for it has a good idea. I will not call them snake oil salesmen, but they certainly do have some of the same characteristics. Some truly have good intent, but even with good intentions they are out trying to sell you a bunch of “Why” and not “What” and a why without a great what is a bunch of nothing.

If you can ever convince that person that their idea sucks <or is just not that good>, but then you steer them towards a good idea … well … you are in the gold.

Because the people who accept the burden are valuable commodities. It takes a special person. And it is foolish of us to simply disregard those who accept the burden and yet have a bad idea as fools or dreamers or, well, not worth paying attention to.

Because they have a skill.

They are strong enough for the burden. And let me tell ya folks … not everyone has the strength to do that. So when we chastise or joke about those people <simply because the idea maybe even be a little nutty rather than ‘not so good’> we shouldn’t. We should be seeking opportunities to utilize those people’s strengths. In other words, transition them from snake oil salesmen to idea narrators.

Regardless. I am 100% confident that there are a gazillion good ideas sitting out there in the homes of people who just do not want the burden of a good idea.

Hugh is correct.

It is a separate post, but a HUGE issue is the fact most people cannot tell the difference between a good idea and shitty idea or even a mediocre <already done> idea.

But. In the end?

Hugh is correct.

Most people cannot handle the burden of a good idea.

====

“Technology may have changed the hardware of your business, but culture is your true operating system.”

Mike Walsh

=====

I believe we typically discuss digital transformation in an inherently flawed way. We speak of it as a business objective and a business infrastructure. I know. I know. That sounds inherently reasonable.

But. Yeah. This is a mistake.

Most often this business objective is all about maximizing what the business sees as ways to optimize specific business strategies, sometimes a mission. In doing so they then build a system and demand everyone to work the system and optimize the system. Once again, sounds reasonable especially if a mission has already been defined and the people have bought into it.

But. Yeah. This is a mistake.

It’s a mistake because nowhere in what I just stated is “optimizing people.”

I’ll get back to that point, but let me finish up on how basic digital transformation discussions are flawed.

Rarely does anyone point out if every business approaches digital transformation as it is typically discussed, it becomes a race to “optimization commoditization” where the value can only be found in one of two places:

• Working the system better (kind of like training so you gain an extra .001 second in the 100 meter dash)
• The edges (continue to overdeliver against customers – which is a losing race because the bar, and costs, continue to rise squeezing profitability more & more – or continue to squeeze production ‘inputs’ like suppliers, supply, etc)

Both of these minimize business potential to the narrowest in possibilities and possible results. In other words, approaching digital transformation in a flawed way makes the ‘differential potential’ minimal – progress & growth but restrained from full potential.

I do not mean to suggest there is no business value in digital transformation just that we approach it incorrectly. I believe the minimalist way, but an important way, to view digital transformation as offering structural value creation opportunity. It has the ability to lift the foundation of the business house so the people within it can “move on up” (to steal a Jefferson’s phrase).

Where I believe most digital transformation experts miss an opportunity (beyond overselling a mis-defined structural value creation potential) is in how one should view digital transformation from a transactional value creation aspect. If you think through the transactional value opportunities, well, maximizing potential value has little to do with technology and the value creation potential resides more in people.

The reality is people represent the highest potential for business and highest differential (both of which optimize & maximize value potential).

Which leads me to –

People (the key to the transactional digital transformation value creation)

Technology should mold to the people, and their skills and potential and quirks, and not the reverse.

The pushback I get is “how can we do that, people come and go and I want to build the business for the future?”

First, I point out technology, or a digital infrastructure, is simply a means to an end. People are the future of any business, not technology.

Second. This question permits me to ask: “have you read Antifragile?” (my second favorite Taleb book after ‘Fooled by Randomness’). Your objective of a business digital infrastructure creates a fragile system. I should note this is similar to Goldratt’s principles that you should develop an infrastructure system flexible enough to adapt to changing context and dynamics in the marketplace.

A digital infrastructure should be flexible enough to adapt to changing people and the dynamics of individuals skills & potential. It should not be a ‘best practice system’ of which most of your people will use in a ‘less than best’ way.

Which leads me to –

Sensemaking and choice making

I can almost guarantee you that no one brings up sense making and choice making when discussing digital transformation which begs the question who will make sense of what digital offers and how will choices & decisions be made?

Far too often digital transformation experts will toss out “culture” and “skilling people” as a head nod to the role people play in the organizational success (and digital transformation), all the while suggesting the system is a ‘plug ‘n play’ construct where people just plug into the system as if people are technology & technology is people. That sounds nuts to me.

What is really nuts is how no one seems to talk about how digital infrastructure can be used to increase better sense making and choice making. Basically, they talk about how people will learn to use the digital infrastructure instead of the infrastructure augmenting people. That seems ass backwards to me.

Maximizing business productivity, progress & profit resides in better sensemaking (ability to make sense of situation) and choice making (effective decisions within good sensemaking).

I mean, how do you use the benefits of a digital infrastructure if you cannot identify the right problem/opportunity (sensemaking)?

Oh. Digital infrastructure/transformation is going to do the sensemaking? (insert me laughing so hard my sides hurt).

If one cannot make sense of what is, or is not, happening then choice making is useless.

Oh. “Data” provided by the digital infrastructure will make the choices obvious? (insert me laughing so hard my sides hurt).

Data only informs, it doesn’t decide. Yeah. Some of those digital transformation people may say that, but it is most often said under their breath after showing a bunch of fancy dashboards showcasing how data can make the choice paths obvious.

It seems crazy to me to have to say this, but, digital infrastructure informs decision-making/choice making, data informs decision-making/choice making, AI informs decision-making/choice making and all simply inform context needed to make sense of what is happening (sensemaking). None make decisions. All offer possibilities with probabilities associated (assuming someone can assess the possibilities and apply some probabilistic thinking).

Most importantly, in the end all will inform people. People will make sense of what they are informed by and inevitably make the most consequential decisions and choices. It seems like digital transformation people should be thinking about how people think. Maybe help them become digital/data/sensemaking literate (not experts, just literate).

But. That’s me. I think how digital transformation is discussed is inherently flawed.

Mike Walsh, The Algorithmic Leader

====

“Technology may have changed the hardware of your business, but culture is your true operating system.”

Mike Walsh

=====

I believe we typically discuss digital transformation in an inherently flawed way. We speak of it as a business objective and a business infrastructure. I know. I know. That sounds inherently reasonable. But. Yeah. This is a mistake.

Most often this business objective is all about maximizing what the business sees as ways to optimize specific business strategies, sometimes a mission. In doing so they then build a system and demand everyone to work the system and optimize the system. Once again, sounds reasonable, especially if a mission has already been defined and the people have bought into it. But. Yeah. This is a mistake.

It’s a mistake because nowhere in what I just stated is “optimizing people” (either in terms of the skills they already offer or potential they offer).

I’ll get back to that point but let me finish up on how basic digital transformation discussions are flawed.

Rarely does anyone point out, if every business approaches digital transformation as it is typically discussed, it becomes a race to “optimization commoditization” where the value can only be found in one of two places:

• Working the system better (kind of like training so you gain an extra .001 second in the 100 meter dash – this is actually a derivative of “differentiation through excellent execution” which is unsustainable as a differentiation point)
• The edges (continue to overdeliver against customers – which is a losing race because the expectations bar, and costs, continue to rise squeezing profitability more & more – or continue to squeeze production ‘inputs’ like suppliers, supply, etc)

Both of these minimize business potential to the narrowest in possibilities and possible results. In other words, approaching digital transformation in a flawed way makes the ‘differential potential’ minimal – progress & growth but restrained from full potential.

I do not mean to suggest there is no business value in digital transformation just that we approach it incorrectly. I believe the minimalist way, but an important way, to view digital transformation as offering structural value creation opportunity. It has the ability to lift the foundation of the business house so the people within it can “move on up” (to steal a Jeffersons phrase) within the same structure.

Where I believe most digital transformation experts miss an opportunity (beyond overselling a mis-defined structural value creation potential) is in how one should view digital transformation from a transactional value creation aspect. If you think through the transactional value opportunities, well, maximizing potential value has little to do with technology and the value potential resides more in people.

The reality is people represent the highest potential for business and highest differential (both of which optimize & maximize value potential).

Which leads me to –

People (the key to the transactional digital transformation value creation)

Technology should mold to the people, and their skills and potential and quirks, and not the reverse.

The pushback I get is “how can we do that, people come and go and I want to build the business for the future?”

First, I point out technology, or a digital infrastructure, is simply a means to an end. People are the future of any business, not technology.

Second. This question permits me to ask: “have you read Antifragile?” (my second favorite Taleb book after ‘Fooled by Randomness’). Your objective of a business digital infrastructure creates a fragile system. I should note this is similar to Goldratt’s principles that you should develop an infrastructure system flexible enough to adapt to changing context and dynamics in the marketplace.

A digital infrastructure should be flexible enough to adapt to changing people and the dynamics of individuals skills & potential. It should not be a ‘best practice system’ of which most of your people will use in a ‘less than best’ way.

Which leads me to –

Sensemaking and choice making

I can almost guarantee you that no one brings up sense making and choice making when discussing digital transformation which begs the question who will make sense of what digital offers and how will choices & decisions be made?

Far too often digital transformation experts will toss out “culture” and “skilling people” as a head nod to the role people play in the organizational success (and digital transformation), all the while suggesting the system is a “plug ‘n play” construct where people just plug into the system as if people are technology & technology is people. That sounds nuts to me.

What is really nuts is how no one seems to talk about how digital infrastructure can be used to increase better sense making and choice making. Basically, they talk about how people will learn to use the digital infrastructure instead of the infrastructure augmenting people. That seems ass backwards to me.

Maximizing business productivity, progress & profit resides in better sensemaking (ability to make sense of situation) and choice making (effective decisions within good sensemaking).

I mean, how do you use the benefits of a digital infrastructure if you cannot identify the right problem/opportunity (sensemaking)?

Oh. Digital infrastructure/transformation is going to do the sensemaking? (insert me laughing so hard my sides hurt).

If one cannot make sense of what is, or is not, happening then choice making is useless.

Oh. “Data” provided by the digital infrastructure will make the choices obvious? (insert me laughing so hard my sides hurt).

Data only informs, it doesn’t decide. Yeah. Some of those digital transformation people may say that, but it is most often said under their breath after showing a bunch of fancy dashboards showcasing how data can make the choice paths obvious.

It seems crazy to me to have to say this, but, digital infrastructure informs decision-making/choice making, data informs decision-making/choice making, AI informs decision-making/choice making and all simply inform context needed to make sense of what is happening (sensemaking). None make decisions. All offer possibilities with probabilities associated (assuming someone can assess the possibilities and apply some probabilistic thinking).

Most importantly, in the end, all will inform people. People will make sense of what they are informed by and inevitably make the most consequential decisions and choices. It seems like digital transformation people should be thinking about how people think. Maybe help them become digital/data/sensemaking literate (not experts, just literate).

But. That’s me. I think the purpose of business, and what you do to your business, is to benefit people. Yeah. And I think how digital transformation is discussed is inherently flawed.

——-

“Finite speech ends with a silence of closure. Infinite speech begins with a disclosure of silence.”

James Carse

=====

“For some moments in life, there are no words.”

Willy Wonka

====

No words. Sometimes silence is not a personal choice, it is decided for you by the moment.

Ponder that a minute.

Moments have demands and some of them demand silence. They show up and, well, there are no words for them.

Now. I love finding the right words at the right time. It is a really special feeling, almost delight, to say something and you know a light bulb went on or the listener smiles or you can possibly bring a tear of happiness alive.  Those are special moments. But. I think I would trade them all for the moments where words fail me. Not the moments I couldn’t think of the right thing to say, but rather the moments that render you speechless.

I will note that a moment that renders you speechless, there are no words, and, yet, there is always something that could fill in the gap.

Listen.

Look.

Hug.

Smile.

Cry.

No words and yet they speak.

Anyway. We seem to talk a lot these days. A lot. And while there are gobs of articles and research discussing how all of these words distort our attention, make us numb to what matters and cognitively bludgeon us, I think it would be healthy for all of us to sit back and think about when we were speechless. When in a moment we had no words. Or maybe we saw someone caught with no words because of a moment. Why? Because I am damn sure 99% of those moments would remind us that we can pay attention to things that matter, we are not numb to things that matter and we can engage cognitively on important things.

Yeah.

Sometimes the moments for which there are no words are the important ones. I would argue that reality actually does offer us a lot of important moments like these but, inherent in their importance, they are a sliver of moments not an overwhelming majority. Which, I imagine, both makes them even more powerful and even more easy to forget about or overlook.

Beyond simply seeing these moments for their value I would also suggest that it is actually the silence itself which is the reminder ‘no words moments’ have value.

As a business person, I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that silence given, or received, is a powerful communication tool.

“The real art of conversation is not only to say the right thing at the right time, but also to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment.”

We really need to remind ourselves of that because, as I noted in the earlier, we talk a lot – online and in person. The funny thing is I believe all of us know, especially when we are younger, that there is a time to ‘not talk.’

Then. School makes “filling space with words” a competitive arena and starts making us believe it is a way of life. And in the business world this competition for words and ‘speaking your ideas to get credit’ goes to an entirely new level … it’s on steroids. And, of course, the internet, the social world, is a mind numbing battle of words (not ideas).

That said. It takes courage to not speak, yet, silence is power.

“Silence is so accurate. “

Mark Rothko

Regardless of business, or Life, to me silence defines accuracy and accuracy is power.  When, well, sometimes there are no words, within the space of silence lies get opened up and bleed to death and truth is able to step to the forefront. Truth is power.

In fact, in the silent space it permits a listener to think.

In fact, in the silent space silence it permits the speaker to think.

Thoughts fill the space in which there no words.

In fact, in the silent space the moments which have no words are permitted to be valued.

All that said.

For some moments there are no words. Those moment are important, so important, words would devalue them. So maybe, just maybe, we should enjoy the silence, value the silence, see the moment bare of words, rather than try and find some words.

Just ponder.

========

“And so shines a good deed in a weary world…”

—

Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory

========

“We live in a world where finding fault in others seems to be the favorite blood sport. It has long been the basis of political campaign strategy. It is the theme of much television programming across the world. It sells newspapers. Whenever we meet anyone, our first, almost unconscious reaction may be to look for imperfections.”

—

Henry B. Eyring

=========

We, as a society, are brutally negative.

We find fault and find any number of ways to find proof that bad things happen, people do bad things and people seem to only rise to the occasion in bad times and bad moments.   In fact, it almost seems like we go looking for the imperfections and the bad every time we have an opportunity.

But whether we recognize it or not, good deeds happen all the time, even in a weary world, if we were to only shine a little light upon them.

That said. Let me share some numbers to make my point.

2997.

34599.

2861.

11,209.

88,001,

What do they all have in common? They are one more than what actually happened.

One more death on 9/11.

One more suicide annually.

One more death in a fire in a year.

One more homicide annually.

One more alcohol related death in a year.

What I am suggesting, in a weary world, maybe we should think a moment about what did not happen — the additional “1” that never occurred and why.

The September 11 attacks killed 2,996 people and injured more than 6,000 others. Because of someone’s good deed that day, and maybe even many little deeds never recognized most likely, there were not 2,997.

Each year, about 47,173 people die by suicide, an average of 129 completed suicides every day. Every year, 864,950 people attempt suicide, which means 1 person attempts suicide every 38 seconds <Emory Hospital>. There is 1 suicide for every 20 attempted suicides. Males make up 79% of all suicides, while women are more prone to having suicidal thoughts. Because of one moment, one person, one deed, there was not 47,174.

In 2019 there were about 481,500 structure fires causing 2,980 civilian deaths. Because of a good deed, most likely on the part of some firefighter, there were not 2,981. (NFPA’s 2019 Survey of Fire Departments for US Fire Experience)

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 16,425 homicides. Because of a good deed, most likely on the part of some police officer, there was not 11,209. (Statista)

88,000 deaths (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women) are annually attributed to excessive alcohol use. Because of a good decision to talk instead of drink, one good deed, there was not an 88,001th alcohol related death.

In each case someone somewhere chose to do something which made a difference. Someone somewhere decided to accept the responsibility to do a deed.

Which brings me to responsibility or ‘personal responsibility” because that is what ‘so shines a good deed in a weary world’ is truly about.

I will note that no marketer/company uses the phrase in communications. No politician uses this phrase. It is typically the kiss of death because people just do not want to hear it.

The truth is that nowadays, more often than not, personal responsibility gets transferred to someone else with some other title which implies they have the responsibility <a firefighter, a police officer, a politician, a government employee, a social worker, a doctor, etc.>. Well. Here is the truth. Personal responsibility cannot be transferred — even to someone significantly more qualified than you.

Uh oh.

But others are more capable then we are!

 

Aren’t others being paid to do these things?

Yeah.

We pay taxes. And it is painful to do so, but we ease that pain by assuming someone assumes the responsibilities we do not want. And we even pay people to do many of the deeds I am discussing.

But the deeds I have outlined today are the responsibility of all of us. Not just some fewer qualified more capable people.

The “1 that doesn’t happen” I pointed out is an ongoing “we” thing.

The “1 that doesn’t happen” represents that despite a weary world someone, somewhere, does a good deed.

We assume the personal responsibility not in terms of self-interest, but rather because most good deeds are just deeds that should be done. The deeds come in all shapes and sizes including deeds that maybe simply put a smile on someone’s face and sometimes even just a smile saves a life.

Deeds that maybe simply are a moment in which someone stops because common sense suggests they should turn something off or put something in its place … and in doing so saves a life.

Deeds are enablers. Enablers for … well … stopping bad in its place and says ‘no more for now and in this moment.’

These are deeds all of us can do.

These deeds are not just for those paid to do them or others we deem more capable to do them. We are enablers of good deeds. All of us. Shit. All of us are certainly capable of a good deed.

We just need to assume some personal responsibility for good deeds.

Is there a reward? Sure. It is that whole “shine in a weary world” thing.

And we do it not because it is our job nor do we do it out of any real conscious effort. We do it, well ,maybe because of something like this:

“He simply couldn’t bear the idea of one less smile in the world.”

<gene wilder’s nephew on why Wilder told no one about his illness>

One less than what could have been. One less death and one less loss.

That is the reward for a good deed in a weary world.

—

“In a so-called information society, minds are not only the most important economic asset — companies with minds make money; companies with money and no minds lose the money — it’s the same thing in everything. The networks are not programmed by technology; technological tools are programmed by minds. So the human consciousness [is the source], because everything now depends on our ability to generate knowledge and process information in every domain and activity. Knowledge and information are cognitive qualities from the human mind. Yes, human minds usually are connected to bodies, which means that you have to take into consideration the overall system of human existence, social services support, etc. But fundamentally, the human mind has always been, but more than ever now, the source of wealth, power, and control over everything.”

Manuel Castells Interview: Conversations with History; Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley

—-

I get annoyed by telling people to get out of comfort zones and I get even more annoyed when someone says it with regard to conceptual thinking.

First. I bet 80%, maybe 90%, of everything you would like an employee to improve upon & learn is within their comfort zone. Let’s stop telling people they have to be uncomfortable. They can be comfortable AND learn shit.

Second. Almost all concepts have one foot in the present and one foot in the future (or within an emerging opportunity). That’s the strength of a concept. It leverages existing resources and institutional wisdom to gain velocity within newly existing opportunities (the best concepts are actually a version of Loewy’s ‘optimal newness’).

Regardless.

Institutions, themselves, have a version of a comfort zone. It is what I call “Institutional Debt” (this is the organizational version of what software industry calls “technical debt” where suboptimal software is created by less-than-well-crafted coding added to software infrastructure not created to optimize the addons).

** note: Tech debt is something accrued when code is written in a suboptimal way. The term originated with programmer Ward Cunningham in a 1992 report

Because of this ‘debt’ Institutions struggle to “see forward.” In other words, one part of their institutional debt is a disproportional blindness to emergent aspects and the other part is a blindered vision on current situation. The organizational has to be organized to constantly augment its situational awareness so that institutional wisdom is not a constraint and incoming wisdom increases the value of the existing parameters. Another part of institutional debt is actually found in the systems themselves and the last institutional debt is how the people OF the institution think about the systems themselves.

As Peter Drucker said, “People in any organization are always attached to the obsolete – the things that should have worked but did not, the things that once were productive and no longer are.”

Conceptual thinking, or iterative strategic thinking, reduces institutional debt.

Institutional debt has obvious problems but the one least discussed is how they create a version of  “wicked problems.”  This is grounded in the truth the more you ignore it, the more it builds up and becomes impossible to ignore. More and more a business which is less focused on emergent opportunities will build debt in outdated ideas, misguided thinking on what’s important and processes which have seen better days (once worked but are having diminishing positive returns).

I believe saying “change is hard” is misguided. Change is actually easy – once you see a reason to change and the benefit of the change.

We fool ourselves into believing change is hard because we confuse it with risk. Much of business change has to do with shedding institutional debt BUT the people actually do not see it as debt – but wisdom.

And this is where Conceptual thinking shines.

There is a massive value in working with other thinkers, who do not think the same you do or you may not even know particularly well, focused on developing concepts against a common vision. To be honest, I cannot figure out of this is an argument for, or against, remote working. What I do know is that people who have a common vision, a common desire and a common view on what progress looks like, will naturally cluster. It is quite possible its easier in physical proximity but that’s a different issue for a different day. All I know is that Conceptual thinking, and actually using concepts to mutual benefit of the business, levels up everyone and everything.

Why do I feel so confident saying that? Conceptual thinking is the anti-matter to Institutional debt matter.

I will end with two quotes:

“Augmentation is fundamentally a matter of organization”

 

“Past wisdom must not be a constraint.”

Institutional debt is fundamentally a matter of organization, therefore, augmenting existing wisdom and thinking is a matter of organization. I hesitate to call this “culture” because I believe it is more attitude and intentions. If an organization clearly states its intentions, and attitudinally believe the organization should be continuously making progress against those intentions, conceptual thinking is the pathway forward for a Conceptual Age Organization seeking to insure it sheds its Institutional debt.

“Whoever supplies memory, shapes concepts, and interprets the past will win the future.”

Professor Dr. Michael Stürmer

=====

“The moment of truth, the sudden emergence of a new insight, is an act of intuition. Such intuitions give the appearance of miraculous flushes, or short-circuits of reasoning. In fact they may be likened to an immersed chain, of which only the beginning and the end are visible above the surface of consciousness. The diver vanishes at one end of the chain and comes up at the other end, guided by invisible links.”

Arthur Koestler

==========

Thinking conceptually almost demands living a little dangerously. I say that because concepts, well-conceived, stretch minds and institutional boundaries – especially if linked to emergent situations. Concepts, by nature, are nonlinear, non-tidy and non-optimal-looking if measured against the status quo.

Conceptual thinking is the antimatter to the natural organizational matter of holding onto things past their use date. Or, as Peter Drucker said ,“People in any organization are always attached to the obsolete – the things that should have worked but did not, the things that once were productive and no longer are.”

Concepts are different than initiatives in that initiatives are based on desired productive objectives and conceptual thinking is based on emergent context and optimizing that context. The truth is that adoption of a series of initiatives simply means you are always behind. As soon as you implement one in the series it is obsolete so that by the time you have completed the series you have simply transformed to an obsolete model. The only way to insure not becoming obsolete is to embrace conceptual thinking.

Why do I say that?

Conceptual thinking is a cognitive process of abstraction wherein one takes the vague outline of patterns to shape an opportunity in the future. Today is simply a building block, or launching pad, not a constraint.

It was Arthur Koestler, in his book The Act of Creation 1964, who identified something called “bisociation of matrices” or how one creatively identifies patterns or connections.

** note: (Koestler) “The pattern underlying [the creative act] is the perceiving of a situation or idea, L, in two self-consistent but habitually incompatible frames of reference, M1 and M2. The event L, in which the two intersect, is made to vibrate simultaneously on two different wavelengths, as it were. While this unusual situation lasts, L is not merely linked to one associative context, but bisociated with two.

I have coined the term ‘bisociation’ in order to make a distinction between the routine skills of thinking on a single ‘plane,’ as it were, and the creative act, which … always operates on more than one plane. The former can be called single-minded, the latter double-minded, transitory state of unstable equilibrium where the balance of both emotion and thought is disturbed.”

Conceptual thinking is grounded in a “bisociation of matrices” or, as Robert Kegan, Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life, 1994) stated ‘the process of development as an effort to resolve the tension between a desire for differentiation and an equally powerful desire to be immersed in one’s surroundings’.

“evolution of consciousness, the personal unfolding of ways of organizing experience that are not simply replaced as we grow but subsumed into more complex systems of mind” (Kegan)

Kegan also introduced an idea called of the “holding environment” which has two key aspects within Conceptual thinking — the Socialized Mind and the Self Authoring Mind:

Order 3: Socialized Mind. Cross-categorical thinking-the ability to relate one durable category to another-is evident in the third order of consciousness. As a result, thinking is more abstract, individuals are aware of their feelings and the internal processes associated with them, and they can make commitments to communities of people and ideas (Kegan, 1994).

The ability to scan about for cross functional, cross categorical, cross institutional, thinking is at the core of sense making.

Order 4: Self-Authoring Mind. Cross-categorical constructing-the ability to generalize across abstractions, which could also be labeled systems thinking-is evident in the fourth order of consciousness (Kegan, 1994). In this order, self-authorship is the focus. Individuals “have the capacity to take responsibility for and ownership of their internal authority” (Kegan & others, 2001, p. 5) and establish their own sets of values and ideologies (Kegan, 1994). Relationships become a part of one’s world rather than the reason for one’s existence.

Successful Conceptual thinking is an individual and community effort to be successful as well as an institutional and ‘cloud brain’ connected effort, in other words, concepts are self-authored AND socialized in a Conceptual Age organization so that the vision, idea and implementation are aligned to the benefit of the concept AND the business.

** Note:

Conceptual thinking is the practice of connecting abstract, disparate ideas to deepen understanding, create new ideas and reflect on past decisions. Conceptual thinkers can understand abstract concepts, like the function of a complicated business or a non-linear digital process

Conceptual thinking is involved in discovering new relationships. Analytical thinking is involved in examining known relationships. Something must be conceived before it can be analyzed. The two are intertwined in creative thinking and both are necessary.

Create Dangerously

Which leads me to what was buried on page 400 of Tom Peters’ book, Thriving on Chaos”, a small section called “Create Dangerously” (an idea offered by Bennis & Nanus in their book “Leaders”). I attach this idea to Goldratt’s “continuous improvement” in that an emergent organization will inevitably create “dangerous concepts” as well as iterative concepts. I put them all under the heading of continuous improvement in that the business is always continuously trying to create something new or build upon what has been done. It is a continuous process of improvement in the work. In an ideal world everything that is done, and creates, would be better than the last thing, developing new skills from what was previous, and avoiding errors committed in the past. The reality is old errors are simply replaced by a whole set of new errors, and the constant urge to try and do something different brings with it a new range of failures. In other words, as someone else has said, ‘experience doesn’t eliminate errors it simply better prepares you to deal with errors’.

Continuous improvement, while a combination of dangerous creation and iterative small creation, is inevitably about organizational attitude. Emergent Conceptual thinking, by definition, should mean constantly creating new worlds for the business to thrive in thereby destroying at least parts of the existing world (either in actual business or in actual ways of doing the business). It is also a belief that creation begets meaning (substantive doing fulfills individual purpose thereby meaning emerges). That said. This is not chaos. it’s about risk, or, let’s say thoughtful recklessness.

====

Continuous improvement 101:

Fallacy of small experiments: once completed, already outdated.

Most ‘little’ are not actually scalable (yet everyone always tries to scale a small success)

===

Selective thoughtful recklessness

“Selective thoughtful recklessness.” Yeah. I am not really sure something exactly like that exists but, whether it has a name or not, it is a characteristic of successful conceptual thinkers as well as a characteristic of everyday schmucks like me who want to do the right thing, desire some everlasting fame as in ‘known for doing good shit the right way’ and am willing to work hard for it. This may sound a little crazy, but I do believe if you are dedicated to doing the right thing and doing good shit you have to be comfortable assuming some risk.

“There is the risk you cannot afford to take, and there is the risk you cannot afford to not take. “

Peter Drucker

Now. I get some shit for my ‘comfort with assuming risk’ <I believe security is, if not an illusion, mostly a superstition keeping people scared of shit>, my attitude in general with regard to risk. But. I came up with my own phrase – selective thoughtful recklessness. This combination seems to me to be better than simply being rash or foolhardy in behavior. It is better because I have a full respect for consequences and hold consequences of any decision, risky or not, in high regard.

To be clear. There is never any absence of forethought <which is where I typically find ‘instinct’ fails miserably>. I certainly have extreme care and concern with respect to not only other people’s welfare, but my own. Sure, yes, there may be a bit of daredevil in the attitude, but without the flair and debonair style associated with a daredevil.

What is there is a certain defiance to odds once a decision has been made and a complete “In for a penny, in for a pound” attitude.

** note: Cambridge Dictionary <in for a penny, in for a pound>: something you say that means that since you have started something or are involved in it, you should complete the work although it has become more difficult or complicated than you had expected .

This is not courage or courageous, it’s an attitude, it is a choice that simply requires some mental resilience. You feel doubt, resistances to choice and even outright disagreement but someone who embraces the selective thoughtful recklessness remains mentally resilient towards anything that attempts to stop you from doing what you believe, and maybe even know, is right.

And maybe that is where the thoughtful daredevilishness steps in with conceptual thinking.

In order to find glory <in this case I believe glory is ‘doing what is right’ and not some fame or accolades> you have to first & foremost reframe the story of what is and what is possible. I am not suggesting some alternative universe nor am I suggesting fooling yourself into believing something truly impossible is possible. This is more along the lines of the traditional disruptor definition — seeing the conventional in unconventional ways. By reframing the story, the boundaries & limits in the original concept become new & different boundaries & limits. Rarely do they align with the old ones and it is within these differences that the ‘thoughtful reckless’ wander. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that I just reframed Koestler’s thinking, and conceptual thinking, in an incredibly simplistic way.

Conversations and Concepts

Which leads me to one of the best unsourced quotes for business: “a conversation is the smallest unit of change.”

Conceptual thinking organizations demand conversations. Concepts are uneasy things created from some uneasy conversations.

Natalie Mendes does a fabulous job of pointing out that if a business’s teams are making bad decisions the culprit is most likely bad conversations.

“By having healthier conversations, you can expect your team to unlock amazing ideas that no one had thought of before, feel the momentum of coming to a shared understanding and decision, and empower everyone to own the work of the team and believe in it for themselves.”

Natalie Mendes

While not oft discussed, conversations are risky even dangerous. They are risky to an individual (their ideas get criticized discussed and egos can be bruised) and dangerous (poorly articulated, flawed logic, great ideas can die quickly).  But concepts, and conceptual thinking, demand conversations. I could argue converstaions are actually the second most important factor to the success of a Conceptual Age organization (the first being an indivudal open to learning and thinking conceptually with constant flow of Information Based Software input).

Conversations address two basic components of successful conceptual thinking:

• Augmentation is fundamentally a matter of organization
• Past wisdom must not be a constraint.
• Situational awareness

Why are these important? Because all push back on what I call “institutional debt” (this is the organizational version of what software industry calls “technical debt” where sub-optimal software is created by less-than-well crafted coding is added to software infrastructure not created to optimize the add-ons. Institutions struggle to “see forward.” In other words, one part of their institutional debt is a disproportional blindness to emergent aspects to blinkered vision on current situation. The organizational has to be organized to constantly augment its situational awareness so that institutional wisdom is not a constraint and incoming wisdom increases the value of the existing parameters.

In the end. The essence of business is risk. The essence of effective concepts always contains some risk. The day business ceases to take risks is the day it ceases to be a business and ceases to develop effective concepts.

Quests and Creating Dangerously

 Back to Chaos. Just a reminder that chaos, in business, is freedom within a construct. Uncertainty is simply doing with lack of clarity (in which you do the best you can on the task at hand hoping it stays within some construct). However, it goes beyond hoping by embedding vision. While more often than not we envision visions as static unmoving beautifully constructed edifices we should most likely think of them as useful heuristics in a Conceptual Organization. Not only is the vision, in some way, embedded within every concept it is also embedded within each decision. This ensures coherency between the ideas, the people, the decisions and the ‘doing.’ All in all, when linked in this way, the business itself remains true to the vision while often looking inconsistent in actual action. Everything simply is an iterative extension of a growing enterprise with intentions.

I love a good vision but most businesses suck at creating a vision. They either make it so general it loses any meaning or so specific it cages the ‘meaning potential’ of the business. The truth is that a great vision does have some vague outline, which is horizon inspirational, and yet offers the substance to be a lighthouse in the storms all businesses inevitably have to endure. This is why I often seek out the intentions of a business. If everyone in the organization understands the intentions, works with intent to meet those intentions, the actual decision can be right or wrong but the overall progress will never be wrong. Intentions insure everyone in the organization is aligned in the pursuit of the vision quest.

This business model, implemented well, conceptually creates the conditions of an environment that encourages certain behavior (collaboration, ‘create dangerously’ attitude, uneven improvement, etc.) and discourages competitive behavior (which tends to be a zero-sum game condition). As information gets disseminated the autonomous coalesces into shared interest communities, groups or teams. It becomes a self-sustaining collection of ideas in which anyone can grab the idea and run with it. The terrain in which the business competes is irrelevant because the organization, and systems, are malleable to whatever environment it enters, or, the system recognizes incompatible environments and avoids them. The intentions of the organization keep everyone pointed in the right direction(s) and the vision is embedded in all concepts, thinking and behavior so, in the end, the vision emerges as opportunities emerge.

Now. This does not mean a Conceptual Organization will not be messy. It will. At least on occasion it will. Concepts should destroy existing barriers (internally and externally). This constant reapplication of resources and growth/progress is messy. But. This organic messiness is different than Ackoff’s “messiness” which has to do with complexity and complications of systems. And, yes, systems messes will occur depending on the speed, velocity and scale of any emergence (albeit I will suggest with intentions and vision embedded the ‘messes’ are less messy).

—

“Faced with a maze of causal influences, unable to trace all their interactions, the most we can do is focus on those that seem most revealing for our purpose and recognize the distortion implicit in that choice.”

Alvin Toffler

—–

What a Conceptual Organization DOES have to worry about is the natural inclination of most business people is to tidy up any messiness. The typical way to do so is to build in checks & balances. Or in the ‘industrial age’ organization they added in layers. Paradoxically, by responding in this way the business actually increases messiness (although, conceptually, it appears neater and orderly)  and, worse, increases complications. I am not suggesting a bossless organization, but I am stating conceptual thinking needs freedom, not more management.

Beautiful Imperfection

Anyway.

I think most people will agree that business as a smooth-running machine is a myth (unless you are a train or fully automated) and attempting to make a business a smooth-running machine a fool’s errand. Emergence is imperfect usually addressed in an imperfect way by imperfect humans. I would argue that a Conceptual Age Organization, run well, will be imperfectly great.

I would be remiss if I did not remind everyone that employees are greatest advocates for what they believe in and the holy grail of the ‘future of work’ is having employees (people) believe in themselves and believe they offer value every day. What I believe is a Conceptual Age Organization does that in a thinking dimension (the concepts themselves) and doing dimension (implementing the concepts to the success of the business). It may look like chaos and creating dangerously can feel risky and the vision may feel a little vague on occasion, but a group of people thinking conceptually, acting in a coherent fashion, grounded in similar intent, and intentions, will certainly be a happier organization and while I am not a “work should be happy” person I don’t think it is a great leap to suggest a happier organization is a healthier organization.

Conceptual thinking is an imperfect science, but a dynamic marketplace is also imperfect. This may sound a little dangerous, but business, in general, is a dangerous world where one of the most dangerous things to do is, well, nothing – no choices, no risk, no adventure.

In the end.

I opened with Koestler and will close with Vladimir Nabokov: “Genius is finding the invisible link between things.” Everything has to do with everything else.  Your business, and Life and, yes, Concepts are made up of a succession of events that link with each other — whether we want them to or not. You must see the invisible to control your destiny. And this is where AI, or an Information Based Software (IBS), helps. It can bring the invisible into the visible world to imperfect people thinking dangerously to the benefit of the business. In other words, those who can shape the concepts, thinking and in articulation, will win the future.

=========

“Security is mostly a superstition.

It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it.  Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure.

Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing. “

—

Helen Keller

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

“Maybe you don’t go to hell for the things you do. Maybe you go to hell for the things you don’t do. The things you don’t finish. “

—

Chuck Palahniuk

====

Playing it safe.

Those three words send a shiver down my spine.

Safe is an illusion.

Okay.

Maybe, maybe at best, safe is temporary.

I am certainly not suggesting throwing all caution to the wind 100% of the time. All I am suggesting is that far too often people misconstrue safe as, well, safe.

In Life safe can take on a variety of dangerously risky forms. Simplistically the risky forms are all grounded in “hiding” from something.

Hiding from change.

Hiding from danger.

Hiding from someone.

Hiding from fears.

Hiding from problems.

You have convinced yourself you are safe because you have found some safe haven where in your mind you are protected by some moat, wall or, well, you have convinced yourself you are invisible to whatever you are hiding from.

Yeah.

Well.

Maybe for a little while.

And that little while almost always creates some form of complacency. This is where safe becomes dangerous. All the while whatever you are hiding from is persistently pursuing you. and it will find you not by outsmarting you, but rather through its perseverance.

In Life safe is maybe not an illusion, but it is certainly time constrained.

As for business?

I have probably written far too often about how the business world is being undermined by its discomfort with risk, even calculated risk, and its embrace of ‘safe.’ Simplistically it seems like the business world has shoved the entire responsibility and burden of risk into the entrepreneurial and start up world.

“Let them take the risks.”

Conversely this seems to have absolved all existing businesses, small, medium & large, from taking any risk. Therefore, the business ends up living in a constant state of playing it safe, not rocking the boat or convincing themselves that the minor changes they are considering are bigger than they really are.

“Safe” in business insures only one thing … death.

It is inevitable if all you do is play it safe.

Nothing, and I mean nothing, in business is secure or safe. Nothing.

No idea.

No patent.

No ‘uniqueness.’

No point of difference.

None of those things guarantee safety if all you do is play it safe.

Does this mean a business should run scared or even driven by paranoia?

Shit no.

You either embrace the fact you are never safe and simply act as if safe & security are but momentary aspects of a business and behave accordingly, or, you permit paranoia to drive you to some absurd extremes in trying to protect your security <knowing that inevitably it will no longer be safe>.

With the former you simply believe as long as you keep moving you are ‘safer’ <not safe> and standing still makes you more vulnerable <or less safe>. This concept is basically “if I am moving I am harder to hit.” I would be remiss if I didn’t point out here that movement is not always progress and not all moving is good, but, that said, 100% movement is always better than 100% hunkering down. Period.

Anyway.

Go on pinterest, Instagram or any image driven website and you will see zillions upon zillions of quotes, sayings and words espousing life as an adventure and living Life to its fullest.

Great advice.

But advice the majority of people and businesses fail to follow.

Frankly, most people do not want their Life to be an adventure.

Frankly, I cannot think of one business which would like to think of itself as ‘an adventure.’

And, yet, by not doing so, by seeking security and safe, it is actually more dangerous than doing it all as if it were an adventure.

If you believe safe & secure is inevitably just an illusion than I imagine I am simply pointing out you need to pick your poison. Either path, adventure or playing it safe, runs the risk & danger of death. And if that is so then you have a choice to proactively face it or hide from it as long as you can.

That is your choice.

As for me? My choice is adventure and movement. I am not suggesting it is an easier path, in Life or business, but I like the fact I have some illusion of control & controlling at least some aspect of destiny rather than living with the illusion of safety & security.

Choose your illusion and do so wisely. For the end is the same. But choose nonetheless.

“The best is the enemy of good.”

—-

Voltaire

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

“My body is a parlor trick called survival.”

—

Jayy Dodd

==========

This is about comfort zones and being your best.

I think we discuss comfort zones, incorrectly, in 2 ways:

• It’s not stepping out, its pushing out
• It’s not fear of new, its fear of losing

Pushing out.

“Step out of your comfort zone” is the common wisdom. It’s not wise. It’s stupid. Comfort zones, for the most part, are a reflection of what we are good at. Maybe not great but the stuff that enables us to insure we aren’t village idiots. The size of your comfort zone is mostly a reflection of your risk taking attitude. That said. If you ‘step out’, you’ve (a) lost any possible advantage you may have to actually be successful outside and (b) even if successful and happy it is, well, outside your comfort zone and 90% of people are most successful day in and day out IN their comfort zone.

We should seek to ‘push out’ our comfort zone. It’s kind of like boundaries of learning and how that works except this is about what you are comfortable with not how you learn something new. Just accept that trying new things isn’t well rounded or neat & tidy, its uneven attempts in which you selectively attach yourself to something and try it. You push out in one area of your zone to stretch.

Fear of losing.

In a zero sum game attitude world your comfort zone is driven by a specific type of fear – “if I give up too much I will regress, not just lose or get no reward.’

Let’s address the elephant in the room … we all, all of us, believe we deserve some things. Yeah. Deserve. Part of that ‘deserve’ is keeping what we have.as we accumulate things, salary, wealth, ownership, pride, experience, etc., we start believing it is ours – we have earned it therefore it is our to keep. This gets even trickier for most of us because we tend to not let go of anything that has given us pleasure in the past <even if it is no longer pleasurable to us now>. Anyway. We tend to build our comfort zone around those accumulated things.

There are 2 slightly insidious aspects to this.

First is a belief you will always accumulate more simply because you have something. It’s a different version of hedonistic adaptation in that it’s not that because you have something you inevitably want more but rather because you have earned something you will inevitably get more.

Second is, in this particular discussion, your comfort zone doesn’t guarantee mediocrity or sameness it simply suggests you never attain the best version of who you could be. In fact. I would argue in this version of comfort zone you are more likely to touch upon your worst version than your best.

That’s what zero sum does. Instinctually in the daily grind of Life you will act in ways to insure what is in your comfort zone at the beginning will be in the comfort zone in the end. You may not view this is ‘worst version of self’ but it is clearly not going to arc your behavior toward the best version of yourself.

I won’t suggest changing your attitude (although you should) but rather suggest seeking your best version doesn’t mean stepping out of your comfort zone but rather pushing it out … making it bigger.

Zones have a tendency to dull us. Dull us from possible magic. I purposefully called it magic because it does have a sense of good as well as intangible trickery. Once senses are sharpened they cannot be dulled and in a world which has a nasty tendency to dull our senses … well … that may be the best argument for embracing the idea that magic does exist in the world and that is worth the effort to try and find it.

Lastly.

The least discussed aspect in all of our trite comfort-‘zonism’ is survival. Let me point out that not all uncomfortable is created equal and not all exploration is meaningful and regardless of comfort & exploration, situations are often situations of survival. And if that sounds dramatic I meant it to. Comfort zones are the places in which we believe we are most likely to survive the onslaught of Life. It’s our place to crouch and react when shit hits the fan. A comfort zone more often than not, isn’t about living life to its fullest it’s about not dying.

And that permits me to go back to platitudes. I am sure everyone has either heard of or read “Good to Great.” Well. Voltaire only beat that book by about 200 years and he thought up that shit all while trying not to die in a duel or get his head chopped off.

Two points with his quote.

First is my personal soapbox. Just because something is old doesn’t mean it isn’t smart. I didn’t need an entire book to tell me about good to great. Voltaire said it in one line.

Second is the truth behind the thought. You can settle for good or you can do something better. I don’t need a book for that either. But what the books don’t tell you is everything you do is grounded in survival. Do, or don’t do, based on an assessment f whether I survive or what I have survives or what is important to me survives. If that sounds defensive, it should. If that sounds lie it is grounded in what someone could call your ‘comfort zone’, it is.

Comfort zones, in general, are your body’s parlor trick. Your parlor trick for survival. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t seek to do some uncomfortable things but it does mean you probably shouldn’t be stepping out of you zone but rather pushing it out selectively.

Stepping out increases odds of dying. Pushing out increases odds of surviving. Simple as that.