a glimpse of having nothing

Business Thoughts, Favorite Quotes, Rants and Observations

unstimulating relationships & your work life

===========

“I see a lot of people in unstimulating relationships. If people were a little less scared of ending things they’d get more out of life. You meet the right person at the right time and they fulfill a certain something in your life. You fulfill something in theirs.

But there’s a time limit to that. “

Laura Marling

=====

“When inspiration does not come to me, I go halfway to meet it.”

Sigmund Freud

=====

So. Unstimulating relationships. This is actually about business and about ‘time limits.’

limitations difference knowing As a business manager you end up grasping a couple of truths about your employees and their relationship with what they do, their work, their careers and the company.

The first truth is that many of the employees are just doing their job. They are in a relatively unstimulating relationship with their job & career and they are kind of okay with that.

As a manager you genuinely try and make the relationship a little more simulating for them and, if you are truly genuine, while the these employees may never get as passionate or interested as you would like they appreciate you caring enough to try and, on occasion, will try harder for you and the company. This doesn’t mean they don’t care about their work and, in fact, if you highlight the contribution and impact their efforts make, they will care, just not find work particularly stimulating. I mention this as a first truth to acknowledge, which some organizational development people do not, that to some people a job is a job – no more and no less.

The second truth is that there are some employees who are actively seeking stimulated relationship with their jobs, careers and the company. If they are in an unstimulating relationship, suffice it to say, they will make you miserable out of their own miserableness.

As a manager you genuinely try and keep these employees stimulated. If you do it well, these people kill it. They are absolute monster achieving workers/thinkers/doers in the work place. Get it wrong with these employees and … well … most leave to find some stimulating relationship.

Understanding these two truths is surprisingly like getting a pail of cold water thrown in your face.

Well. At least it was for me.

I am not sure it was the same for others, but this may have been one of the most difficult things for me to understand, and deal with, when I moved from managing a group <where you get to hire everyone and try to have them match your attitude> to managing a company, multiple groups, departments and a bunch of people you do not hire yourself. going through the motions good work unsatisfied

I, personally, struggled to understand how anyone could come into work each day, be relatively unstimulated and not only do good work, but actually want to come in and do good work every day.

But a lot of people do just that.

It took me awhile.

But I got it. At the same time I also understood that you never really let the unstimulated group of employees remain completely unstimulated.

You kind of never really let them completely start doing their work by rote or like robots. Mostly you just try to give them some positive stimulation on occasion like, as I noted earlier, encourage them to see how they contribute and their impact <this is different than incentivizing or trying to ‘game’ their behavior>.

Anyway.

The reality is that being an employee is a dance. You have a dance partner and sometimes there is a song you hate and do not dance, sometimes there is a song you hate and you are asked <or told> to dance and sometimes there is a good song and you will dance no matter what.

That is a fairly metaphoric example of a stimulating workplace.

But I will point out something I purposefully did. I suggested the bad song is playing in two of the three scenarios.

Yeah.

And that is still a stimulating relationship.

Go figure.

For some reason we seem to think people need to love their jobs all the time <or the significant majority of the time> or inject passion into what we do.

That is, frankly, a little nuts.

Mostly we should be seeking to have employees be proud of what they do <even if they don’t actually love what they do> and, as a manager, be wise enough to know what to overlook.

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

“The art of being wise is the art of knowing what to overlook.”

William James

===========

after a tough day of work drink Work is called work, and not ‘play, for a reason.

It’s work.

And sometimes work takes some … well … work.

I could actually argue that the ‘working at work’ can be stimulating if you view it correctly.

But that really doesn’t sound logical enough to invest energy in.

And maybe that is the key to understanding this whole ‘unstimulating relationship” thing – logic.

I can truthfully say that behind closed doors senior managers talk far too much about “logical” ways to stimulate employees and tap into some mysterious passion muscle we absurdly believe every employee has within <to be focused on our business and their work within our business>.

Once again … that is kind of nuts.

To be clear. I do believe everyone has a passion muscle within, but to think it can randomly be directed toward ‘work’ <which, I will remind everyone, is called ‘work’ because it is work … and not play or relaxation or ‘fun’> is the nuts part.

Logically we should just accept the fact that many employees have mentally we are just going through the motions unsatisfied come to grips with a job in which they are not in an overly stimulated relationship with.

That doesn’t mean they don’t want to do a good job nor does it mean they will not care it just means that their job is more a paycheck and not a career.

All that said, let me close with where I started … “time limits.”

All employees have limits in an unstimulating relationship – all: the ones who live with being unstimulated and the ones who actively seek stimulation. I am fairly sure most employees don’t create tangible definable limits they more often probably fall into the “I will know when it is time.”

All business managers should recognize that all employees have ‘time limits’ when it comes to anything unstimulating. What that means is you cannot get away with being an uninvolved, uninterested, un-energy creating manager for too long. I don’t mean to imply many managers do that, but I will note that creating stimulation and seeking to energize a stimulating relationship between your employees and your business is hard work.

It isn’t about some motto or slogan.

It isn’t about donuts in the mornings and fun team meetings on Fridays.

It is about finding ways to show employees that their work is respected, their contributions are valued and that there are opportunities to grow as a person <intellectually, skills or responsibilities>. Yeah. I just offered that up as a solution to stimulate relationships and nowhere in that was any activity or initiative. All I outlined was possible destinations – mind, body or leadership.

Nothing stimulates an employee business relationship more than being a business that suggest they will enable an individual to ‘be more than they are today’ if they have the time and interest. In my mind businesses with an unstimulated relationship with their employees may be doing ‘things’ but they are just going through the motions , maybe using too much logic, to create some false stimulation.

Here is the truth. Show people where they can go and tell them you believe in them and a shitload will be stimulated, all on their own, to engage in the relationship with their job and work. Ponder.

December 22, 2021 by Bruce

Favorite Quotes, Life thoughts, Personal & Nonsensical, Rants and Observations

when you have nothing (Life version)

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

“When you ain’t got nothin’, you got nothin’ to lose.”

–

Bob Dylan

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

Well. In business having nothing is an entrepreneurial or ‘save the business’ type of discussion.

In Life? It’s not that cut & dried. Mainly because it is often a survival discussion. I say that especially after searching the web and finding a shitload of vapid “keep your chin up” type writing <and some horrendous writing at that>.

I am all for keeping a positive view or maintaining hope for things to be better and all that stuff … but let’s get to “ain’t got nothin’.”

I am going to offer two seemingly contradictory thoughts:

– Nothing doesn’t come in one size. It comes in different degrees … maybe I should say that sometimes nothing still contains something. It’s just your point of view.

– Nothing is a black hole. For everyone. When you are in the ‘aint got nothing’ hole it is simply a black hole <shallow or deep it is dark and a hole>.

– Nothing and degrees.

Suffice it to say if you have nothing, and you have never had something, nothing looks very very different than if you have had something and now you have nothing.

This flies in the face of the baloney I found online that suggests everyone starts from nothing <although I have found a number of ‘life coaches’ who suggest this as a starting point for positive thinking>.

Rich people, poor people, successful people, non-successful people, top achievers, non-achievers do not start from the same place where they had nothing. While, factually, each of us builds our own achievements and knowledge, your environment can dictate a bunch of ‘something.’

Anyway. I read this somewhere. Two things define your personality, the way you manage things when you have nothing & the way you behave when you everything. I like that thought. Mainly because I also believe this is based on your perspective … ‘everything’ to a middle class person is very different than ‘everything’ to someone currently in poverty. I say this because so often in my relatively comfortable middle class environment I hear far too many people talking about how people living in poverty squander money when they get it.

Well. If you have never had anything, you have no idea what it feels like to actually have something. Even if that ‘something’ is one steak dinner in the year. It may appear to be a massive misuse of funds available to someone who has something and yet it may be the momentary access to touch ‘hope’ to another group of people.

Regardless. The degrees in nothing is a combination of your environment, situation and attitude.

For example. If you feel attitudinally as if you have lost everything already. That you literally had nothing left to lose. Inevitably you will decide that nothing could be as worse as what you had already gone through.

This is a wiping the slate clean type nothing. But that is just one type of nothing. And on the way to that type of nothing you actually get to watch nothing coming down the road toward you. Painful but at least you see it coming.

So. I am not going to literally outline ever degree of nothingness.

Because all that really matters is if you feel like you have nothing to lose you only feel you only have everything to gain. In other words, there is nowhere to go but up.

By the way, while seemingly flippant that is a very very important thought.

Nowhere to go but up.

Frankly, my idea of bottom is most likely nowhere near what the true bottom is. I may feel like it is, I may feel it as close to a Life truth as one can get, but in my heart of hearts I know there is another degree of nothing below what I believe bottom is.

But. It’s my bottom. That is my ‘nothing’ in my pea like brain.

I do not believe I am that different from many people.

I tend to believe most of us define their own nothing differently than other people.

I say this point because that is why I believe it is so difficult to help someone who is in a nothing stage. Believing you have nothing to lose is most likely exactly what will make you successful. But we are prone to want to hold on to things, but once there is nothing to hold on to we have a tendency to dig deep … and realize that the only thing we can truly hold on to is something deeper and impenetrable inside us.

Let’s call that the survival instinct.

Here’s the tricky thing about survival and nothing. Those truly with nothing are better at surviving than someones who had something and lost it. In the end the people we need to worry about are the ones who have shitty survival instincts.

Yes. They can adapt <painfully I imagine>. But saying ‘do whatever it takes’ is significantly different than DOING ‘do whatever it takes.’

Hence the degrees in nothing.

Ok. My main point in breaking it out this way?

Someone close to the edge of ‘nothing’ needs help. It doesn’t matter what their degree of nothing is. Simplistically they need something more than what they have to survive — survive sometimes physically and sometimes emotionally.

At one point I have neared ‘nothing’ and I have to tell you — the feeling sucks. And you know what? The homeless guy who stands at the corner asking for money would probably laugh in my face if I described how close I was to nothing.

It’s all perspective. But it is all painful <and scary>.

Sometimes it may seem like we have not learned that everything comes at a price. Whatever your bottom in nothing is the price is tenacity and strength and resilience to move past a ‘nothing’ stage in life.

Think about that before you judge someone’s actions with regard to ‘having nothing.’

– Nothing is a black hole.

Many many people suggest that ‘nothing’ is not really a true concept because we all have something … that undying and eternal part of us called our spirit.

In fact I found where some woman named Libba Bray said something like:

“there’s no such thing as nothing. In every nothing, there’s a something. In fact, there could be everything!”

Well. What a bunch of bullshit.

When it is in your head ‘I have nothing’ is as real as the ground you stand on. In fact, nothing is something, it is a black hole that has sucked <or is in the process of sucking> every ounce of hope or dream you have.

“From where you are you can hear their dreams. The dismays and despairs and flight and fall and big seas of their dreams. “

Dylan Thomas

C’mon Bruce … really? Dreams and hope?

Oh, we tend to believe there is so much hope it can never run out. So much hope as that.

Well. If you are one of those who believe that, you have never truly had nothing.

Nothing is … well … nothing. It is the abyss that contains no hope. It has been emptied of dreams and wishes and hope and all that remains is blackness … and the despair that comes with no light <at the end of any tunnel>.

Here’s the good news.

There are not many people in this hole <albeit I would suggest any is too many>.

My point? If you believe you have nothing, sometimes it is difficult to think about something like “I have nothing to lose.” Maybe because in the darkness of nothing you already think you have lost.

Feeling like ‘when you have nothing’ is a really bad feeling. Shit. Even if you start inching toward nothingness it is a bad feeling. It is such a bad feeling it is tough to listen to ‘feel good’ tripe as a way out of the hole.

Just remember that.

When you hear someone suggest they have nothing, before you start pointing out all the ‘something’ in their lives, remember attitudinally they may truly believe they have nothing. So offer them something meaningful <note: easier said than done>.

Ok. Look. Having nothing means you have nothing to lose.

It provides some freedom, but probably not as much freedom as ‘positive life coaches’ would have you believe.

But. It is freedom if you can find it within the dark of the nothingness.

“Nothing, Everything, Anything, Something: If you have nothing, then you have everything, because you have the freedom to do anything, without the fear of losing something.”

Jarod Kintz,

In Life, positive thinking platitudes aside, nothing is scary. It can feel debilitating and in some situations it IS debilitating.

I end with that thought because I simply don’t believe, attitudinally, you can truly do “what would you do if you had nothing to lose.”

You simply cannot envision it unless you have actually brushed against the darkness of nothingness. Even a light touch of nothingness leaves a scar you will never forget. And once you have the scar, trust me, you will never have to ‘act like you have nothing to lose and make a decision.’

You will know exactly what to do and how to think.

February 12, 2020 by Bruce

Business Thoughts, Favorite Quotes, Life thoughts, Rants and Observations, Stuff I Like

when you have nothing (business version)

=====

“When you ain’t got nothin’, you got nothin’ to lose.”

–

Bob Dylan

<although … ironically … the movie Titanic made this quote even more famous>

==========

Well. Most of us have something. Which means we have something to lose.

Now. We may have had a glimpse of ‘having nothing’ and possibly even had nothing at some point, but I would argue most of us truly have never hit bottom.

Come close? Sure. Maybe.

I know I have. But until you truly have had nothing, absolutely nothing, you have always had something to lose.

Which leads us to have expectations. And expectations are tricky things. Expectations seem to rear its ugly head most when you begin thinking you already have something <and, well, you actually DO have something>.

I was reminded of this topic once again when I spoke with a small company who wanted to discuss ‘rebranding’ themselves. After some talking I believe we all realized they didn’t really need to rebrand, they simply needed to remind themselves of when they had nothing. As in .. when they first started their company. They needed to refind their original ‘mojo.’ Refind the ‘nothingness’ they initially embraced to believe in themselves and create something <from that nothing>.

As time had gone on their successes made them wander from who they were when they first opened their business.

Now.

Sure.

We all mature and learn as we experience more and more, but when you first start a company you typically have some ideals and ideas. Those ideals and ideas are 99.9% of the time transferable to when your business plateaus <which is natural> and you want to move to the next level.

I say that as I see so many business people benchmarking and casting about “what the market wants’ and trends and a whole bunch of other mumbo jumbo <albeit often good things just to check on>.

More often these same people would find their time used more productively by simply refreshing their original ideals and ideas. By refreshing I don’t mean ‘redoing’ or ‘rebranding’, but simply pulling them out of the drawer, reminding what they were, blow the dust off of them and make sure they remain the corner stone(s) to whatever may be planned for the future.

But.

Once again.

Expectations are tricky things.

Then you had nothing.

Now you have something.

And we justify changing or redirecting off the infamous “well … I have learned a lot since then.”

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Mostly you learned that your ideals and ideas were solid. But sometimes you had to wrap them around some tactical ‘doing’ shit you just never envisioned you would be faced with when you got up and running. Sometimes a business naturally grows in complexity as it it grows <contrary to popular belief ‘scale’ is rarely even or simple>.

Running a business is hard.

Growing a business is hard.

Sometimes we expect too much.

It also sometimes seems like the key is to just expect nothing and then that one time when you’re not all caught up in thinking about what you really want to happen, it will.

Well. In business there are a shitload of people who don’t like that last thought.

“It will just happen.”

Yikes.

Business people don’t like that looking forward <what’s the plan and how are we going to – specifically – achieve it>.

And they don’t even like it looking backwards <wow, that was good, it couldn’t have just happened though … what specifically can we attribute it to?>.

I am certainly not suggesting business based on faith. Because a ‘build it and it will come” business ideology is doomed for failure 99% of the time.

However. I am suggesting that if you stay the course with solid ideals <of what you want> and solid ideas <what you believe is the right thing to do> that more times than not “it will just happen” and you will not be able to specifically point to one thing that made it happen <other than maybe your ideals and ideas of course>.

Anyway. I read this somewhere: two things define your personality, the way you manage things when you have nothing & the way you behave when you everything.

I like that thought. I like that thought for Life in general, but really like it for business leaders.

Oh. Many people misread this discussion.

This discussion is NOT about risking everything. It is simply just thinking about ‘what would you do if you had nothing’ businesswise.

Because what that leaves you with is your character and doing things you want to do and saying things you want to say.

And you can look at nothing several ways.

In thinking long term … your vision for your company or ‘who you are’ as a company … or simply in making decisions within the moment. As Mr. Magorium suggested … “you can live a lifetime in 37 seconds.”

In business.

Sometimes I think all you need is 37 seconds of insane courage.

Just literally 37 seconds of just embarrassing bravery.

To paraphrase that incredibly bad movie ‘little black book’ … “in that 37 seconds I believe we have the ability to write our own stories.

And each time we think we know the end, we don’t. Perhaps luck exists somewhere between the world of planning, of chance and in the peace that comes from knowing that you just can’t know it all. Life’s funny that way… once you let go of the wheel, you might end up right where you belong.

Regardless. Thinking like you have nothing.

Most people may not like the actual feeling of having nothing but they liked who they were when they had nothing. Having things is nice, really nice, but it can clutter your thinking.

Think like you have nothing. It is a good business practice.

Mostly because while you may look at all the dollars and cents you have accumulated inevitably you will end up looking back on HOW you made all those dollars and cents. As Wonder Years reminds us:

“You start out life with a clean slate.

Then you begin to make your mark.

You face decisions, make choices.

You keep moving forward. But sooner or later there comes a time where you look back over where you have been … and wonder who you really are.”

The Wonder Years

Ah. Looking back or looking backwards. I tend to not like doing this and I tend to rarely suggest a business do so excepting with some very specific situations and needs. Maybe I could say it better by suggesting we not look back at the horizon, but at specifics — specific events, times, places & words. Seek out something very very specific. Like when you had nothing for example.

Anyway. This was some shared thinking for businesses, but I imagine components are relevant to Life in general.

What I mean by that is, in business or in personal Life, if you practice thinking like you have nothing I promise you will look back someday and never wonder who you really are.

Who you have become will simply be a reflection of who you are and not of ‘things’ or anything you have accumulated.

October 17, 2019 by Bruce

Business Thoughts, Favorite Quotes, Rants and Observations

what if all you are good at is holding the universe together

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

“She wasn’t doing a thing that I could see, except standing there, leaning on the balcony railing, holding the universe together.”

–

J.D. Salinger

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

Well.

This is about business. In today’s world if it doesn’t appear like you are doing something … then … well … damn it … you aren’t doing something <even if you may actually be holding the universe together>.

You have to be doing something that can be seen.

You have to because if you don’t everyone is convinced you are doing nothing. I call this issue … being challenged by the ‘outcome mentality.’ What I mean by that is efficiency driven outcome, or output, is everything. Do more with less is an insidious mantra because this not only suggests ‘more output’ matters but ‘less thinking, more doing’ is the path to more outcome.

That said. So what if your output is … well … holding the universe together.

C’mon. That’s a metaphor.

I’m not truly suggesting the actual universe, but let me talk about business. Sometimes you run across that leader or sometimes a manager or even a young employee <with some potential> who holds the business or the organization together. They appear to you in a variety of forms. They can be a rebel in that they are rebellious to the status quo every inch of the way toward their version of outputs. Some just effectively juggle the efficiency/effective balance. Others learn to weave a strong thread of thinking time into what they do, unseen, and produce a more effective outcome efficiently. That said. Sometimes when you look you cannot see what they are actually doing. They may be often seen doing nothing but standing there leaning on the balcony rail.

Uh oh. In today’s business world that person is screwed.

Look. I’m not suggesting you want people who do nothing, but sometimes people who look like they are doing nothing are actually doing a lot of something. And sometimes it is difficult to measure these people up against ‘outcome focused generators.’

What I mean by that is I have had people in my teams where during review time I have had to stack employees “top-to-bottom” and justify their salary, job status, existence within the organization, whatever review line item you want to call it … based on ‘what have they done.’

Tangible outcome crap.

And, well, sometimes your most valuable employee doesn’t look so hot based on sheer tangible outcome. It is only when you build in intangibles that they rise above the tangible outputters <not sure that is a word>.

Ok.

Any experienced business person reading this will be shaking their head going … “whew … been there” because you have a clear visual of a scrunched up face across the table from you saying things like “well … can’t we get them to do more? … I am struggling to see the comparable value to <insert some ‘outputter name’ here>.” You want to reach across the table and wring their neck shouting “they are frickin’ holding the universe together for god’s sake.”

Holding the universe together is a talent. It is a unique talent to make those around you better and more efficient, more effective and, well, happier <or maybe just more realistically positive in that they lift productivity – quality & quantity>. And sometimes that talent is embodied by ‘not doing anything but standing there.’

I have run across several business people who had the incredible ability to ‘hold the universe together.’ And I have had the incredibly ludicrous experience of having to encourage them to waste time to ‘tangibilize’ <once again … not sure that is a word> what they are doing so people can ‘see’ their value. As a manager, or leader, I imagine one of your responsibilities is to protect these valuable unique people from the challenges of the typical business world view and foster their abilities and opportunities.

Let’s be clear. This has some unique challenges because it has always been that an ‘outputter’ has never understood this type of person or value. Never have and never will. That’s okay … because organizations, just as in Life, need a variety of personalities and talents to be successful.

However. I do get a little concerned that the business world pendulum has swung so far over to efficiency & outcome & output that those who ‘hold the universe together’ is becoming a dying breed. Maybe I am less concerned for the immediate but over time. Because the young people with this talent and ability simply cannot protect themselves from an output world without help. And if all we do in business is to promote outputters … well … enough said. You get it.

I am sure throughout my career I have missed people who ‘could hold the universe together.’ And I rue those mistakes. I take solace in that I have recognized others and tried to herd them through the business gauntlet of ‘all that matters is results <or output>’. All I can say is that while as a leader you take pride in every employee you have the ones who have the ability to hold the universe together hold a special place in your ‘list of things done’ <or list of things ‘I didn’t screw up as a manager’>.

I imagine that is a reminder that in the end, as in the end of your business career or Life, the intangible often measures up more so than the tangible in reviewing ‘what I have done.’

I imagine this is all a reminder to all of us there are people all around us ‘holding the universe together’ in ways we just don’t see — but we benefit.

So before you judge someone for ‘not doing’ take a closer look just to be sure they aren’t holding the universe together.

July 28, 2018 by Bruce

Business Thoughts, Favorite Quotes, Rants and Observations

believing in something is powerful enough (leading a business)

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

“We are tossed about by external causes in many ways, and like waves driven by contrary winds, we waver and are unconscious of the issue and our fate.’

We think we are most ourselves when we are most passioate, whereas it is then we are most passive, caught in some ancestral torrent of impulse or feeling, and swept on to a precipitate reaction which meets only part of the situation because without thought only part of a situation can be perceived.”

―

Will Durant

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

“Trust yourself. Create the kind of self that you will be happy to live with all your life.

Make the most of yourself by fanning the tiny, inner sparks of possibility into flames of achievement.”

—-

Golda Meir

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

So.

good bad idea battle for path business This is about leadership & leading with an idea.

It would be an understatement to say that the number of ways a leader can lead are so numerous it would most likely take a book to explain them all <and people have certainly tried>. Trying to simplistically suggest “this is the way to lead” is simplistic tripe.

It would be an understatement to say that the number of ways a leader can articulate an idea for people to rally around and follow are so numerous it would most likely take a book to explain them all <and people have certainly tried>. Trying to simplistically suggest “this is the way to share ideas in a meaningful way” is simplistic tripe.

That said. Today I will talk about leaders and ideas and articulating ideas. Let’s call it “the business idea” leadership challenge. For those of us who have had the fortune, or misfortune, of walking the halls of management in business we have all crossed paths with all the scary tactics and rhetoric associated with leaders who cannot articulate an idea if they actually tried <and most do try>. These are the leaders who do not really have the ability to articulate an idea well enough for the idea to gain traction and be implemented.

it exists truth example life ideas business

……………….. the idea ………………….

I sometimes believe what makes a good leader is the ability to articulate an idea so that <a> people can grasp it,  people can envision it as “something” tangible enough to want to hold it and <c> people can attach some emotional connection to it <ranging from ‘I believe’ to ‘passion’>. But many leaders just struggle with idea articulation and use a variety of tricks to present an idea in a way that encourages people to … well … believe in the idea.

To be clear. This is more a discussion of the psychology of managing employees. Let’s call it “believing management” more so than motivating employees. This is more about unlocking employees – unlocking potential. I mention potential because that is what ideas do. They are like a powerful chip inserted into people which energizes, focuses and drives individuals <and inevitably the organization itself>. And because of all of what I just said there are a variety of ways to create some energy behind ‘believing’ in an idea.

Us versus them.

War analogies wherein those who don’t believe in our idea are ‘enemies.’

The narrative behind the idea always seems to have a “good versus evil” aspect.

Two thoughts on that.

Selective tactical ‘good versus evil’ leadership is appropriate. Sometimes you need to give an organization some “oomph” <a technical organizational behavior term> and this is an easy way to create some energy around the idea.
Being reliant on “us versus them” narrative is lazy leadership. Yes. Counterpoints always provide some contrast which permits some clarity, however, an idea should be able to stand on a blank page in a blinding spotlight and create enough ‘belief’ in that idea that people will want to fill the blank white space simply because they want to … they choose to … not because they ‘have to.’

people crowd ideas together friends waitbutwhy Bad leaders misunderstand leading with an idea. They always feel like they have to have an enemy which the idea has to slay. Or they feel like they have to divide so that their idea looks bigger. They have it wrong. And dangerously wrong. Good ideas power up on their own. Good ideas have a size to stand up to, well, any size idea out there. Good ideas encourage people to go out and evangelize not destroy or kill or attack. The belief in the idea, in and of itself, is enough to make people go out & sometimes attack bad ideas, more often defend the idea, and all the time presents the idea as some desirable thing that anyone in their right mind should want.

I have always believed that if you have a good idea, and you have people who believe in that good idea, you shouldn’t worry about competition or naysayers & doubters but rather focus all your energy on showcasing the energy of the idea.

Now. To be sure. If you talk with enough people who have managed groups & companies and you will notice that at some point someone will bring up “I have to be a psychologist.”

To be clear.

Do business managers have to be psychologists to be effective? No. not really. But playing the psychologist role on occasion certainly doesn’t hurt. I am chuckling. I am fairly sure what I am discussing has some high falutin’ organizational behavior ‘management principles’ published and formal white papers with long esoteric discussions on employee personality types and some personality testing voodoo and lots of ‘how to energize organizations’ crap.

Anyway.

Most good managers clearly understand that different people are motivated by different things and that different things can inhibit the potential of each employee. Suffice it to say, in my mind, once you move past trying to motivate a specific individual one-on-one it really all comes down to one basic management principle: the idea.

intangibe idea yet to be future business Simplistically every leader’s objective is always to free your employee to be their best and do their best. But sometimes this means stripping something away, and sometimes this means adding something, and it always means giving them something to believe in <not just do or ‘fight’>. By the way. I’m not sure if this is really Purpose or even a Vision but rather it is something internal in each person. An inner fire to be a better version of who they are tomorrow than they are today — which means it is not a destination but rather progress that matters.

More often than not while you are leading your organization you invest gobs of energy focused on the pragmatic ‘here is what you need to do’ underpinnings crap which keeps everybody focused on the shit that keeps the doors open in the business every day. But, at some point, you have to energize the attitude. This is where “idea” comes in. This isn’t really a vision this is the idea of who and what the company is and the ‘belief’ which is kind of the unseen glue which makes “one, out of many.”

This idea becomes almost a heuristic management tool because while leading people certainly can contain some aspects of ‘enthusiasm management’ one of the most basic leader self-survival techniques you learn <or you will die> is how to manage without too much investment of self. Therefore I have always viewed “the idea” as the compass AND engine for the true potential of the organization.

Yeah. As a manager you always hunker down on the pragmatic aspects of what needs to be done first.

Always.

It is kind of your heuristic trick to assess any attitudinal challenges to getting the frickin’ pragmatic aspect done. But you always keep an eye, and an ear, open during the pragmatic ‘whether the shit will actually get done … and done as well as it can be done’ for the employee’s, and organization’s, idea ‘belief factor.’ While Belief can come in all shapes & sizes & behaviors one thing remains constant — make the idea tangible and anyone can see it <rather than have it be some nebulous thing they have to define in their own heads>.

And it can get even tricky. Tricky because the same employee who was bursting with blind belief one day will be the same employee sitting in front of you the next day discussing a completely different project or task — semi-frozen in ‘belief doubt’ or ‘belief confusion.’

Look. The fundamentals of effective management are pretty much the same everywhere. But, ‘idea belief management’ can, unfortunately, sometimes take a fine subtle touch and most of us everyday leader schmucks aren’t always subtle. Therefore, we tend to lean on “us versus them” and “we are at war” to create some sense of “we must defend this idea” rather than instilling the idea, of the idea itself, as having value even in times of ‘non-war.’

Ok.

I imagine I wrote this not to offer any “how to” guide to anyone. I wrote it because I just saw someone aggressively and darkly outline a world in which the business idea was under attack and attempted to drive belief in the idea through ‘threat’ rather than ‘inner belief.’ As I watched I thought “this person has no idea how to articulate an idea in a way that the idea itself exudes energy in and of itself.”

As I watched I thought “this person doesn’t understand that ideas don’t need enemies to be meaningful and powerful … believing in something is power in and of itself.”

Look.

I have different expectations for different levels of leaders and I certainly understand that when presenting or communicating things you gotta deal with what is in front of you and get shit done and get the best out of all employees. And sometimes you do whatever it takes in the context of the situation. But. And this is a big but.

A business cannot always be at war in order to justify, and formalize, the idea it believes in. The idea, in and of itself, should be good enough, and articulated well enough, to be powerful enough for people to just believe in it.

I am not suggesting this is easy but that is what separates a good leader from a crappy leader is the ability to make the most of an idea by fanning the tiny, inner sparks of possibility into flames of achievement.”

I imagine my real point is we should all be wary of the leader who can only articulate an idea through an ‘us versus them narrative’ or a divisive tone.

Why? Because they are either lazy or they don’t know their shit.

April 30, 2018 by Bruce

Business Thoughts, Favorite Quotes, Personal & Nonsensical, Rants and Observations

responsible for what you tame

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

“People have forgotten this truth,” the fox said. “But you mustn’t forget it. You become responsible forever for what you’ve tamed.”

—–

The Little Prince

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

“I cannot play with you,” the fox replies. “I am not tamed.”

“What does that mean – to tame?”

“It means to establish ties. To me, you are still nothing more than a little boy who is just like a hundred thousand other little boys. And I have no need of you. And you, on your part, have no need of me. To you, I am nothing more than a fox like a hundred thousand other foxes. But if you tame me, then we shall need each other. To me, you will be unique in all the world. To you, I shall be unique in all the world…please, tame me!”

“I want to, very much,” the Little Prince replied, “but I have not much time. I have friends to discover, and a great many things to understand.”

“One only understands the things that one tames,” the fox said.

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

Ok.

Some people aren’t going to like the way I am going to discuss Leadership. Some people will not like the implication behind the word “tame” with regard to employees. Those some people should read before they dismiss the thought. t may just offer a different way of thinking about the responsibility of leadership.

Leaders have a tough job in that you manage skills, people, personalities & overall organizational purpose.

We call it managing, but in reality it is taming. You tame the independent wildness and tame the ability & potential so you can understand it, and it can understand itself, so that eventually there is a mutual progress to play the game as well as it can be played.

Please note that nowhere in there have I suggested “blind obedience.” Taming, in this view, is reaching true understanding so that real personal growth occurs.

That said … in that metaphorical expression of leadership … you own what you tame.

I say that because far too often we leaders & managers view management as something we do for the benefit of the organization and, hopefully, the benefit of the people … but we ‘own’ no responsibility for the individual in terms of actions or who they become — and certainly not ‘forever.’

Some of us view ourselves as shapers in some form or fashion but lean back against the belief we only dent the surface of who and what the person is and will become. We view what we do as possibly taming but within the purview of just a chapter in their lives … not an entire story.

In some ways we do this simply as an act of self-survival. The truth is that investing too much personally into your business; the organization and the employees can … well … kill you.

Okay.

Maybe not literally kill you … but figuratively it can become a daily strain on your psychological health. Many of us, out of pragmatism, eye our relationship with employees as a story with a finite end – be it positive, sad, joyful, disappointing or ambiguous – but it is, in reality, just the end of a chapter.

The story keeps going. Ours and theirs.

And while we may represent only a chapter in a larger narrative … well … we own what we tame. This is an inclusive way of leading & managing. You include yourself in someone’s Life and … well … you own what part you tame.

Uhm.

Of course … this can also swing to the opposite more dangerous side – an exclusive leadership side. This is ‘ownership’, not owning, of what you tame. You don’t become part of them you simply offer a voice to them – I sometimes call this ‘pack mentality leadership’.

These are the leaders who say “on my team <or in other words “mine”> forever.” It is possessive in a non productive way.

“Leave and my wrath is upon you.”

That eader’s attitude? “Not want to be tamed by me? you are “un” whatever it is I stand for.” And this is where exclusive leadership truly rears its ugly head.

There is little vision, there is a lot of ‘features’ in the offering <more money, more jobs, more titles, more wins, more whatever> and therefore the incentives do the work and not any persuasive direction or vision. The ‘pack attitude’ is a means to an end and a vision in and of itself.

—-

“Managers tend to use compensation as a crutch. After all, it is far easier to design an incentive system that will do management’s work than it is to articulate a direction persuasively, develop agreement about goals and problems, and confront difficulties when they arise.”

Michael Beer, Harvard professor of business administration

—–

The features, the actions & behavior of those who belong on this team, are how they speak of unity and teamwork, i.e., “everyone should act this way … but we are the ones who do.”

Or how about this?

“The only important thing is the unification of the people – because the other people don’t mean anything.” <Trump used these words once awhile back> In other words … the only people who truly count are the ones who are in this leader’s team.

Even worse? They use the ‘us versus them’ polarization as a means to suggest “team personality & character” all the while these types of leaders actually do it to create their own power structure. They don’t desire to include anyone else nor do they tend to reach out to others <albeit they make some inclusive noises on occasion> they desire to build a construct where people ask to join <because they should, of course, have to ask> and are not asked to join.

“Excluding leader types” love the ‘us versus them’ aspect. They love being derided and they love opposition. All these things do is solidify the team’s belief they are different & better & know more than the others. The team becomes what represents what is real & right and the leader controls what is real & right. The leader’s people are truly the only people that count and the leader hasn’t tamed ability but rather attitude.

And here is where the ownership of what you tamed hits a dangerous spot.

This leader has tamed an attitude but feels little ownership of the people themselves. Therefore should the leader decide to move on or get tired of whatever it is they are doing at the moment they feel no remorse in leaving people behind <who still harbor the attitude he/she tamed>.

The pack remains, the pack mentality still seethes, but the pack leader is no longer there.

Anyway.

Let me close with some thoughts.

I think it is a healthy thought for every manager & leader to ponder ‘you own what you tame.’ Leadership and leading is never easy and I have the scars to show to prove it.

I found it naturally tempting to build a quasi-pack mentality in my groups as a younger leader & manager. I was, and have always been, a more aggressive business person – I am not fond of status quo and not particularly fond of ‘the safe road.’

I can absolutely state that as a manager you can feed off of the ‘pack mentality’ attitude. It is exhilarating and almost like a drug … and maybe more dangerous … it can feed into a self-belief aspect that can edge upon arrogance and obliviousness to the greater good.

I don’t think I ever fell off the cliff on this but I certainly got a glimpse of the edge. As I gained more experience I saw the danger in doing so <to my team members, to my organization & to myself> and sought to find some balance.

Just remember.

You can tame your people’s ability & attitude in an inclusive & “unearthing skill & talent” way and they, and you, will benefit at the time and in the future <whether you are still working together or not>.

Just remember.

You own what you tame.

January 30, 2018 by Bruce

Business Thoughts, Favorite Quotes, Rants and Observations

what firing someone says about you

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

“We should place confidence in our employee.

Confidence is the foundation of friendship.

If we give it, we will receive it.

Any person in a managerial position, from supervisor to president, who feels that his employee is basically not as good as he is and who suspects his employee is always trying to put something over on him, lacks the necessary qualities for human leadership – to say nothing of human friendship.”

—–

Harry Humphreys

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

“The conventional definition of management is getting work done through people, but real management is developing people through work.”

—-

Agha Abedi

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

Well.

Leading and managing people is possibly one of the most rewarding things you fire bee strategy drive in can do in a business career.

Firing people is possibly one of the most unrewarding things you can do in a business career.

Unfortunately these two things are inextricably linked.

I could argue that once you assume responsibility for firing someone … you learn more about yourself, and I imagine others learn about you, than from almost any other responsibility you assume as a leader.

No one likes firing people. Well. No one who is any good at business leadership. I don’t care if you absolutely hate the person you are firing, if the person has actually committed a fireable offense and you are in the right to fire them, or even if you fire someone for good reason … suffice it to say … it never feels good to fire someone.

And because of that … a good business leader never delegates the tough termination. And they never send someone to terminate a direct report.

Generally speaking … you fire anyone who is a direct report, or you were directly responsive for hiring, face to face.

Yeah.

setbacks one of those days pooh This may not be, logistically, the easiest thing to do but it is part of the burden of responsibility. It is the mantle you wear and it is what you are obligated to offer the person being terminated – dignity & respect.

Anything less than that and you are shirking your responsibility. Anything less than that is … well … chicken shit. And you are a chickenshit business leader if you do not do these things.

Sure.

What I just shared is a hard lesson but one business people learn in young management.

I will never forget the first person I ever fired. Paul.

An absolute great guy in absolutely the wrong position and possibly career. But that doesn’t mean it was easy to terminate him. While I was 99% sure it was the right thing to do <and my boss and her bosses agreed> there was an extraordinarily loud 1% in my head that kept me awake that night.

Inevitably he chose a different career and went on to become an SVP of sales.

And he was kind enough to drop me a couple of notes to tell me it all worked out for the best.

But I will never forget firing him. I can honestly say I never forget anyone I have fired <and that is a semi-long list after years of management>.

However.

I would like to think my leadership career is measured more by the people I did not fire.

Not firing, in a larger organization, can be harder than you think.

I think I spent more time explaining to the most senior people why I would not fire some of the people I managed than I did ever discussing almost anything else about employees with them.

Well. That is … it felt that way.

The crap that floats upwards into senior leadership about individual employees is amazing. The littlest mistakes and quirks seem to take on exponential size when it arrives at the most senior people — and they do not hesitate to share their disproportional views.

Regardless. All of those views cut into the ‘trust belief’ … are they respected within the organization, do they have the trust of the organization and can they be trusted with their responsibility.

totally worth it show for it life

And that is when you earn your stripes as a manager. You do not cave in to the ‘easy thing to do’ but rather stand up for your people and let the chips fall as they may. Oh. And you learn it is totally worth it to not take the easy way out.

Let me be clear.

No one is perfect. I was not a perfect employee nor was a perfect manager. And, yet, when judging employees there sometimes is the ‘perfect measure’ of which becomes the absurd standard.

Yes.

We should judge senior people more critically but we should judge them fairly.

Anyway.

I didn’t fire a lot of people. And I can think of at least 4 who made me incredibly proud that I didn’t … despite some pressure from others to do so.

All 4 of these have sent me notes at different points, not thanking me for not firing them but rather for simply giving them a chance, believing in them and seeing something in them that they knew <because all employees know when they are under ‘the human resources microscope’> many others didn’t.

All 4 of them have been professionally successful and, more importantly, are solid good human beings. Neither of those are because I didn’t fire them but rather vindicate the non-firing decision.

All that said.

Firing someone, despite the pain of actually doing it, is often the easy way out and is certainly a way to avoid looking at your own flaws.

Flaws? I sometimes believe one of the hardest things you can learn in your career is that your best is not particularly special.

Learning the fact that your talent, in reality, is matched by a shitload of people.

Learning that your best is relatively easily matched by a shitload of people.

It is an unfortunate truth that:

Talent is talent.
Smarts are smarts.
And expertise is almost always relative.

reality-slapped-you-really-hard At any given point in Life and your career you can look around you and, if you are self aware, you will note you are rarely the most talented, rarely the smartest one in the room and rarely the only expert.

Even on your best day you may not actually be the best.

I imagine that is a tough thing to get your head wrapped around.

But I also imagine if you do wrap your head around it evaluating employees and how you fire them is affected.

I always watch how someone terminates an employee.

You can learn a lot about people in that situation … and you can learn a shitload about how someone feels about dignity, respect and responsibility in how they terminate an employee.

===========

Postscript 1: under the general heading of “chickenshit” from a business perspective I will comment on a Trump firing:

There are hundreds of different viable reasons to fire someone and if you have the responsibility to hire & fire and it is ‘at will’ you can do what you want. But HOW Trump fired James Comey was chickenshit.

It wasn’t face to face with a direct report <or even face to face with anyone … just a letter delivered by a non-government employee>.

November 24, 2015

While there appeared to be no sense of urgency to terminate the action was taken with an absurd sense of senseless urgency which permitted Comey the indignity of being blindsided, in the middle of a commitment to the people who reported to him and not even in town.

This was a chicken shit way of terminating an honorable employee. It is indicative of Trump’s lack of character.

Postscript 2: Under the general heading of “this is some crazy shit” from a business perspective:

Firing someone for lack of confidence when the people who you are actually working for have a general lack of confidence in you is slightly surreal.

This may actually be the ironic point of this little postscript rant.

The stated “Donald J Trump fired his FBI Director because of ‘lack of confidence’ is … well … crazy shit.

Well. If that is a true criteria and I were to look at some national polling data I could argue Trump could be fired on the same criteria by the American people.

Most leaders do not defend their firing decision through childish name calling.

“Crying Chuck” .. “Richie” in quotes <instead of Richard>. Calling people diminishing names. Childish crap like that. I have been criticized as a leader for people I have fired, as well as people who I didn’t fire, and when appropriate I responded with some “why I did it” information but I never deflected my choice & decision onto others by suggesting they were not qualified to criticize … and I certainly always treated peers with a modicum of respect.

Tweet response rather than standing up in person

Sniping from the sidelines is not leadership.

Period.

‘nuf said.

December 4, 2017 by Bruce

Business Thoughts, Favorite Quotes, Rants and Observations

managing a hodgepodge team

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

“A single arrow is easily broken, but not ten in a bundle.”

—–

Japanese proverb

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

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed. It is the only thing that ever has.”

—–

Margaret Mead

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

So.

I was listening to a bunch of talking heads on tv speculating on a staff shake up lead hodgepodge groups people function in the Trump white house personnel.

One thing I heard caught my attention … “well, part of the president’s issue is that he has kind of a hodgepodge of personnel.”

And that thought is correct. And it made me think a little bit.

The truth is once you move past managing a group or running a mom & pop sized business every management team you manage will be a hodgepodge of people, skills, personalities and … well … loyalty. Not only is it impossible to hire in ‘your people’ in every slot … most good leaders do not want to do that.

All that said.

To be clear.

Trump is possibly one of the crappiest senior leaders I have ever seen and he appears to have no belief that words matter and has no understanding of the concept of ‘communication alignment’ <let alone any alignment> … however … he is what he is. And because he is what he is … inconsistencies included … the staff he surrounds himself matters a shitload with regard to overall effectiveness.

What do I mean?

Trump forces his staff to adjust in real time as he communicates, and thinks, in real time. understand your crazy

Trump has never worked in a large organization nor has he ever truly had to manage a larger group of people, let alone senior executives.

He has always been the spokesperson and the brand and the final word … surrounded by family who was more than happy to simply double and triple down on whatever dad said <and be loyal to even his craziest tactical maneuvering and craziest words and wordsmithing>.

Real senior executives do not work that way nor is it a particularly effective method outside of a mom & pop structure.

In a real business organization you don’t get to pick & choose everyone in your circle … most times it is a hodgepodge of skills, personalities and experience. And you know what? You learn to manage them effectively because that is what a leader does.

You adapt some of you to accommodate some of them <yeah … sure … envision Trump doing that … uhm … sure … ain’t gonna happen>.

Trump is being forced out of his mom & pop management model into a more traditional larger business management model <and he is going kicking & screaming>.

diverse team peanuts business management Most people learn this as soon as they move from group management to department management <you cannot fire everyone and rehire only your people> and absolutely learn this lesson as soon as you move into the C-level positions.

Another aspect is when you get a position you do not treat it as an “I won so you need to …” but rather “I now get to lead and I am going to have to …”

All that said.

You learn some management personnel tricks to help you out.

I always tried to bring one person with me wherever I went as I moved up. Depending on the structure of the organization I always wanted at least one person who could “translate” me to the hodgepodge team. This wasn’t necessarily done to dictate my desires & behaviors onto a team but rather to help them align to how I managed so they could adapt and move faster.

I manage nothing like Trump but let’s assume Trump is moving into the presidency … it almost becomes mandatory for effectiveness that he has a team aligned on “what to do when Trump does his crazy.” He need a management team that doesn’t argue about what to do he needs a management team that absorbs the blow and moves out doing what needs to be done as the true power brokers for getting shit done.

key team members on hodgepodge team business lead

By the way … this is not about loyalty to Trump this is about loyalty to most effectively getting good shit done. I didn’t care if people bitched about me behind my back what I cared about is that they respected the general idea and invested their energy in trying to figure out how to best effectively implement the idea rather than invest energy trying to defend anything they really would have preferred just bitching about behind my back.

I always preferred loyalty to “getting good smart shit done” and always believed I would ultimately earn some respect if I <Me> always remained loyal to the idea of “enabling good smart shit to get done.”

Before I finish this thought I will admit my preference was always to try an bring in two foundational team members in order to kind of create some pillars … but you can get away with one to align a hodgepodge of managers & executives.

Anyway.

In an organization the size of a presidency Trump needs a translator but more importantly he needs an aligned team with regard to what to do with him and his behavior <and not be arguing over it>.

trump sheep team management business hodgepodge

……… a Trump management team ………

Trump’s inclination will be with what he feels most comfortable with — family.

His next inclination will be with what makes him feel the best — the ones who unflinchingly try and power-broke the crazy <he would call them unflinching loyalists>.

Neither of those have anything to do with effective leadership nor do they have anything to do with effective ‘management of getting shit done.’

He has never been in a large organization nor has he managed a large group of people nor has he tried to get a large group of people aligned to agree & do some shit.

He naturally gravitates toward employees who don’t deliver bad news and those who deliver flattery.

They may feel good to have around but they are the absolute worst people to have on your management team. You only build a team like that if you have no interest in improving, no interest in any intellectual conflict <which is what actually sparks better ideas> and/or you are so insecure or arrogant <yes, you can be both> you don’t want any ideas other than your own.

Most often it is the senior leadership who challenges you that prompt new insights and help propel the group to success.

“You need people who have different points of view and aren’t afraid to argue. They are the kind of people who stop the organization from doing stupid things.”

Harvard Business Review

Look.

diverse team hodgepodge business

All leaders assume responsibility for a hodgepodge of senior managers. That’s what we do.

And we learn to set what expectations are and align on vision and encourage some flexibility & adapting and get going.

And we learn that some of what we do and what we think works a little better in one place than anther and that some people are better than we think at first blush and some people we really liked when we met them are worse than we thought.

And we learn that you don’t demand respect but rather earn it and loyalty is gained through respect.

I would imagine that engendering loyalty to Trump is hard in that up to this point loyalty most likely centered on fame & fortune. And most of us who have led in larger organizations understand that strong foundational loyalty is less about the tangible fame & fortune but rather respect. He is gonna have some problems with that.

I would imagine that effectiveness to Trump is blind support for him and what he says. And most of us who have led in larger organizations understand that effectiveness is less about support for what the leader says … but rather in structured response to a leader’s guidance & thoughts. I never wanted people to do what I said … I wanted people to do what needed to be done. He is gonna have some problems with that.

I would imagine that alignment to Trump is familial. And most of us who have led in a larger organization want the exact same thing … but we know we have a hodgepodge team who is ‘the family’ and we deal with it.

Would I shake up the Trump administration? Yeah. I surely would.

And I would do it almost exactly opposite of how I envision he is likely to do it.

He doesn’t understand there is a campaign team and now he needs an effective doing team. He bludgeoned us with his dull insights on the campaign trail and now he needs to focus more on action.

What would I do with his cadre of white men?

I, personally, would make Kushner my chief of staff. He has no fucking clue how to do the job but he knows the Trumpster better than anyone in the world.

Give him some deputies who have a shitload of government experience. Send Ivanka off to write a real book. And build a staff of Republican zealots who know how to get shit done. Trust the Kushner kid to translate what the Donald J crazy means to everyone.

Bannon can stay but he just needs to focus on feeding the Trump crazy and let Kushner kid deal with the crazy output.

Others <just off the top of my head>. I love Wilbur Ross. Mnuchin almost seems overwhelmed-giddy by being in the spotlight. I would find a sane version of Mulvaney to take his job. I would tell Tillerson to start hiring like a mad man and tell him he can fire whoever he doesn’t need once he actually has some staff to do some shit. Just get out of Mattis, McMaster and Kelly’s way. I can’t get rid of Sessions even though I think he is crazy but because he actually translates Trump crazy better than anyone other than maybe that little pit bull Lewandowski. I would wake up Carson, Perry, and all the other Cabinet members we haven’t heard a peep out of and ask them if they would like to participate in this circus.

I imagine my real point is that to be an effective leader of a hodgepodge group it is more important that THEY can work together than YOU like them.

merging-intentions-individuality-team-emerge-lead Because if they can work together well than there is a better chance that the organization will not do stupid shit even if you make a stupid decision, your crazy will come to life as not-so-crazy pragmatism and knee-jerk spontaneous crazy asshat tweets simply get absorbed into seamless actions which make the tweets look a little less spontaneous, a little less knee jerk, a little less crazy … but still asshat because that is who you are.

And that is the value of a non-arguing hodgepodge group. They tend to mute the mistakes and crazy and amplify the actual good ideas and thoughts you may actually have.

A non-aligned hodgepodge managerial team simply exacerbates the problem — your crazy looks crazier, your spontaneous looks more spontaneous <see: unhinged> and your asshatedness looks more asshatted.

If I were a management consultant for Trump I would look at him as a lost cause … he is what he is. He is a flower <with thorns> and I would turn my attention to the environment the flower is growing in.

If I were a management consultant for Trump I would find a team that maybe wasn’t on the “Trump train” but rather find competent people who can do shit that I want done <and let the chief of staff … who is on the Trump Train … get them doing Trump train shit>.

If I were a management consultant for Trump I would turn to the Kushner kid and say “you wanted in … you are in. You are the Trump whisperer. Make shit happen.”

Let me be clear.

Trump will shake up his staff and maybe cabinet members and he will fuck it up. He has no idea how to manage a business organization other than in a mom & pop style and he has no innate leadership skills and his management instincts suck.

And he has no clue how to build an effective team <someone should tell him there is not enough room up his ass for all the people he actually needs to run a country let alone a viably larger sized organization>.

Oh. And he is a narcissistic asshat who believes no one knows better than he Trump 100 days does.

In the end.

As I stated in my Trump 100 day piece … he did nothing in his first 100 days that would suggest the next 100 days <and foreseeable 100 day increments> would be any smoother, efficient or effective. I am 99% confident he will shake up his staff and management team and I cannot envision it proceeding smoothly, efficiently or effectively. Why? Because he has no clue what he is doing.

May 18, 2017 by Bruce

Business Thoughts, Favorite Quotes, Rants and Observations

another absurd rebranding example

=======

“I’m not a marketing person. I don’t ask myself questions.

I go by instinct.”

—-

Karl Lagerfeld

==========

“Marketing and press kicks up dust. It gets in your eye, and then you’re not focusing on the product.“

—-

Jan Koum

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

So.

Within the 1^st 5 posts ever written on enlightened conflict I wrote about the absurdity of rebranding … Nigeria: The risks in branding (a lesson from Nigeria).

In that post I pointed out that simply telling someone something doesn’t mean that <a> it suddenly makes it true, makes it believable to everyone, and <c> it changes everything that everyone currently believes.

Today, over 1800 posts later, I return to the absurd topic by discussing another country … Czechoslovakia … or Czech Republic … or Czechia.

Yeah.

For a reason only truly obvious to them the Czech Republic’s leaders have chosen “Czechia” as the one-word alternative name of their country to “make it easier for companies, politicians and sportsmen to use on products, name tags and sporting jerseys.”

The choice, made by the president, prime minister, heads of parliament and foreign and defense ministers, meant that they could file the “new name” with the United Nations which under the rules of this absurd branding initiative would officially change the country’s name.

This is crazy.

Fucking nuts.

Here is what I envision happened <having been in the marketing world>.

I assume the bunch of country leaders were brainstorming ideas about how to “improve the Czech Republic’s position in the world” and someone <after possibly drinking one too many of their fine beers> said “hey, our name is too long … we would double our business if we shortened it.”

<note: because “Republic” is so difficult for everyone>

What would happen if we get rid of Republic?!? … someone shouts.

Someone says … “Well, that’s shorter … but then we are just “Czech” … that isn’t good.”

hmmmmmmmmm ………

Someone says … lets add “ia” which make its sound … well … okay … it doesn’t sound anything but it is different than Czech.

Yeah, that’s it!

<consensus among drunken political hacks sitting around fine mahogany table>

— after a minute or two pondering their brilliance … —

“Okay.

But we need a marketing expert … why don’t we call Pavel?”

<one of the most popular names in the Czech Republic and good friend of Jan — who is one of the ministers jumping on this rebranding bandwagon>.

Pavel immediately runs over to the minister gathering … listens for a minute or two … pensively looks around the room … takes a deep breath <everyone leans forward …> … he jumps up and says “brilliant !!! … this is marketing genius !!!”

Okay.

This is the stupidest fucking marketing idea.

It is not even close to being common sense.

While there has been no standardized one-word English name for the Czech Republic, unlike, say, France <the shortened version of the French Republic> since the official breakup of Czechoslovakia in the 90’s I scratch my head over why it even matters.

The Czech Republic is made up of Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia.

Uhm.

Who cares? That is kind of irrelevant <but fun factoid to share>.

What matters is that I assume some marketing expert … maybe even some high falutin’ branding company was involved and they let this incredibly stupid idea happen.

It is crap like this that gives marketing a bad name.

It is crap like this that encourages me to think that “branding”, in general, is stupid <and I have been part of dozens of ‘branding’ campaigns>.

Yeah.

A name is kind of like a label for your brand … but … it is not your brand. The label represents all the stuff <think of sausage> that makes up what could be construed as a brand.

And just like sausage … it can be stuffed with crap or t can be stuffed with high quality ingredients.

While the Czech Republic could give a shit what I think I would have sat them down <demanding some of their fine beer in payment> and said …

“look, let’s figure out what we want the Czech Republic to stand for <if you are worried about business and sporting impressions>. Because I have to be honest with you … people will wear “uehdmajndgygeemudby” on their shirt <that was just some random letters I typed on my keyboard> and buy a shitload of those shirts … and even bring their businesses closer to where that name on that shirt is … if they think it is cool, if they think it represents who they are <and how they think>, if it means they could make some money being associated with that name.

The name, in and of itself, is … well … less than relevant. Let’s focus on the sausage ingredients.”

But, hey, that’s me.

Christallmighty … how does shit like this really happen?

I buy the fact that people who have no reason making decisions like this make decisions like this. I see it all the time. there are a shitload of business people, heck, any people as a matter of fact … who believe they are smart enough to pretty much make any decisions whether they are an expert or not.

But.

Most of the time most reasonably larger business entities <countries included> will bring in someone who actually is supposed to know their shit.

And that is where shit like his is supposed to die.

Someone like me is supposed to come in and represent some sanity.

Someone like me is supposed to come in and offer some common sense.

Someone … well … someone smarter than me is supposed to come in and say this is stupid.

Someone is supposed to come in and state the obvious … people are used to the name Czech Republic by now, most people are fine with it, almost all people do not think it is a barrier to anything meaningful, pretty much all people don’t think it is ‘too complicated’ and needs to be ‘simpler’ … and I would say we should stick with it.

Arguing that the Czech Republic tag is too long to attract attention on the global stage and “woo” foreign investment and that “Czechia” would simplify things and be more recognizable is … well … just stupid.

This is the kind of shit that makes real branding efforts more difficult and this is the kind of shit that makes talking about marketing, in general, more difficult.

I am about to make a blanket statement using a percentage I have no research to prove.

90% of so called “rebranding” projects and initiatives are a waste of time. They are misguided initiatives in which nothing needs to be rebranded but rather the brand itself just needs to reassert itself.

I am 90% confident I am right on this.

As for the Czech Republic rebranding?

Just another stupid marketing example that makes everyone in marketing look stupid.

October 25, 2016 by Bruce

Business Thoughts, Favorite Quotes, Rants and Observations

Don’t give me sob stories

—————–

“Don’t give me sob stories,” she ordered me with sudden vehemence, striking the key words for emphasis.

“Every day people appeal to my emotions.

You can’t govern that way.

It simply isn’t fair.”

=====

Margaret Thatcher to John Le Carre

—————–

Running a country is hard. Very hard.

Running a business is hard. Very hard.

It doesn’t mean you don’t have good days and it doesn’t mean that all the ‘hard’ doesn’t reap some benefits and joy but … well … hard is hard.

And maybe, just possibly, the hardest part is managing the emotional appeals you are faced with on an almost daily basis.

And I say that while ignoring the inevitable larger events & stories which compound the emotional aspects of leader decision making.

Leading is mostly about the day in and day out responsibility to the greater good and the greater whole. This certainly doesn’t mean you don’t look at the parts and how the parts & pieces are affected but you can’t get too close to individual aspects for fear of … well … a couple of reasons:

First is the functional responsibility a leader has.

The greater responsibility is to the whole and insuring the whole is fair, respected and healthy. There is certainly a responsibility to parts, the germs & healthy cells roaming the lifeblood of the whole, but sometimes I let a germ live because it has lesser consequences to the health of the whole than if I invest in something that makes the already healthier cells even more healthy.

Second is basic perspective.

Research studies clearly show that emotional decisions are often quite irrational and often quite … well … bad <or maybe better said … less than optimal>. A leader has the difficult responsibility to maintain perspective … even in the face of a crescendo of criticisms demanding ‘this situation is unique.” The optics of a good leader often looks bad.

Aloof. Disconnected. Unempathetic.

The greater responsibility is to the whole perspective and insuring what is fair and respectful to the whole.

This is going to sound bad … really bad in fact.

<… I am taking a deep breath here>

But good leaders have a sense for “this too will pass” and simply pass on engaging with the individual engagement demand of the moment.

Yes. You acknowledge it and then ignore it.

To be clear. You don’t always make the right call and you don’t always get it right but the intent is 99% of the time purposefully not engaging to maintain perspective.

All that said.

Disconnecting from the emotional sob story, while still remaining connected to empathetic reasoning, may be one of the most difficult aspects of leading.

I don’t care if its 350 million people, 350 people or 35 people this tug of war between caring but not caring too much is constant and challenging. In addition it is a constant battle for self survival.

When thinking about this … inevitably what I believe most of us every day schmucks struggle to understand is the perspective.

Most people view things “I” up … and a leader has to look “we” down.

In other words … “I” has specific needs and I am willing to think about insuring other “I’s” have the same needs met. There is nothing wrong with this and it certainly can insure some healthy altruistic attitudes & behavior. But it does not reflect good leadership thinking.

In other words … “we” have larger needs and I am willing to sacrifice some of what some “I’s” want <and even, unfortunately, need in some cases> to insure the “we” needs are met. There is nothing wrong with this and, when done well, the greater whole prospers and is, in general, happy.

But it isn’t easy.

It is really hard.

And suffice it to say “ruling” by ignoring emotional appeals is more fair but it is still emotionally draining to a good leader.

Whether the 350 million, 350 or the 35 recognize it … there are many days when the 1, the leader, leaves the office with a heavy heart. And it is not heavy because 349,999,900 people, 341 people or 34 people went to sleep that day feeling pretty good about their day and their needs & wants & hopes … but because the few with a true sob story went to sleep that day sobbing.

You govern and lead by what is fair to the whole.

That’s just the way it is.

And just as Margaret Thatcher did … I would vehemently emphasize this business truth to anyone.

But.

That doesn’t mean I don’t think she went home some nights with the weight of someone’s emotional appeal on her mind.

That’s what I thought about today after I read this quote from Margaret Thatcher.

Oh.

And I also thought about whether I was fair and maintained the balance as a leader. I am not sure. I take some solace in the belief that almost every leader wonders the same thing.

September 3, 2016 by Bruce

Page 1 of 212 »

Meta