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

“Great ambition is the passion of a great character. Those endowed with it may perform very good or very bad acts. All depends on the principals which direct them.”

–  

Napoleon Bonaparte

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

“Do you admire men of principle? That would depend, I suppose, upon what set of principles you’re speaking of.”

 Well.  Don’t you find that principles inject an almost moribund inflexibility in the people who subscribe to them?” 

–

The Hollow Men

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

So. This is about ambition (which is good) and principles (which is even better). That said. Let us begin by reminding ourselves that Napoleon crowned himself emperor. Uhm. Yeah. Crowned himself. By that I mean to show he was even above the church <and the pope> instead of having the crown bestowed upon him and placed on his head by a representative from Rome he took the crown in in his own hands from the church guy and placed it on his own head.

My point? THAT is ambition.

As for principals?  Liberté, égalité, fraternité: “liberty, equality, fraternity <brotherhood>” — the national motto of France. Or. “Any man aspires to liberty, to equality, but he cannot achieve it without the assistance of other men, without fraternity.”

He drew a line.

Well. Then he redrew the line. And that is the difficulty with ambition. Drawing lines.

Because principles are not meant to be redrawn. They are not fleeting nor casual. And they certainly do not ‘inject an almost moribund inflexibility in the people who subscribe to them’ as one of the opening quotes suggests. Principles are almost like moral guard rails or maybe a foundation upon which represents the ground you stand upon. You get it. Something solid. In a way I imagine that is what character is all about – an inner moral compass. Principles by which to live.

I will also point out character is really about drawing lines. Lines you won’t cross. Boundaries within which you, your soul and pride and esteem and self belief, resides within. Is that inflexibility? Gosh. Maybe. I tend to believe it is more about insuring you keep some sense of self as defined by what is right and what is wrong.

“Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace.”

Oscar Wilde

Ok. Try having this discussion <ambition and principles> with young people, say high school kids, and maybe even some young adults entering the work place. This is a very difficult discussion to have.

There is a lot of discussion around how to fulfill their ambitions <and by the way if you have any doubts that kids these days aren’t ambitious or have some very well defined ambitions go to school for a day>.

Anyway. In other words the discussion revolves around how do they get to where they want to go. And this discussion isn’t around schooling or skills or picking a career; it is about principles.

They have principles they just worry <a lot> that the world they are entering does not.

They worry that if they live by their principles, doing what they believe is right and the right thing to do in what they perceive is a ‘dog eat dog’ world, they will get chewed up.

They worry that doing the right thing and having principles will actually hinder them in their journey toward their ambition.

Think about what I just wrote.

I suggest you do so because we older folk spend a shitload of time ranting about the altruism focus of the young … and they want to ‘do good’ and don’t want to ‘do work.’

We are missing the point. In fact we may be missing something we should be paying attention to.

Most young people don’t want to compromise their principles. They are not being dreamers nor are they being Pollyannaish with a perspective to the world, in fact, they are possibly seeing the world better than we old folk are.

They want to work.

They want to run businesses.

They want to be productive and be part of some company <or larger entity> where they can be part of a them doing and making something.

They just don’t want to compromise their principles.

So what do they do? They start seeking opportunities in places where they perceive they will not have to compromise their principles. In fact they are aiming toward opportunities that they believe embrace their principles so much so that they can tout them as some sort of ‘value’ <or justification> in their decision and choice to fulfill their ambition. I tend to believe older people who scoff at the importance of social responsibility in business or the importance of being environmentally conscious take a moment and think about this. Whether it REALLY matters in decision making/choices or not it DOES represent something tangible to a young person to attach their intangible principles to. Is it a representation of “whole cloth” importance? Probably not. But it is like grabbing onto a lifeline from a principle standpoint.

Think about it. This is choice by avoidance rather than choice by true ambition.

Parts of what I am saying are sad.

Sad in that some great young minds which could make the world a better place through business and ideas and innovations … are veering away.

We, as in society & productivity, are worse off because of this.

And we, as in older folk, kind of need to get our heads out of our asses and recognize what is happening. Stop thinking things like “kid, there is a real world out there you are gonna have to face … and you need to pay the bills … so assume some responsibility.” <or some derivative of that>

They are absolutely assuming some responsibility.

I fear that they only believe they can change the world through more altruistic pursuits. And, yes, they are important and good pursuits but from a larger perspective business drives the world. Business makes shit that makes lives easier and healthier and impacts the home and life in ways that it is difficult to imagine let alone outline in a few words. Somehow, someway, we need to insert the ‘believers of principles’ into the business world with all of their ambition and hope … and remind them – and empower them – that they can change the world.

They can make the world a better place.

They can make society and people and lives better.

And they can do it in business … not just altruistic career opportunities.

Look. Young people absolutely recognize that ambition i s good.

And you know what? It is. Ambition doesn’t mean having the biggest title or the biggest salary or the biggest anything, ambition is simply declaring you want to maximize your potential.

Ambition just needs to be tempered with principles mainly because you don’t live in a cocoon so you cannot truly fulfill your ambition ‘without the assistance of other people … without fraternity.’

I imagine my real point here is that ambition is always a personal struggle. It isn’t easy <no matter what anyone says>. Everyone walks a line. The good get tugged toward the side of bad and, yes, the bad get tugged toward the side of good.

Anyway.

This was a sad piece for me to write. Sad in that we have forgotten the power of people and I sometimes we believe the system is driving behavior and success … and worse … principles. And, yet, people build and make up the system.

We older folk appear to cynically view the system as ‘it is what it is, deal with it, or you will lose.’ And the younger people view the system as ‘it is what it is, I don’t like it, I will not compromise’  and they are electing to try and avoid it.

How is that in any way a successful formula for the future?

I began with Napoleon. He was from a relatively humble background on the island of Corsica for gods sake. And he ended up leading France to heights that seem unimaginable.

Did he reach too high and too far? Sure. Absolutely.

Life makes dealing with your principles a constant struggle. The real point is that you can fulfill your ambition & maintain your principles.

I believe we have forgotten this.

We have forgotten how to draw lines.

Well. Maybe the young haven’t forgotten and maybe we should get out of their way and let them change the world with their ambition & principles.

===========

 “Power concedes nothing without a demand, it never has and it never will.”

—–

Frederick Douglass

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

“Next to the assumption of power is the responsibility of relinquishing it.”

—

Benjamin Disraeli

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

Well. We don’t talk about power and people often beyond the tripe about how power corrupts people <as I have written … only people can corrupt themselves>. So let me talk about the dynamics of power in business in a non-corrupting way. What I mean by that is responsibility & authority. Whether anyone really admits it or not once you attain a senior position in a business you have gained power. Now. This power is most often not embodied in any nefarious way, but rather it is simply a reflection of responsibility & authority.

You have power over decisions.

You have power over people.

You have power over funds and their allocation.

You even have power over ideas … which ones die and which ones live.

Most of us do not see this as some all empowering power or even eye it with an authoritarian belief. We do not view it as some “center of power”, but rather we see it is actually more like a linear tool <or hammer> selectively used.

Now. Wielded well … power can look like a central source of authority, but ‘wielded well’ is actually a flurry of linear tools, like playing whack-a-mole, applied to establish selective moments of desired behavior and progress <and this flurry actually creates the sense that there is a larger centralized power>. I would note that sometimes it is (centralized power) and sometimes it isn’t. Power, wielded well, ranges from nudges, encouragement, actual decisions, suggested decisions, support and intangible guard rails.

But here is the thing.

Once you have gained authority you are extremely hesitant to concede the ‘power.’ This hesitancy actually shifts into full-on “hold on with ragged claws” if you have mastered <or you feel like you have mastered it> the ‘useful flurry of power’ in appropriate ways.

Partially I think this is the allure of owning <or some sense of ownership> the initiative – or having some power over initiatives. This shouldn’t be undersold. It is exhilarating and, well, powerful. In business while we measure results and report ad nausea the most satisfaction most leaders get is not in measuring parts & pieces, but rather the totality of what they do <input & output>.  And once you taste that satisfaction you have no desire to concede anything that could keep you from possibly attaining that satisfaction again.

Is that holding onto power? Sure. I guess. But I tend to believe it is more “I know how to do my shit and I want to keep ding that shit” attitude than any real bad ‘power trip’ type attitude.

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

“Never relinquish the initiative.”

Charles de Gaulle

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

Unfortunately … people on the outside just don’t see it that way. And it is understandable they may not see it the right way because I believe it was Geoffrey O’Brien who said ‘history unfolds as always in the midst of distraction, misunderstanding, and partially obscured sight-lines.’

That is how the authority version of power works. It unfolds in the midst of distraction and partially obscured sight lines. That is how authority works. It unfolds in the midst of a flurry of choices, decisions, delegations and doing <all blurry and, yet, creating a sense of central power>. Regardless of what it is, or what it looks like, once attained we tend to not want to relinquish it – we do not want to concede it.

It must be demanded to be relinquished.

Here is where it gets tricky. Because even if there is a demand to relinquish, and you do have to relinquish <you get fired and have to take a ‘lesser authority job’ or you get demoted or you simply shift jobs with a different authority level>, we hate to concede it. I mention that because that is one reason why older senior people who decide to take a lower titled job <even with the best intentions and capability to actually ‘do the job’> can struggle or just be a pain in the ass.

It’s not that they truly are a pain in the ass it is simply they have felt the satisfaction of authority and dislike the loss of that authority.

All that said. Power concedes nothing <unless the power owner is stupid, foolish or arrogant> … but as someone smarter than I said once … it always reveals.

Authority reveals.

Maybe what I am suggesting today is that authority (power) can actually reveal character and ability. And once you have seen what you can do, what you are capable of doing and what you like to do it is not an easy thing to conceded or relinquish. And, let me be clear, you can actually be good with authority and effective with use of power and can still be demanded to relinquish it.

It is a falsity to suggest that being good at something means you will always be able to do it <or someone will always seek to have you do it>. you can be forced to relinquish authority, even if you are good at it, for a variety of reasons in business <ranging from well-intended to absurd>.

It is natural to want it again if you were demanded to relinquish it.

Anyway. I say this so that maybe you take a second before you rush to claim someone is ‘power hungry’ or ‘protective of their power’ and mean it in a bad way. Having authority and enjoying authority and wielding authority well is addictive <or maybe just like having ‘the perfect buzz’>.

Is it wrong to be hungry for that? Whew. Sure doesn’t seem wrong.

I say this so that maybe you take a second before you rush to judge a person who has had a senior role and has decided to assume a position with lesser responsibility & authority because … well … once you have had authority it is really really hard to relinquish it. While power concedes nothing I would suggest that the feeling of authority used well tends to not want to concede anything.

===========

“Life has many ways of testing a person’s will, either by having nothing happen at all or by having everything happen all at once.”

Paulo Coelho

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

====

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

—

Lord Acton in 1887 

=============== 

“Look. Here is what power does to just about every human being.  It’s going to make you not pay attention to people as well as you used to pay attention to them.

You may find yourself swearing at a colleague or telling them that their work is horseshit. You will be a little less careful in the language you use. You will be a little less thoughtful about how things look from their perspective.  So just practise a little gratitude. Listen empathetically. It shouldn’t be that difficult.”

Professor Dacher Keltner

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

Let me be clear upfront: power affects behavior.

Let me be clearer: power affects everyone’s behavior.

And by everyone I mean, well, everyone. That includes you as well as me. Doesn’t matter if you become captain of a team, manager of a department, responsible for the management of a team, company or organization, it affects you.

Yeah. That may sound like a sweeping generalization but research study after research study <after another> reflect that power & authority change how people act and think. And not just big honking power, but any position in which you have some power over some other people.

But. That is ‘affecting behavior’ .. as in  “influencing how you think you should act and how you actually act.’ As in … that doesn’t mean it corrupts. Corruption is driven by choice  as in choice with what you do with the power you have attained. This doesn’t mean that corruption of power isn’t appealing. Because it is. Power distorts our view on what we believe is ‘right versus wrong.’ Mostly it comes to life in smaller ways … menial little ‘control’ aspects.

For example … in research participants were “primed” to feel less powerful or more powerful by asking them to think about people more or less powerful than themselves, or to think about times when they felt strong or weak. The results all stacked the same way. People who felt powerful were less likely to be empathetic; wealthy subjects were more likely to cheat in games involving small cash stakes and to dip their fists into a jar of sweets marked for the use of visiting children.  When watching a video about childhood cancer they displayed fewer physiological signs of empathy. Similar results occurred even when the privilege under observation had no meaning beyond the experiment room. Rigged games of Monopoly were set up in which one player took a double salary and rolled with two dice instead of one: winners failed to acknowledge their unfair advantage and reported that they had triumphed through merit.

That said.

Power does not corrupt people. Only corrupt people abuse their power.

Power does not do things. Only people can do things.

I could then argue that the possession of power is not the key factor to corruption, it is character <or lack of character>. Power is simply a tool, power is a tool of control, and how the tool issued depends on the user. Power is an awesome force, it can be an adrenaline high and I don’t care what field you are in, politics or business, the costs of power’s abuse are high.

Uhm. But the benefits of power can also be high. This means that anyone, anyone, can use their power for good or bad. The power itself offers a person options from which your character chooses which options to exercise. We are not characters in Lord of the Rings where we put on the ‘ring of power’ with which Sauron/evil drives our action from there on out.

Power is … well … power. Nothing more and nothing less.

====

“The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it.”

Frank Herbert

====

Anyway.

Having had some power let me suggest that is can be a lot like addiction and drugs. Why do I say that? Well. Because addiction in some form or fashion is an inability to control urges to do, or not do, something <that was a bastardized definition of addiction>.

If you have an addictive personality … well … power will fuck you up.

If you like the feeling but can manage the addiction temptation … you are fine.

Well. How about not always “fine” but certainly manageable and more often than not you don’t act like a little Hitler or some demon spawn manager.

It helps you as a manger if you DO look at the research and DO recognize that power will tug your character wherever it can find a loose thread.

Now. I could argue that money corrupts significantly more easily than power does, but instead I will suggest it is a different type of temptation, addiction and corruption. Wealth, or money, creates a layer of some weird guilt on top of the power grid, for example: “We know from other studies that the wealthy are more likely to lie and exaggerate about ethical matters,” researcher says. “Survey self-report data in economics and face-to-face data in psychology capture different processes. What I say I do in society versus how I behave with actual people.”

But pure power?

Pure control over people and what they do <and sometimes say>?

Yeah. It is kind of easy to jump onboard that power trip.

Here is what I know.

Your 1^st glimpse of power is different than you 51^st glimpse of power. What I mean by that is I am fairly sure I handled myself significantly better on my 51^st then I did on my 1^st. I don’t think I am unusual on that. There is a comfort thing that happens. Maybe it is a self-comfort and self confidence that you either gain or … well … never gain. I tend to believe I learned fairly quickly that the ‘power’ resided in “all for one, one for all” and not Me <as the one>. That didn’t mean I didn’t understand the responsibility of having ‘power’ because part of having power is that you are responsible for actually using it … uhm … responsibly and well.

That also doesn’t mean that on occasion I was faced with the ‘power dilemma’ which is what almost everyone who has sat in some corner office has faced, and felt, at one time … “I just want everyone to do what I tell them to do.”

Yeah.

We all feel it at some point.

Yeah.

We all <most of us> don’t really mean it in the grander scheme of things.

But that is the most recognizable corruption of power — in that little itty bitty thing I just noted. For the minute you succumb to the “just do what I tell you to do” you have permitted power to corrupt the greater good and, maybe worse, you have pushed your character off to the side under the guise of ‘expediency.’ I end with that point simply to suggest that power is a clever tool which comes in many sizes and shapes and appearances. And if you are not careful you can be corrupted in some very subconscious ways.

Which permits me to go back to the beginning as I end.

“So just practise a little gratitude. Listen empathetically. It shouldn’t be that difficult.

Just admit that power encourages us to affect our behavior because if you do that you will be more likely to remain aware of your actions and intentions. And I would suggest thinking that, that awareness alone, will make you a better user of your power.

Here is what I know about that last point.

The world likes people in power who use it responsibly and well.

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

Originally published October 2016

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

“Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it.

—

Dwight D. Eisenhower

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

Whew. In business, getting out of the way, if you are even mediocrely qualified or actually good at what you do … this may be one of the most difficult things to do.

What am I talking about?

Get out of the way of someone who knows what they are doing.

Now. This isn’t about ‘planting your own ideas in someone else’s head” <which you see a number of articles on if you try and google this topic, by the way, interestingly I couldn’t find one article out of the gazillions on my topic today>.

This is simply getting out of the way of someone who actually knows what the hell they are doing. This topic actually came up from a young person who actually asked ‘why don’t stupid people get out of the way of the people who actually know what they are doing.” My immediate response was relatively flippant: “because most stupid people don’t recognize they are stupid … about something.”

Okay.No one panic.

I followed that quickly with “listen … most people truly aren’t stupid … they are just blind to what they may actually not be as good at versus someone else.”

But. So, often, out of the mouths of babes comes truth. We often sit in our office, or in a meeting with a group of people, and if someone could read the thought bubble over our heads they would stare <mouth agape probably> when they read “why the f%$& won’t these stupid people get out of the way so someone who knows what they are doing can get this done?”

C’mon. Admit it.

We have all done it.

We have all thought it.

But here is the other side of that coin. It is really really difficult to admit you are one of the ‘stupid people’ and should be getting out of the way.

<by the way … I am simply using stupid as a harsher place holder for ‘less qualified’ or ‘not as good as’>

First. Reminder.

Most people are not stupid <even in business> and the odds are you aren’t stupid … it is simply a way of expressing your frustration and it isn’t literal.

Second. Well.

It is difficult to get out of the way for a number of reasons but let’s pick two:

<1> Yourself and … <2> someone else.

Huh?

–          Yourself.

This is ego. As well as society <a little> I imagine. But let’s discuss ego first. Getting out of the way implies you are not good enough or qualified enough … and you will not only feel like shit … you will look bad to everyone else.

You kind of have to discipline yourself a little to be able to get out of the way. This type of discipline is not easy.

Society does not support it and the drive to intervene in the process is rooted in how we were brought up, what we have seen around us and reinforced in our culture … as in … accepted behavior of those who are successful.

It is a difficult challenge to overcome the slightly narcissistic impulse to show off ‘your game’ and instead step out of the way and accept you can simply be there … without everything depending on you.

It is difficult for someone to not only know there are better circumstances you can be in but also that there’s a better way to do something.

It is difficult to think that if you actually step out of the way you may learn something and become better <mostly because you feel if you pass on this opportunity you will never get the opportunity again>.

It is difficult to decide in the moment, from a self interest perspective of actually wanting to better yourself <and do what’s right> that, technically, you are actually getting out of your own way.

None of this is easy because these types of decisions boil down to how you see yourself and how much value yourself. Maybe I could say instead … how comfortable you are with yourself.

If you think about it, if you can shed all the angst and society and all the ‘here is how you are supposed to act’ type bullshit, your actions reflect what you want for yourself and what you feel you deserve. In the end … as with almost everything it seems … getting out of the way and yourself is mostly about character. Oddly enough … it is difficult to be honest with yourself.

Next.

–          Someone else.

Ok.

This is a version of yourself … this is assessing the ‘someone else’ who wants you to get out of the way. Beyond the fact you may be admitting that someone may be better than you at something else … you are actually evaluating that someone else.

Uh oh. Typically, we suck at that. We suck at that because we typically judge our co-workers on the wrong criteria – the past.

Sure. If they have delivered on what they promised in the past, it does count for something. And their resume of past behavior and performance can count <albeit resumes are dubious things at best>.

But how much should it REALLY count? Because, uh oh <a BIG business truth here> most expertise is situational.

As in discrete. As in mutually exclusive.

Uh oh. What that means is you cannot judge based on anything historical but rather you have to judge within the moment and the situation.

Wow. That sucks. And we suck at doing that.

Ok. Beyond dealing with yourself and someone else.

When we do get out of the way we feel compelled to praise <this is actually a self ego thing>. Frankly, praising someone in the work place is … well … sometimes painful <particularly with a peer>. And if it isn’t painful it is certainly uncomfortable. Most of us are not skilled enough to be diplomatic and sincere without being condescending or, I cannot find the right words, suffice it to say most of us just plain suck at praising effectively in the work place.

And honestly … there are some good reasons why we suck at it. The behavioral reason <not the immature reason> is that we worry <and know from research> that the praised-for-every-achievement employee ends up reflecting a happier, more successful and highly self-esteemed employee, but more likely, the employee will become a ‘pleasing mode’ model employee <one who is driven to success not by personal curiosity but rather by the desire to earn praise by simply living up to expectations>.

Whew. Looking back at what I just wrote … that sure sounds cynical. Or maybe it just sounds shallow in referring to how people think or act. Take solace in the fact that it really isn’t because it is mainly a subconscious thing. We all do it to some degree it is only the people who consciously suck up and seek praise by ‘being a sheep’ that aggravate us.

Now. Living up to expectations isn’t a bad thing in the scheme of things, but it also doesn’t represent the kind of dynamics you want in a growing & expanding employee <or in a business in general>. You prefer to inspire someone to WANT to do something not HAVE to do it <for some personal gain>.

Anyway.

Getting out of the way is more difficult than most people think. For some good reasons and some bad reasons. Regardless of the reason, suffice it to say, we suck at getting out of the way.

===========

“We tend to hold ourself accountable for things we never did.  Hearts we never broke. People we didn’t hurt.  Souls we didn’t crush. “

—

coral-vellichor

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

All these years I’ve been looking at the wrong side.

—

(via madelinemharris)

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

Ok. Accountability, or responsibility, is always a good business topic. And, yes, I am a big personal responsibility person. But in business, within an organization, responsibility tends to be more shared responsibility than simple personal responsibility. I thought about this during a discussion on Distributed Leadership/Holocracy/etc type business models. These discussions tend to revolve around flat, flatter & flattened operating models. The point being everyone agrees there has to be some leadership roles and, yet, not be hierarchy or command/control.

Anyway. To be clear. I believe there is a strong relationship between shared responsibility and personal responsibility. The stronger the shared responsibility attitude & behavior within leadership & mentors & role models the stronger the development of personal responsibility muscle occurs in everyday schmucks like me. Conversely, if you are surrounded with lack of shared responsibility examples <or even those who espouse ‘selectively chosen shared responsibility’> the value of personal responsibility diminishes to an individual, therefore, they see less value in exhibiting personal responsibility.

We don’t talk about this relationship enough. Far too often we flippantly suggest “people should take responsibility for their actions.”

Well … no shit Sherlock. But if your role models or leaders are constantly passing the buck when the shit hits the fan to save their own bacon <and image> then what the hell … why would you not do the same?

Yeah. Sure. Everyone has to pull their weight and do their job and do what they say they are going to do … but very very rarely does an individual perform in a vacuum in a business.

This happens more so even in management. It drives me a little nuts when I hear some leaders discuss “delegating.”

Somehow delegating equals “absolved of responsibility.”

This is stupid irresponsible thinking.

My belief that it is stupid thinking is rooted in some common sesne I am fairly sure the US Military says:

 

You can delegate authority, but you cannot delegate responsibility.

In other words … you can give others the power to do things … you can delegate … but, no matter what happens … if something goes wrong … the final responsibility always lies with the one who has delegated authority. Sticking with the military as my guidance … this means if your business has an initiative that has gone SNAFU <“Situation Normal: All Fucked Up”> the blame … and the ultimate responsibility for the mistakes <fuck ups> falls … uhm … up.

The leader assumes responsibility. This is shared responsibility. In other words … this is leadership.

Once you become a business leader past a mom & pop management style business you have to face the concept of shared responsibility <and some embrace it and some reject it>.

Despite the fact you have delegated authority that ‘authority’ does not represent a discrete event and period in time. You bear the responsibility for the cascade of events, decisions and actions leading up to the ‘authority giving’ which means everything you have done up until that point provides the context for the delegating … yeah … you own the arena in which you have placed the delegatee.

But this gets exponentially worse <if you are thinking about becoming a business leader>. You actually also share responsibility for the consequences — intended and unintended. This is different than delegating authority <although it relates to it> and owning responsibility for the action … this goes beyond to the actual ripples from the decisions & actions.

Now. Some leaders have a nasty habit of assuming responsibility for the decision and the effect of the decision — within a finite period of time. The weakest leaders try and tie “that was out of my control” or “I wasn’t there for that” as soon as they can to a decision they make. The strongest leaders worry less about any carnage that has been left behind, but rather start worrying about any carnage the decisions & actions could possibly create for the future.

The truth is that business leaders should take a moment and remember the wise words of an American Indian. Red Cloud, an Oglala Lakota leader who led his people against the U.S. Army and later as his people transitioned from life on the plains to the reservation, stressed that when Indian people made a decision, it should be done with the welfare of the next seven generations in mind.

In a short term world where most business leaders are trying to make quarterly goals and just try and keep their job … thinking with the welfare of the next 7 generations seems … well … impossible. I imagine the real point is that most good business leaders assume some responsibility for the generations to come.  Some people may call this ‘long term strategy’ and some others will call it ‘keeping your eye on the horizon’ or even ‘having a vision’, well, I am no Harvard Business guru and all that high falutin’ stuff seems unnecessary. To me it is much more simple. You make decisions accepting the burden of responsibility for what will come and may arise from your decision.

You share the responsibility for what will, or may, come. And if you do that? Damn. You will do good and be good. And if you do not do that? Damn. You may get a shitload of attention and applause in the moment and a shitload of attention and anger in the future.

Why do I say that?

Because if you don’t really believe in shared responsibility and flit from one decision to the next in a transactional “responsible only to the moment” way you will end up rushing from issue to issue, reacting without a plan or a strategy or <worse> no care of longer term affect, creating carnage yet to be seen <because that type of leader tends to seek only the cheers in the moment>.

Just to point it out … with no plan that means anything can happen and a leader can justify anything. Because with no plan to measure a decision against anything can look right … and unpredictable can be touted as ‘flexible to the situation.’

All of this fits a short term leader in a short term world.

The people are few and far between these days who weigh their responses and assess long term affects. In today’s world it almost seems a race to be the first to judge or comment on a decision or action and far too many leaders actually manage to the public race to comment rather than the longer term assessment.

This is scary stuff for anyone to do but a business leader? Dangerous.

Even the best short term decision makers, if forced into a gauntlet of short term decisions, will struggle to insure at the end of the gauntlet they have kept walking northwards as they had been looking down the entire time. More often than not North will not be the direction you are facing nor will you have actually moved any closer to the North star.

I am not suggesting this longer term shared responsibility attitude is easy. In fact .. it is really really hard. In fact … it almost means you have to embrace a little “impossible” into what you actually make possible.

Huh?

In general I have always liked logical thinking <no matter how random the logic may be> but I always love it when someone combines some unexpected logic. Generally speaking the best unexpected logic actually comes from those who do the impossible … thinking of the impossible and seeing possibilities — the impossible being “knowing for sure what will happen in the future.” They make the spectacular leaps/chances, accepting responsibility and sharing responsibility, so that business can make the needed changes or just do the semi-risky things that keep a good business doing good things <things that may push against the borders of the status quo>.

Yeah.

Spectacular errors can only happen if you take spectacular chances. I am not fond of irresponsible risk taking and decision-making, but I am fond of doing ‘the right thing’ even when it may appear to be going against the stream. Sometimes that means a spectacular success, sometimes a spectacular error. But always something spectacular. And, I will tell you, what more could you want to say about your life as a leader but that you have done something spectacular? Especially if that ‘spectacular’ actually happens a generation later which permits you to sit back and say “I did the impossible … I viewed the future well.’

Anyway.

Shared responsibility is the burden of any good leader. They tend to be the leaders who understand they cannot really be sure what is going to happen to them over time, they weigh the risks to the best of their ability and let the chips fall as they may. I tend to believe their attitude is one of “you don’t want to act more fearfully than you have to.”

Good leaders have a tendency to hold themselves accountable for anything, everything and everyone … in varying degrees depending on the anything, everything and everyone. And, maybe most importantly, I tend to believe they understand that there is a relationship between shared responsibility and personal responsibility. And, practically speaking, you will never be viewed as a true leader if you do not.

Well.

You know what? To end this thing today let me offer two other words, typically associated with responsibility, obligation and duty.

Obligation refers general to something you are compelled to do by regulation, law, promise or morality. I think good leaders feel obligated to assume shared responsibility.

Duty, more so than obligation, springs from an internal moral or ethical impulse rather than from external demands.

I think good leaders feel a duty, not just obligation, to assume shared responsibility. Shared responsibility … not only do I believe we should discuss it more often <because it will foster better value in personal responsibility> but I also believe we should be demanding it of our leaders more often.

——

“Most men are individuals no longer so far as their business, its activities, or its moralities are concerned.

They are not units but fractions.”

=

Woodrow Wilson

——

Well.

In business and in Life people like consistency.

We actually like rules. And we really <really> like some guidelines for how to do things, what to say and when things should be done.

Oh. And .we love, yes, LOVE to look to the past for answers or the ‘formula for what to do or how to act.”

Ah. That sneaky ‘learn from the past or be doomed to repeat mistakes’ advice.

True, but not true advice. What makes it not true?

Context.

Future truths, or solutions, only partially reside in the past. The other part lives in the present and what is swirling around that moment.

Which brings me back to the opening quote.

We like to see things as units and yet they are simply fractions. Some people stand on fractions and act like they are whole solid foundations.

Be wary of those people.

They are not really seeking truth just answers, okay, well … maybe just an answer.

——-

“Fear not the path of Truth for the lack of People walking on it.”

Robert F. Kennedy

——-

I admit. The trouble we constantly run into is, yeah, context. We are always contextual, mosaics of the moment, and this is troubling for anyone seeking simple answers. Frankly, most of us would love a simple answer now & then <if not all the time>. But some people thrive on simplicity and black & white.

Please do not read into what I just wrote that these people live a colorless life. Everyone has color and everyone certainly has pieces of light within and without. 

====

“We are mosaics. Pieces of light, love, history, stars … glued together with magic and music and words. “

Anita Krizzan 

==

All I am suggesting is that magic, or the contextual aspects, in Life creates a certain intangible aspect to everyday situations. And while this intangible thing is a nagging aspect in common everyday life & business … at critical points, let’s call them ‘semi-critical moments or junctures’, the contextual intangible aspect is nerve wracking.

Nerve wracking because we want a simple solution in semi-critical moments. And context demands some complexity. It demands looking at fractions and not the whole. This means we constantly struggle with the fact <the Truth as it were> we, as individuals, businesses, countries and societies, are simply fractions and not the unit.

I would also suggest decisions, business & in life, are simply fractions and not a self-sustaining unit.

Yet, we try and make most of our decisions as if everything is aligned and unmoving — kind of like taking a snapshot and taking action.

Uh oh. This is double trouble.

This means, contextually, whatever action or decision you take or make will be relevant to what was … not what is. 

———-

“Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. 

That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.”

Milton Friedman

————-

In closing out this thought I would like to point out that this thought, while it seems like a stronger Life thought, is maybe even more importantly a business thought. Far far too often in business we ignore the fact each decision is contextual seeking comfort by sitting around saying “let’s look to the past for the answer.” I admit I find it slightly odd because in today’s business world every single mistake or hiccup/interruption in the status quo is labeled a crisis and crises tend to produce real change. We shouldn’t be seeking comfort in the solution but rather an uncomfortable solution which enhances the possibility of comfortable results.

On the other hand. Maybe that is my explanation to the oddity. Because what we label a crisis really isn’t true crisis we tend to just depend on whatever ideas are lying around. And the most typical ideas lying around are “what can we learn from the past.”

If you ever wonder why great decision makers should be paid some inordinate amount of money … reread this. Great decision makers see the past, the present & the future and envision the mosaic better than most of us <certainly I>.

They understand the situation is simply a fraction of what is.

This should also help explain why so many people make incredibly bad decisions.

Every moment, every situation, every success and every failure … is contextual. In fact contextual exists in almost every situation in such a wide vivid mosaic perspective that ‘learning from the past’ almost seems like an inordinate waste of time.

===

“It’s the people who no one imagines anything of, who do the things that no one imagines.”

–

The Imitation Game

====

The people who get overlooked in business.

The misfits.

The discarded.

The eclectic.

The ‘different.’

I have always gravitated to these people. I have always tended to hire these people. I have always found these people interesting, rewardingly challenging to know & manage and … well … most likely the key to any success I have found in Life – personally & professionally. They aren’t really misfits and, yet, they don’t seem to fit in with what the majority of people either want or just “look for.” That said. I am gonna call them “misfits.”

I have found I learn more from the misfits. They are the curves in the winding road which have a tendency to share new vistas. They are the ones independent of the traditional ‘expected’ and are truly the unique.

But let’s be clear.

While we seem to celebrate uniqueness & independence society and culture has pushed back those who practiced uniqueness and independence since the dawn of civilization. I could suggest it is because we naturally gravitate to ‘commonalities’ and are more comfortable in seamlessness but instead I will suggest it is because they are perceived to pose some sort of threat to what is perceived as the natural order of things and what should be.

The backbone of all society & culture is an undercurrent of conformity. This shouldn’t be necessarily perceived as any type of real limitation because people and society inherently coalesce around what looks best, feels best and does the best for the majority. It is kind of a natural gravitational pull.

And then there are those who fight that gravitational pull.

The misfits as it were.

They are the ones who for any variety of reasons fight against the undercurrent of conformity not to ‘be different’ but rather because they see that conformity has a tendency to make people give up their dreams and play small <or smaller than possibilities may suggest is possible>. It’s more common to “fit in” and slot yourself in some sort of ‘dream of who I could be’ rather than step out and create that dream.

That’s maybe why I love misfits.

As an enabler of misfits I often found myself benefiting from the fact I was part of ‘dream creators’ rather than ‘dream slotters’ <they had dreams of their own they wanted to create if given an opportunity to do so>. But the path of a misfit is not an easy one. It is a tricky path strewn with obstacles, resistance, and frequent feelings of isolation/loneliness/ self doubt. It becomes very easy for a misfit to get angry as they perceive more obstacles, more resistance and more isolation than the average person.

That is the lot in life of being a misfit.

I loved teaching misfits, or maybe even just encouraging them, to learn how to successfully swim upstream and go against the undercurrent of conformity in the river of life.

Look.

I am not one of those people who will unequivocally state that Misfits can win big in Life <although they can>. I would simply suggest that many <most> misfits aren’t really misfits. They come in all shapes & sizes. They are simply people who embrace their personal characteristics as part of not what makes them different but rather what makes them successful as a person.

The most comfortable of the misfits do not really celebrate their so-called misfit characteristics but rather wear them like a comfortable sweatshirt.

These are the people who don’t ignore the beat of the majority drummer but are more in tune with their own drummer.

These are the people who tend to create things beyond the norm. They imagine what could be more easily than the ones who see more of what is <and try to improve it>.

Later in life these are the people who tend to exhibit compassion. They have fought the undercurrent and faced the obstacles … and have endured the nicks & dents and proudly stand as no longer a misfit … but just a unique person who has a strong sense of self. Therefore they tend to be compassionate not to misfits as people but rather a person’s sense of self <which is actually the more important key>.

I have been extremely fortunate in Life and I credit the misfits. Having had the perfect seat to get the best perspective on all that is ‘misfit’ I have been able to develop my own belief system and independent individualistic perspective on business and life.

They have also shown me the challenges of fighting the status quo.

They have shown me how tiring it can be swimming against the undercurrent.

They have shown me how a powerful conviction, without some selective strategic compromise, is often destined for a weary bitter Life.

They have shown me what happens when you choose to not follow the norms and customs of the environment.

Ultimately, though, there is a power that is associated with misfitdom. There is a power found in acknowledging that you are different … and most likely have always been different. And that different is not necessarily bad.

It is just different. That is all it is.

I am pleased that I was one who appreciated the differences and encouraged the ‘misfits’ in life.

I am pleased that I encouraged people to find what was within and to remember that you are allowed to be different and you are allowed to be who you are.

I am mostly pleased because by embracing misfits I became a better person and a better business leader. Misfits changed me from being yellow to … well … a variety of colors.

=====

“All your life you’re yellow.

Then one day you brush up against something blue, the barest touch, and voila, the rest of your life you’re green. “

Tess Callahan

=======

I most likely learned significantly more from misfits than they learned from me. And I am sure I would have been a significantly more bland person if I hadn’t had the pleasure of the company of misfits.

Anyway. I think we have a tendency to overlook misfits far too often. And they are the ones, the ones we least imagine having the capability, who are most likely to imagine what no one else imagines. I will always embrace the discarded, the ‘less-than-wanted’, the misfits. I will do so recognizing not everyone will. And whenever I get the opportunity I pull them off to the side and say ‘be stubborn and keep working and keep fighting.’

I do so because without them we would all be yellow.

==

“I have always believed that hope is that stubborn thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us so long as we have the courage to keep reaching, to keep working, to keep fighting.”

Barack Obama

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

Originally published February 2016

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

just-shower-thoughts:

The moral of the Tortoise and the Hare shouldn’t be “slow and steady wins the race.” The Tortoise only won because the Hare kept getting distracted. The moral should instead be “stay on task.”

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

So.

Some people have the flair for the dramatic in business. They make it look easy. I would actually point out they are stellar at staying on task in business <which permits the moments of flair>. Now. Staying on task has different dimensions. The most basic are <a> staying on task throughout and <b> being focused in the moments that matter in the task.

The second isn’t as easy as you may think.

You have to be on task in the first place and then you actually have to recognize the moment that matters. In sports this is easier because sports has a tendency to ‘present’ the moment that matter, but in business these moments tend to be a little more sneaky.

Regardless.

Moments that matter are truly the moments in which it doesn’t matter whether you are a tortoise or a hare. In these types of moments all becomes one, judged equally, and … well … times stands still and you either produce or you don’t.

Everything that came before and all that comes after is kind of irrelevant.

Everything gets squeezed into what you do in that moment.

And this is where the flair for the dramatic can occur.

Well.

It seems dramatic only because <a> doing the dramatic is special (not everyone can do it> and <b> ‘having a flair’ implies the person can deliver ‘the goods’ in the moment more than once and possibly on a relatively consistent basis. Suffice it to say … anyone who has a flair for the dramatic deserves not only some accolades but also some analysis.

On the analysis front I would argue that this person has a key attribute with two dimensions  – a unique type of focus which <a> has the ability to recognize the massive amount of self-imposed distractions which inevitably slows other people down … and shuts them out and <b> has the ability to ‘slow things down.’

I think this focus permits a person to ignore all the expectations placed upon their decision <but accept that they are there>, and ignore the inherent pressure to live up to the monumental things that people around the person expect him/her to do … and constantly lives up to them.

By the way.

If you can also do this with some class, dignity, integrity and humility … well … you will earn gobs of money.

I would suggest that this person embodies this formula:

Expertise = secure = confidence.

Winning in these business moments is often more about confidence, and how the attitude enables clear ‘non-hedging’ articulation of what can be done, than anything else. And that confidence embraces real expertise brought to the fore by that unique focus I described.

All that said. Here is why I really like these people. I abhor social chameleons: people who change to impress whoever they happen to be with. I will note, 99% of the time, chameleons suck in the moments that matter. In fact. If I were a betting man, I would bet that anyone you may know with a flair for the dramatic is not a chameleon.

At the core of almost any person with the flair for the dramatic is someone who knows who they are and knows who they ain’t … and stays true to that day in and day out.

That ‘trueness’ permits this person to offer a steady consistency on the ‘task at hand’ which is not about maintaining one speed but rather maintaining a consistent sense for how to adjust pacing accordingly. And what THAT means is that this person is also more likely to spot the moment that matters and zero in with their unique focus in that moment. I cannot tell you how important, and how valuable, this is. I say that because I sometimes think while we admire the people with the flair for the dramatic we diminish the abilities that actually permit it to happen.

Why do I say that?

Business systems, more often than not, are a bit more complicated in their underlying dynamics than simplistic theory or simplistic diagrams attempting to create structure to an organization and its dynamics with the market & consumers/buyers. I would draw a picture to show you this but I would suggest that you cannot draw a picture for what is <because it is obsolete as soon as it is drawn> and you cannot draw a picture for what will be <because predicting multi-dimensional dynamics is outside the purview of reality>. It is actually like a big swirling mass of fragments <not chaos, just movement>.

Therefore, in business, moments that matter are most likely found within a spinning Rubik cube and the ones who have the fair for the dramatic have the ability to actually step in, at exactly the right moment, and in that moment solve the Rubik cube. Seeing as I, personally, have never solved a Rubik cube … this sounds particularly complicated and sounds like it would take an incredible skill in order to do.

That is what someone in business with a flair for the dramatic does.

All that said.

This skill is a version of slowing down to speed up. And you cannot pay enough money to a business person who has the ability to know when to slow down to enable effective speeding up … or to pause to accept some responsibility <or explain> … or to fast forward at the right time.

That is why you cannot pay enough money to a business person who has the ability to stand still without really standing still.

What I mean by that is this is the business person who can seemingly pause in the midst of play <on multiple dimensions> and grab the Rubik cube and solves it. Not a lot of people can do that.

I don’t care if you call this a flair for the dramatic.

I don’t care if you call it ‘slowing down to speed up.’

I don’t care if you call this “an ability to slow things down mentally.”

All I know is you should call it a person who you want in your business.

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

“As with events, so it is with thoughts. When I watch that flowing river pours for a season its streams into me, I see that I am a pensioner; not a cause, but a surprised spectator of this ethereal water.”

—–

Ralph Waldo Emerson

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

“The sphinx must solve her own riddle.  If the whole of history is in one man, it is all explained from individual experience.”

——

Ralph Waldo Emerson

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

“Comparisons are a shit way of evaluating things.”

—-

Bruce McTague

===========

So.

We LOVE using the past to try and explain shit. Past people, past events, past words and past … well … everything.

When we are faced with something new, or someone new, we immediately start sifting through the scrap heap of the past to start creating some semblance of a jig saw puzzle to explain what we are facing.

There are a number of problems with doing this.

The biggest is that scraps are scraps. Oh. And the scraps used to reside in a completely different context <which is impossible to recreate>. And, yet, we continue to try.

The problem is that in doing so we elect to not judge the present on the merits of the present. We decline to judge a person as they are, the circumstances as they are and the decisions on the merits of what it is. We do this with everyone and everything … how money is spent, decisions we need to make, new people we have met and even leaders. We do it all partially well intended <we want to make sure we make a fair assessment of hat we are seeing & hearing> and partially because simply examining something and stating “this is good” or “this is bad” <or acceptable or unacceptable> seems … well … flimsy.

Comparisons tend to make things look more solid.  And, yet, we tend to absolutely suck at creating the proper comparisons. And, that happens for a variety of reasons – also some well-intended and some not so well intended.

I will start with the well intended.

As Emerson once wrote: “our being is descending into us from know not whence.” And we struggle with that truth. It makes us uncomfortable … uhm … no … REALLY uncomfortable. If we don’t know where things descend from then we begin to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to find comparisons to do so. this all comes at the expense of judging what is, the beings and such, on the merits of what exists. And this is where the shit hits the fan. We either dip into our own memories or a slew of people start telling us what memories to take a look at <the latter is part of the not so well intended>.

Well.

Here is an unfortunate fact … our memories, which is how we tend to judge and create mental comparisons, are constructive and reconstructive.

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

“Many people believe that memory works like a recording device.

…….. our memory chip ……..

You just record the information, then you call it up and play it back when you want to answer questions or identify images. But decades of work in psychology has shown that this just isn’t true.

Our memories are constructive.

They’re reconstructive.

Memory works a little bit more like a Wikipedia page: You can go in there and change it, but so can other people. “

—

Elizabeth Loftus

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

“You can ask the universe for all the signs you want, but ultimately, we see what we want to see when we’re ready to see it.”

——

(via 1112pm)

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

We desperately want to define things through comparison and continuously ask the universe for signs to show us what we want.

We desperately do so because in the absence of some comparison we would then have to judge what is on the merits of what exists — the good, the bad and the indifferent .

That doesn’t mean a shitload of people around you aren’t gonna try and affect how you will build your comparisons and encourage you to compare in some fairly creative <sometimes absurd> ways.

What do I mean?

I go back to the psychologist Ebbinghaus who studied memory construction <his published essay Über das Gedächtness in 1885> where he realized that memory and recall of continuous passages of prose or verse would be affected differentially by people’s experiences and prior knowledge.

Memory is a snare, pure and simple; it alters, it subtly rearranges the past to fit the present. 

Mario Vargas Llosa

 

What that actually means is that the memory you tap into to create the comparisons you seek are slightly mangled by yourself <in how you remember it> and can be manipulated by devious not so well intended people around you. The Constructive and reconstructive nature of memory:

• Memories are distributed; not unitary
• “remembering” involves retrieving and reassembling
• memories can be revised over time
• Reconstruction is filling in “missing details” on the basis of logic, assumptions, what “must have been the case”
• More common reasons for forgetting: Lack appropriate retrieval cue = something you attach to a memory, can use to recover it>
• Reliable retrieval cues are key to access <and multiple retrieval cues are best>
• Existence of older memories blocks access to newer ones

Ah. If only we could pull out our brain and use only our own eyes. But, not surprisingly, this is the exact same issue new ideas, “white space” theories, fresh thinking, true <not made up> disruptive people & things face.

All that said. I will point out that something doesn’t have to be truly new to face false comparison challenges … it can simply be a new person in an existing role or a common problem or question just in a different time. Suffice it to say anything new, or any change, is being asked to be defined by the past. And there will never be a lack of people stepping up and suggesting they can define something through a variety of comparisons <many of which you spend more time trying to fend off than is worth the time>.

This is a mistake. This is a fundamental error we make. It assumes what is can somehow be extrapolated by something by what was <the past>. In reality, as I have noted numerous times, I cannot exactly extrapolate the past because I cannot exactly replicate the past … which means <in harsh terms> there is nothing there and nothing from nothing is … uhm … nothing.

Yeah.

Most comparisons end up meaning nothing <although they look like something>.

Yeah.

This means most comparisons we create are just plain and simple false comparisons. Without trying to be flippant with regard to what I believe is a fairly standard operating procedure for people … we need to stop. Stop false comparisons.

It is a trap. And a dangerous trap.

Comparisons normalize that which should not be normalized … just as comparisons can de-normalize that which should be normalized. False comparisons wielded by the devious can construct almost any “normal” you could desire <even if it is hollow & not really normal>.

Anyway.

In today’s world there does seem like there is a lot of crazy shit happening. And in our desire to veer away from the “crazy shit” feeling we seek some comparisons to normalize the situation <thereby calming the ‘crazy shit feeling>.

Just a couple of notes of warning on that.

<a> Finding comparisons, if done well, you can actually be convinced there really isn’t crazy shit happening even though there is truly some crazy shit happening.

As a corollary to <a>,

<b> if there is truly some crazy shit happening there will be no shortage of people ponying up false comparisons trying to convince you that there is no crazy shit happening <and some of them will be quite effective>. The only reason I point out the warning is that there really is some crazy shit happening and we need to stop finding comparisons to make today, and some people, look a little less crazy than it really is.

There you go.

I will end where I began … “Comparisons are a shit way of evaluating things <and people>.” We should invest the energy judging what is, people, ideas and things, based on their present merits not some false comparisons from the past.

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

“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 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.

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.

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.

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>.

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.