==

“Half the world is composed of people who have something to say and can’t, and the other half who have nothing to say and keep on saying it.”

Robert Frost

===

This is my companion piece to “business and what you have to say matters.”

I believe that is more important than ever that individuals speak out with regard to what matters to them. Of course, I prefer that the people who do so articulate those thoughts well and emphasize the rich nuance in most of the important things that should be talked about. With that said at the end of the piece I’ve included a quick thought with regard to being canceled or canceled culture because it seems inextricably linked to encouraging people to say what matters because it matters what you say.

Which leads me to say I say what matters to me; a lot.

Well. I write a blog. A couple thousand pieces and a couple million words. In my mind I have something to say and I say it. Maybe it all means nothing and as Frost suggests: “I am one of those who have nothing to say but say it.” Regardless. If I say it, I own my words. I say this because we are edging into a world where people are of an age that are shifting into leadership positions, positions of influence, who, well, have a history of some sort of online writing. And, uh oh, they are being demanded to justify their words, thoughts, and ideas. In other words. They are being asked to own their words. They may have had nothing to say, but they said something and now they have to explain something about their nothing.

This is all incredibly interesting <and slightly amusing> to me because if you go online, you will find thousands of writing advice columns <usually formatted in the heinous listicle style and written by self-righteous older people> written to the attention of young people warning them of the dangers of what they put online and how it can affect their future employment.

The amusing part? I found none <zero> advice columns directed toward, well, people of my age.

And you know why? Because we older folk are supposed to know better.

Sadly.

Some of us do not know better.

There are lawyers seeking higher positions, business people seeking a seat in a C-level suite and even doctors seeking to shift into a more general business world who are finding that their words are following them <and they need to own them>.  To be clear, no, “it was just my personal opinion on my personal blog” doesn’t hack it. If you shared a thought, you own the words in how you shared it, therefore, you own the thought AND the words. There is no personal/professional split, they are thoughts and words you own. That said. Personal thoughts and professional behavior split IS doable and actually a ‘thing,’ but that another piece for another day.

Anyway. To be fair I will spend a second in the tricky part of ownership.

Is the past a predictor?

Should we waste our time revisiting the online writings of someone who most likely sat down and vented personal thoughts on things of matter?

And, maybe more importantly, should we be held accountable for words we decided to put down and share on the world wide web?

Simplistically, I would say of course we should be held accountable for the words then just as, of course, what we said then may be different than what we would say now. We need to own all the words <and justify the difference>.

Simplistically I would say it is indefensible to solely make a stand on ‘you said it because you can’ and, simplistically, it is indefensible to simply say ‘that was then and this is now.’

If you write, you own the words. Therefore, use words with care.

If you make a point, you own it. Yeah. You own the words you use to make that point.

I make no mistake when I post something in that I know when I open my mind and share my words, they represent a potent formula that can be drunk with pleasure or peril. I know whether it is a large presentation, a one-on-one discussion or a 998 word post on my blog I am doing so as a public speaker.

I own my words. I own my thoughts.

====

“Words are singularly the most powerful force available to humanity. We can choose to use this force constructively with words of encouragement, or destructively using words of despair. Words have energy and power with the ability to help, to heal, to hinder, to hurt, to harm, to humiliate and to humble.”

Yehuda Berg

=====

I say that because I am surprised when older people get trapped in business discussions having to discuss things they may have written as if the words should remain ‘there’ and why should we discuss it ‘here.’ Its nuts. Its nuts because anyone with half a brain knows words are a constructive force or a destructive force. With either path I own what I construct as well as own what I deconstruct; and I don’t understand how you can get to a certain age, or a certain level, and not know that..

Now. What also surprises me a little is that older people who have blogs or write opinion pieces are not young inexperienced people but, if you are making a point, you really do know that simply ranting or using some childish phrasing or hyperbolic rhetoric diminishes what you have to say.

And I say that knowing I am free with the swear words and generous with snarkiness.

Anyway. I may not communicate what I want to say simply, but underneath the swear words, the snarkiness, the faux intellectualism and the casual use of grammar resides a desire to hit what I have always believed is the message simplicity bullseye <by the way … anyone, blogger, opinion writer and even a communications agency can use this simplistic guide>.

The bullseye.

On one axis you are bookended.

On one end is whatever issue & solution I can offer — functionally what I have to offer <my experience, my ideas, my thinking> — followed in toward the bullseye by … well … me, the writer, and who I am and what I stand for <so that my thinking gets filtered through who and what I am … lets call that my character>.

On the other end is the need or want or desire – functionally what is needed – moving toward the bullseye by what the situation, or people, may desire <or think they desire> so that pragmatism gets filtered through the sometimes random irrational minds of people.

The other axis is even simpler: hero, conflict and resolution. It is basic story telling applied to ideas. I want to offer a hero <it can be an idea> which can enter into a conflict unflinchingly or flinchingly if appropriate, and offer a resolution.

All this permits me even in my most dry pieces to attempt to offer my version of a story which, as stories are supposed to do, address deeper and enduring emotional levels tapping into personal “issues” such as self-esteem <conformity versus individuality>, self-doubt and economic wellbeing.

Everyone who writes should have a story. They shouldn’t toss out words thoughtlessly, or worse, irreverently.  Anger doesn’t guide a good story <typically> but as long as you continue to aim forward the bullseye even an anger driven critique can end up in an okay place when viewed by someone in the future.  And all of that matters if you assume at some point someone will demand you own your words.

Regardless. No matter the words, what you say, what I want today should be aligned with what I believe in. I can take a fairly hard stance on a variety of issues, and I have, but I also hope that my heroes & resolutions reflect adaptability to other’s views and the situation at hand. When I do meet new business people or people I haven’t seen in a while and sometimes they bring up something I have written, let’s say 5 years ago, I am good. I may not think exactly what I did then but my basic principled beliefs have not changed.

It surprises me when some fairly qualified people have not assumed that stance in what they have written.

And.

I certainly have no patience for those who are more than willing to toss out their own past words as “I said that then but now …” or “I wish I had chosen my words more carefully.”  I will not suggest we should all get our words right every time <I surely don’t>, but not all words are created equal and the really important ones, the potent ones, the ones that can construct or deconstruct, you should get right. Well. At least right enough that someday in the future your career will not hang in the balance over poorly thought-out communications. Conversely, if you did think it out and your career can hang in the balance over it, well, you made a stand**. Good on you. And backing off that stand simply to get to where you want to be is, well, not good.

Look. I am very much aware that what I say today is probably the reason more people do not speak out. The consequences are often real and harsh and unforgiving. So don’t say what matters to you if that is what you choose (albeit I would note that silence is empty space for someone else to suggest something about how you feel about what matters). But if you do speak out, I have no time and I have no patience for people who do not own their words. And they should be ashamed of themselves for discarding thoughts and words so easily just to get something they want now. Thoughts and words are far too valuable to be that disposable. Ponder.

• ** hanging in balance when you take a stand. So let me make a point about ‘cancel culture’ and ‘being cancelled for speaking out.’ I have written before cancel culture is bullshit. Everyone who has supposedly been ‘canceled’ is somewhere in the communication system, with an audience, screaming what they have to say at the top of their lungs. They never had their tongue cut ut and the never lost access to some platform. That said. Let me tell you DOES get cancelled – stupid poor communicators. You can have a minority point of view, you can even have a horrible point of view, and if you articulate it well, you do not get cancelled. If, conversely, you ‘dull axe’ your communication – which is usually simplifying something down to an idiot soundbite – you get cancelled. Yeah. Truly the only people who get cancelled are the ones who say stupid shit stupidly.

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

“You aren’t advertising to a standing army; you are advertising to a moving parade.”

David Ogilvy

==

“One can resist the invasion of an army but one cannot resist the invasion of ideas.”

Victor Hugo

==

I know businesses are hesitant to wade into social issues. It is fraught with peril. That said. Look at this Google chart Axios offers us with regard to topics. It was an absolutely crazy time in the world as Trump offered the world an onslaught of crazy shit. I would argue it was impossible to not engage, therefore, the question a business had to answer was “how do I engage.” And if that is so, I would argue it would behoove all business people to think of it as “convergence opportunities charting” where if you engaged in a relevant thoughtful way – what would your business look like in the eyes of people as it spoke out?

Now. Crazy lightning rod topics or not, businesses kill for convergence moments in which #’s of people coalesce, if but for a moment or two, to say something to them. That’s why businesses do events. That’s why health clubs look at towel dispensers as communication/experience opportunities (while members may all do different workouts 90% stop at the dispenser). Twitter is like the workouts & the convergence moments are the towel dispensers. Scan someone’s thread & it centers on their interest (cats, climate, bad jokes, community, politics, etc.), but when a convergence topic hits everyone pays attention. Even if you hesitate to weigh in on issues it is difficult to not see these as opportunities to not only elevate your business brand socially, but also to expand your business. Personally, I believe all businesses should make their personal stand on society issues as part of their brand. But that’s me.

Yeah. I believe businesses should take a stand on social issues.

I am in the minority, but I believe business should get involved in society issues. Maybe not all, but they should take a stand. To me silence is not an option. I believe if you have a podium and the opportunity to speak you should accept the burden of responsibility and try and ‘lift society to a higher level.’ And if you don’t give a rat’s ass what I think, Peter Drucker also thought business should be involved in society.

So let me take a moment and comment on business responsibility and their choices with regard to what they say in communications. I do so because in today’s heightened sense of politicism and divisive rhetoric a shitload of people are making noise about “advertising should honor the event and not use it to make a political statement.” That’s is nuts to me.

Uhm.

If not then, then when?

Uhm.

If not me, then who?

Yeah.

There are surely consequences for your actions. But far too often this discussion devolves into a simplistic binary choice – an ‘either/or’ choice. You stand for this therefore you hate that. In other words, you cannot be pro-choice and yet respectful or understanding of pro-life, you cannot desire stronger immigration rules and still be accepting of immigrants, you cannot believe in your religion and still accept that how others worship, or not worship, is meaningful. It’s all wrong because Life, in most cases, is not some simplistic binary choice. You can, and should, believe in something and yet still can, and should, be accepting and respectful of others views. To do this not only would we need to embrace respect, but also assume that most people, let’s say maybe 99% of people, do the best they can and make the best decisions they can <no matter how flawed those decisions may look in our eyes>.

That said. I believe communications, in general, should always seek to highlight the opportunity for us to see the better, or best, version of who and what we are. And that is where I believe business marketing and advertising should not fear speaking out. And I would point out that is not political nor is it divisive, but a general point of view on contributing to a better society.

Look. Companies make statements all the time. Maybe they do more vocally internally, but part of any good organization is a sense of what they believe is right, versus wrong, and how they may define integrity & values. Frankly. We need more companies standing up and vocalizing this publicly. This is not about saying “you are wrong for believing this” or “we do not agree with you,” but rather more about normalizing what is right.

I talk with a shitload of business people, not about advertising or marketing per se,, but rather about simply being successful in the marketplace.

I focus on distinction and not differentiation.

I focus on worrying about “me” and what I want to say rather than finding some elusive, and most likely nonexistent, ‘white space’ in some industry.

I focus on saying the right things and doing it the right way and suggesting that if you tell people the right way to think about things that eventually people will see you as ‘right’ rather than ‘wrong.’

This is not about free speech or any political motivation, but it is about how business, and work life, is an important part of the societal fabric of who and what we are and how and what we think.

In my eyes if you really want to discuss how political correctness has gone awry, it would be in the business world. It wasn’t too long ago that business played a significant role in shaping society. Yeah. I said that. As Peter Drucker pointed out back in the early 1990’s in something he called “salvation by society” businesses understood that work made up a significant portion of people’s lives and therefore they had some responsibility to investing in the fabric of society and communities. As time and views have shifted toward ‘making a dollar’ and profits the work place became less and less an extension of society, but rather simply ‘a place to work and get a paycheck’.

What an empty thought that is.

Our work lives, like it or not, represent a significant portion of our lives not just in terms of sheer hours, but also in terms of thinking we are exposed to, accepted behavior and general attitudes on what is right & what is wrong. For a business to avoid that ‘fabric of society’ responsibility is shameful.

Once again, there are absolutely consequences for your actions. But that is what business positioning is really all about. Distinctness and forcing people to think – think about you, think about what you are offering and thinking about how they feel about you, your message and, uhm, themselves. That is what business positioning and marketing and advertising, at its core, is all about. We dumb it down into some ‘selling shit’ soundbite, but that is dumb.

Yes.

I know.

People will debate with me and, to be fair, this whole discussion wanders along the razor thin line of inclusionary versus exclusionary. If your message is effective, concise and clear, it will absolutely be inclusionary for those who see themselves in what you have to say and offer and potentially exclusionary to others at exactly the same time. However, when done well, a business’s communications captures the brands’ distinctness <which is a campfire to those who want to be included> and offers a better version of people <so that people do not dislike you, they simply think ‘they are not for me’>.  

But to do what I am suggesting a business has to set political correctness off to the side, not think about politics at all and simply think about people. The people who they desire to try their products and services and how they would like to showcase those people as the best version of themselves. And then after doing that they have to place the burden of responsibility upon their shoulders, open the door and stride out into the word to share it with people.

Yes.

I am suggesting business, and the people within it, have a responsibility.

Yes.

I am suggesting business is something more than simply selling stuff.

——

“All of us who professionally use the mass media are the shapers of society.

We can vulgarize that society. We can brutalize it. Or we can help lift it onto a higher level.”

Bill Bernbach

——-

“We are so busy measuring public opinion that we forget we can mold it.

We are so busy listening to statistics we forget we can create them.”

Bill Bernbach

——-

I would suggest to any business person reading this that responsibility is responsibility. All responsibility is only as overwhelming or ‘whelming’ a you make it. And if you do not accept your responsibility to tell the truth as excitingly and convincingly as you possibly can, lies will win. If you choose to vulgarize the society or brutalize it or even ignore it <all under the guise of ‘understanding what the consumer wants’>, society will lose.

To be clear.

I honestly do not despair when I look at business in today’s world, but I do get aggravated.

Ok.

No.

I get angry.

I get angry that we are not accepting the responsibility.

I get angry that we are not strong enough to accept the burden.

I get angry that many do not even presume the responsibility is within their purview.

Business, whether you like it or not, shapes society.

What we do matters.

What we say matters.

Selling stuff may matter to our bottom line and the existence of our business, but we cannot ignore that a thriving business actually contributes to a greater good — the existence of a healthy society.

Far too often by simply focusing on ‘selling stuff’ the byproduct of our ignoring the larger responsibility is that we brutalizing society in some form or fashion.

Am I suggesting that selling stuff or being profitable isn’t important? Of course not.

All I am suggesting is that HOW you sell stuff and be profitable matters. And that you have a responsibility in HOW you do what you do. Because HOW you do things impacts society. It shapes society. It can vulgarize or brutalize … or invigorate or instill good.

HOW you do things has a power way beyond simply you or what you do in that moment.

HOW you do things is a pebble dropping into a pond.

Responsibility assumes you are neither impotent nor harmless.

——-

“Advertising is far from impotent or harmless; it is not a mere mirror image. Its power is real, and on the brink of a great increase. Not the power to brainwash overnight, but the power to create subtle and real change.

The power to prevail.”

Eric Clark, The Want Makers: Inside the World of Advertising, 1988

——

Your responsibility in business is sometimes subtle, but always real.

I worry that business people everywhere, but in particular communications, have become so focused on getting shit done and ‘attaining the bottom line’ that they have forgotten the responsibility.

I worry that business people worry so much about politics and ‘political correctness’ they have forgotten that when good people remain silent the only one who wins is bad.

Just think about what thinking I offered today.

This isn’t about causes.

This isn’t about social responsibility <or the welfare of people>.

This is about understanding that what you do impacts people.

This is about whether you, as business people, accept the burden of responsibility to help shape a society which is a reflection of the best versions of who and what we are.

I will say while I’m not trying to ruin the mirage that business is just about business, I’d like everyone to think just a bit harder that with determination and with potentially a little unjustified confidence, you can not only get through the times of uncertainty, but maybe shape a better world. Ponder.

——————-

Don’t bring up the past of a person who is trying to improve their future

Please, do not stop people from reaching a good place in life because of things they cannot take back. It is so painful.

—-

via poesy

===========

When I saw this posted on a tumblr site it certainly made me think about how often we remind people of their past as a comparison to the good place they may be at today.

For some reason we must feel like the comparison makes the achievement more significant.

For some reason we must feel like we have to show a ‘from there to here’ journey in order to emphasize how far we believe someone has come.

For some reason we must feel like … well … talking about the past in order to emphasize something in the present.

But why?

The person certainly knows all this already.

The person most likely has no desire to revisit the past.

The person certainly reflects on the energy and commitment it took to where they are today.

I am sure we do it with the best intentions. But maybe those intentions are misguided.

I never really thought much about this until I read the opening thought and now I cannot stop thinking about it.

“Look how far you’ve come”

“Remember when you did <insert something>?

Wow.

Realistically, those are pretty shitty things to say to someone who has already put in the work, the effort, the mental fortitude to get to the good place they are in the here & now.

Why can’t we just enjoy the present as it is?

Why can’t we just celebrate what exists in the here & now?

Why can’t we just be happy with the person they are today without having to reflect on who they may have been?

The more I think about this the crappier it sounds.

I know I do it.

I know I often feel like offering perspective is an easy way to showcase the extent of some change I see.

I know I do so with good intentions.

And maybe that is a good and effective thing to do … maybe 80% of the time. Okay. Maybe 90% of the time.

But maybe that means 10% of the time I, and we, should ignore perspective and simply highlight the beauty of what is. And, frankly, accept that what is has value in and of itself.

I say that because a person who is trying to improve their future wants to feel joy and not pain. Or maybe better said … doesn’t need to be reminded of pain to feel joy.

So. Here is a thought.

The next time you run into someone you know is moving on to something better and is working really hard to improve their future treat the moment, the interaction, as a new place you have never visited before and explore it with the wonder of exploration and discovery.

===========

“Each moment is a place you’ve never been.”

Mark Strand

====

If you do this maybe you not only ignore the past but also will not confuse the moment with those silly semi-positive support-like platitudes like “keep going” or “the future you desire is now within your grasp.”

And maybe you help them reach a good place by simply enjoying the moment and enjoying who and what they are in that time and place.

All I know for sure is that having seen the opening quote and taking some time to think about it I will interact with someone who is trying to improve their future a little differently from this point on.

And I will certainly think long and hard before I bring up the past because, well, about the only thing it really does is bring up things left behind. I should assume if it has been left behind it is no longer needed.

On the way down
I saw you, and you saved me from myself
And I won’t forget the way you loved me
And on the way down, I almost fell right through
But I held onto you

I’ve been wondering why it’s only me
Have you always been inside waiting to breathe?

“on the way down”, Ryan Cabrera

==

This song is on one of my mp3 players. It’s a banger of a song, but it’s the words that are its special sauce.

On first listen it simply sounds like a pop love song, i.e., someone being saved from ‘the hole’ by someone. But. On second listen. Uhm. Maybe it is about self. What I mean by that is maybe “having you always been inside waiting to breathe” is something, someone, inside oneself. Maybe as you slide on the way down into that hole in life you grab onto something already inside you and in doing so you can pull yourself up – even while on the way down.

Look.

I have written about holes before.

I have written about helping someone get out of a hole.

I have never written about how being in a hole sometimes can help you find yourself – and it is actually yourself that gets you out of the hole. I have never done so because I often think (a) on your way down into a hole it is difficult to see anything about yourself clearly excepting bad, useless, shit and (b) holes are dark so all you tend to see are dark things. That said. Everyone in a hole needs to be saved. I guess the only question is does someone else save you or do you save yourself? And maybe that is why I listen to this song. You can hear it either way. And maybe it is meant to. Because the only thing for sure is holes demand saving. And it doesn’t really matter how you get out of the hole, just that you do. So, yourself, someone else, who gives a shit? On the way down, well, saving is saving. The means is irrelevant as long as the ends are met.

Ponder.

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

“On s’engage, et puis – on voit.”

<you commit yourself, and then – you see.>

–

Napoleon

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

Commitment and patience and adaptation. I am fairly sure not a lot of business gurus put these three words together, however, the truth is the combination of these three ingredients is a powerful one.

Oddly it seems like not many of us learn this particular recipe.

First. How we engage. We tend to ‘commit’ one of two ways:

• tepidly. Oh. we claim 100% commitment but the majority of people are already investing in safety resources, redundancy protection and “what if” scenario making. In their words, their ‘commitment’ includes ‘committing to saving my ass’. We all do some aspects of this but we all need to recognize each ounce of energy on this is one less ounce of energy to whatever ‘commitment’ we have claimed to make.
• blinder commitment. Yeah. some people call this ‘focused commitment’, but that’s a nice way of saying ‘with blinders on’.

Second. We then tend to be less than patient. In fact I could suggest we are very often impatient in our engagement <but still committed to some plan>. I would suggest we often underestimate the value of doing nothing <and observing>. For some reason we attach ‘speed’ to engaging. That is a mistake. They are two distinctly different things.

Third. Adapting? Yikes. Paradoxically, if we do adapt, we would <in our eyes> bastardize the integrity of the structure of the commitment. Yes. For some reason many people see commitment in conflict with adapting. What this means is in most situations we are willing to stay the course with a plan … until the bitter end — “committed” in other words.

In business .many of us commit to a plan of action and believe staying the course creates the highest likelihood to succeed. And in our impatience we plow through opportunities to adapt. In other words, we don’t really ‘see’ … we just commit to a plan.

Now. To be clear. Napoleon also said “When you set out to take Vienna, take Vienna.”

I share that because the commitment wasn’t to the plan, but rather to the objective. And there is a massive difference. I sometimes believe in business <and Life too I imagine> we confuse this.

We commit and don’t see.

We commit and implement.

We commit to the means <the plan> and not the end <the objective>.

That said. Why?

Now <part 1>.

This may also be a reflection of a ‘cover your ass’ world we live in. What? If I do what I committed to do <the plan> and it doesn’t achieve the objective, well, “Ain’t my fault. I did what I was told to do” <or “I stuck to the plan everyone agreed was the best plan of action”>.

Conversely (the risk). As soon as you “see” <things just don’t seem to be going the way we planned> after you have made the initial commitment and adapt the plan, well … oops, you have assumed some responsibility. You are now accountable for not following the plan.

Now <part 2>.

You can always mitigate that responsibility by going back to the “all those who agreed it was the best plan” people and saying “here is what I see now that we have actually committed … and I think we should adapt in this way <to increase the likelihood we will achieve our objective commitment>”. The problem with this is timeliness. You miss the opportunity to make the change when it should be made. I will note that Napoleon was a master of adapting the original commitment within the proper window of ‘adapting opportunity.’

Gaining consensus on adapting <or a change to a plan> is a frickin’ bear. Let’s call it almost impossible. For sure we can call it ‘less than timely.’ Bottom line. Shirking responsibility <covering you ass> takes time.

Regardless. Risk analysis is simply part of business. Always has been and always will be. And it should be. Running a business without doing so is simply chaos; not running a business.

However.

Eliminating risk is impossible. Only mitigating risk is possible. And I could argue that not adapting after committing actually increases risk. That said. This is about attitude & not risk mitigation so I will say I wish in today’s business world we would spend less time building ‘the perfect plan’ and instead build ‘the best plan we can’ and commit … and see.

Look.

I opened with a Napoleon quote because Napoleon won a shitload of battles. He wasn’t perfect and his planning and plans were significantly less than perfect.

But the dude knew how to commit.

He knew how to engage when the window of opportunity existed.

He knew how to ‘see’ <adapt>.

He knew how to keep his eye on the bigger commitment <the objective … see Vienna … take Vienna>.

He didn’t confuse committing to a plan and committing to an objective. Frankly, I believe we get confused on this far too often in business <even at some senior levels>. In my mind more business leaders should be saying ‘let’s commit … and see.’ And not just saying the words, but walking the walk so the implementers do not feel as if the plan is something etched in stone.

Adapting is part art <seeing information, data, research and feedback as it is absorbed and ‘feeling’ its momentum & conclusions – remember: statistics can lie as well as people can> and part science <making sure you actually see the most relevant information & feedback>.

I will say that effective commitment, thoughtful patience and opportunistic adapting is not for the faint of heart. You may not need be a Napoleon, but you do need some of his attitude.

Just remember the prize.

To the bold comes the fruits of victory.

—–

“Some of it, you really want to unlearn.”

Keith Richards

==

Not everything you learn is valuable. Ok. Maybe I should say not everything you learn is infinitely valuable. What I mean by that is that some things you learn have a finite value in terms of longevity. They are valuable in the present, but lose value either (a) over time or (b) suddenly when you learn something else. That said. The value may remain in its value as a stepping stone to new learning.

Which leads me to unlearning.

New learning, or unlearning, call it what you want, it’s the key to thinking and enlightenment progress. Generally speaking, it’s the idea that there is a time limit on some things you learn, spans everything. I have even suggested that principles can have an end date. That said. Conceptually speaking all information is dated. What I mean by that is that context new learning new information constantly bludgeons a piece of information as soon as it exists. Yet it is lazy to simply suggest that a piece of information is not useful simply because of its timestamp. Some information is simply more resilient than others. Therefore, the trick to unlearning is being able to recognize what learning should remain and what learning should be unlearned. Look. I am a learning guy. A curiosity guy. A guy who believes you can never learn too much as well as you never stop learning. I also believe learning shit is not just about accumulation. And that may actually be a bigger thought than anything else I babble about. If it isn’t about accumulating, that means you have to get rid of some stuff. Downsize as it were. Unlearn in other words. Maybe think of it the way American University does: ‘unlearning is breaking down the traditional way of thinking and teaching critical thinking methodology.’ They actually call it “a year of disorientation.” But ultimately, I would imagine I am speaking of the study of thinking (I hate to call it critical thinking). Not free thought, but simple down and dirty tearing apart the thought fabric to see how a thought is sewn or woven together. Far too often we seem to put value on accumulating knowledge. Number of degrees. Number of books read. Number of things experienced. The addition to what goes into your pea like brain. Rarely do we discuss the subtraction. The things you shed as you learn something new. The deconstruction of what we know. And maybe we should. This is not about ‘we only have so much room in our brains to store up information’ but rather ‘what I have learned has made me change my mind, my opinion, my attitude, my belief, my whatever.”

• Truth, in Life, can be unequivocal.
• Truth, in one’s mind, is contextual.

What I just wrote may be aggravating, if not uncomfortable, to people. I think most people like to accumulate learning as a sign of personal growth <and public acknowledgement of ‘enhancement.’

But accumulators can be blowhards.

And accumulators can be pretentious.

And accumulators can become fanatical.

And accumulators can become a menace to real learning.

—

“I have observed that the world has suffered far less from ignorance than from pretensions to knowledge. It is not skeptics or explorers but fanatics and ideologues who menace decency and progress.”

Daniel J. Boorstin

—

“The hardest decision in life is to decide what matters.”

I believe learning is addition thru subtraction. I tend to believe great learning is about, well, gaining 2 things and losing 1 thing.

Which leads me to suggest Keith Richard certainly shouldn’t be anyone’s role model for learning or accumulating knowledge.

But that doesn’t mean he can’t say something smart and insightful on occasion. Being enlightened is not only about accumulating learning. In fact, it is maybe more about unlearning shit as you learn new shit.

Shedding some guard rails and boundaries and ‘what I knows.’ Recognizing that not all things learned are created equal and that some things actually lose value as you gain other things.

Think about how what you know may actually be decreasing in its value every day.

Think about halting that decrease by simultaneously adding new learning and subtracting some old learning.

Think about constantly learning as much as you can and unlearning some things along the way.

Think about the fact learning is not just about accumulation, it is also about ‘decluttering.’

And.

Think about the fact there are some things you really want to unlearn.

Ponder.

==

“Style is the fashioning of power, the restraint of power. The administrator with a sense of style hates waste, the engineer with a sense of style economizes his material, the artisan with a sense of style prefers good work. Style is the ultimate morality of mind.”

Professor Whitehead quoted in Mary Parker Follett ‘professional standards developed and effected through group organization’

==

 “We can never wholly separate the human from the mechanical side .. you all see every day that the study of human relations in business and the study of operating are bound up together.”

Mary Parker Follett, Dynamic Administration

==

We are surrounded by people who do things because the rules tell them to do so, a book told them to do so, some program or process tells them to do so, or simply because it’s the way “I have been told to do so.” This is one of those weird situations in which they are not wrong and wrong at the same time. Its kind of a mechanical way of going about things and it offers structural replication of things that are at the core of offering steady value day in and day out. Conversely, there are people with style. Maybe call it craftsmanship. Call it what you want, but it is style which unearths the potential in any situation in which mechanics are grinding out outcomes and consequences. And noodle that thought as much as you want, but be sure of one thing – humans, and human relations, is the only thing that can offer style. Technology cannot.

Which leads me to the enemy of style.

Technology, AI and data included, are the ultimate immorality of the mind. Let me be clear by ‘immoral’ in this case. It isn’t about ethics, its about stripping away any style. It’s the commodification of doing, thinking and attitudes (if not value creation). Algorithm design for mass usage tends to flatten. Lets call it digital flattening and data flattening. Style, associated with technology, demands both predictive and emergent paths and needs to purposefully encourage non-flattening. Style acknowledges the natural arc of flattening and creates a counterweight to that flattening. I am not suggesting style crafts an ideology (or tautology), but it can certainly enhance the desired behavior/attitudes and tamp down the less-than-desired aspects.

Which leads me to stupidity (a less-than-desired aspect).

A collection of people can be stupider than an individual, in fact, even more stupid, and, an individual can be stupider than a collection of people. The trick is always to find when one is smarter than the other.

Style demands some smartness, but business (and society) encourages people to be stupid. Now. To be clear. I am not suggesting people are stupid, just that we are encouraged to ‘follow along’ even when it feels stupid to do so. Hence, we lean in, far too often, on stupid; not smart. And then there is technology whispering in our ears.

The new patterns of interaction that are emerging in digital environments often blur the boundaries between self and system and between self and others, yet, we would be mistaken if we did not recognize the individual perspective, the “I”, anchors the sense of experience in conceptual thinking and the collective (connection with others) anchors our sense of meaning. I imagine my point is that while making a point about stupid and smart the real point is that the key to style will always be a connection, and interaction, of self and others and by recognizing that a business decreases the odds it will be stupid and increases the odds it will be smart. In fact, I would argue, that it is within style that a business, a group of people, or any system in general, becomes ‘smart.’ Ponder.

“I myself am made entirely of flaws, stitched together with good intentions.”

Augusten Burroughs

==

Events happen to us all the time. Some small. Some medium. Some large. Some immense. On this sliding scale of events, we make choices. Some good. Some bad. Some somewhere in-between good and bad. But inevitably, as events do, they end. And with that ending comes some reflection. And within that reflection the choices loom large. And they all loom large even if the event itself was small. But I would suggest on the immense events, all choices loom even larger – even if the choices really weren’t that large. And as they loom their imperfections will scream in your ear for attention.  Imperfect choices demand attention.

Which leads me to good intentions.

Immense events demand clarity of intent and intentions. Without that clarity many of those imperfect choices screaming at you may actually be screaming some really uncomfortable truths. But with that clarity you recognize all choices tend to be imperfect, but if stitched together with good intentions, well, you still may not sleep easy at the end of it all, but you will sleep a bit easier.

Ponder.

==

“It was suicide.

Others killed themselves with poison or with a revolver.

I killed myself with minutes and hours.”

Henri Barbusse

==

We are always moving through the cycle of existence, there is no stillness, only movement and transformation.

==

I’ve written about procrastination as well as measured time versus experience time and chronos and kairos, but today I will speak of a relationship with time and how it has become unhealthy.

Prior to the invention of clocks time was mostly driven by light (sundials) and tasks (harvest). The work took as long as it took and what could be done was done when the sun was shining. We slept when it was dark and, uhm, when we were tired. Yeah. Our attitudes toward sleep is cultural. Naps, siestas, and breaks in the hottest part of days, are part of society unless, of course, if you are American, the land of the people who are always exhausted and unwilling to waste time napping. I say all that to suggest time and culture have a relationship. That said. What I do know is that uniform timekeeping is inextricably tied to industrialization. I’m not suggesting that we haven’t always sought better ways to assess time or even to make better clocks and time keepers, what I am suggesting is that timekeeping has become the default for society’s view of time. And therein lies an issue we have truly failed to grapple with as a society – and individually. By looking at clocks and the time keepers we’ve forgot to look at time itself. We have sought to try to discipline time using it to discipline us (humans). The problem is the time is elastic. Yeah. Time seems short in good time and bad times seem to last forever. Tahat happens despite the fact we clearly know that time never really slows down, it is more in how we remember events that make us believe that time has either sped up or slowed down. Uhm. This also suggests the brain itself is elastic. Or maybe I should say that the brain has some emergent characteristics in that our senses adapt to context.

Which leads me to circle back to time and how it is measured.

If all of those human characteristics I just described are elastic, why wouldn’t we always be in conflict with time in our relentless attempts to discipline it? Maybe we were happier when we didn’t try to discipline time and we treated it as elastic – just as we are? Maybe we need to remember we still got work done and, in fact, the quality of work was often quite good. Maybe we need to remember that we weren’t always trying to cram that work into minutes, or hours. The day was the day, daylight was daylight, and we did what we could do. Maybe we need to remember time has always been in a limited supply and yet we used to demand less things of it.

All of this isn’t to say that the telling of time has been a human pursuit from the beginning of time. Sundials water clocks, lunar cycles, even astrology, attempted to give humans a sense of how time passes. But I would argue all of those things gave us all some room. Some space. Its lack of its exactness gave us the ability to live a slightly less exact life. It gave us some breathing room to still get everything done, but without exact time specificity. The patterns of our behavior and our attitudes, I would guess, were just a little less exact, a little less measured, and a lot more a reflection of a natural rhythm of human nature. We were dedicated a little less to time and a little more to what needed to be done – and life itself. We lived just a little more in sync with nature and coherence to whomever we were interacting with – and not to time itself. Maybe what I am suggesting is that time measurement was created by humans and maybe we should measure life, and tasks, through the social aspect of humans in their connectivity and interactions then to some time measurement device which puts unnatural demands upon us.

I imagine I am suggesting measurement of time IS reductionism where we are encouraged to believe time is shorter and shorter. That’s nuts. In our attempt to keep up with the faster pace of time (that statement is also nuts), before long we begin shortening our demands of time. What I mean by that is we demand more and more within less and less time and, yet, our expectations of what comes of it are smaller and smaller. What I do know is that the result of this generalized speedup of everything creates a high-stakes, high-adrenaline environment with lower and lower true involvement with the depth and breadth of time. What I do know is that within this environment it is easy to see why people wonder what exactly they are doing and why.

“I knew it wasn’t too important, but it made me sad anyway.”

J.D. Salinger

Maybe the worst of all our habits in a bite-size time world is the one which leads us away from deeper more complex, more contemplative, time, and leads us a bit closer to a manmade time addiction-style superficial involvement. I imagine the question isn’t whether our attitude toward time is making us smarter or dumber, but rather are we losing control of how we think despite trying to control time. It almost feels like squeezing time encourages us to skim through life (despite the fact our resumes are strewn with proof of goals met, milestones achieved and things done).

To be clear. Humans, brains and bodies, are pretty resilient things and what is occurring today, negatively, may simply be the precursor of something positive in body and brain. The truth is that extended time, historical epochs, have shown time and time again that we have extended our brains and how we think and assimilate. regardless. We shouldn’t just be storing ideas and things we have done; we should be letting some things simmer a bit before bringing it to boil – naturally rather than in some time disciplined way. I do believe we have an unhealthy relationship with time and I do believe more of us are killing ourselves through minutes and hours than by any other means. Ponder.

====

“We are many, many people and yet we are one. What we do today with our thinking, what we do tomorrow with our thoughts, what we do with our actions and our interactions with people determines the course of the universe itself. You are not powerless. You are not without power.”

Little Crow

====

I recently wrote a piece about my belief that everyone likes to think. This is a follow-up where I discuss how an organization actually has a massive conceptual brain simply waiting for someone to tap into it. To be clear. While execution is kind of the baseline of any organization (if you do not ‘do’ things with skill inevitably a business doesn’t really produce anything), effectiveness has only one real limit – the employee’s imaginations, ideas and minds. I mention that because if any business is truly honest, they have never even come close to maximizing that potential – what I call ‘the organizational brain.’ Yeah. Sure. A business may have tapped into a smaller version of that organizational brain – a small team – but 99.9% of businesses have never tapped into the untapped potential found by using the entire organization brain (which, to be clear, is both parts & whole – unleashing each individual employee’s potential, unleashing institutional knowledge, as well as the collective energy and thinking of all working together).

Which leads me to the role of technology.

If there is one truth business must face it is that everything is capable of being captured and, ultimately, expressed digitally. Once business accepts that truth then it becomes inevitable one must think about how data, institutionally as well as individually, can be effectively gathered to enable that digital infrastructure to navigate a business’s progress and success through computation, algorithms and a variety of software capabilities. This does not mean technology replaces humans. In fact. The business truth I just asked business to face runs parallel to the other truth – the future value of business will not reside in technology, but rather the humans who use it and how those humans interact with each other. Once again. It will be people, their imagination, creativity, ideas, minds, quirks, caring, curiosity, which will inevitably generate the ongoing value.

** note: the alternative is a commodity world in which machines compete against other machines for who can be the most efficient machine.

I would argue this is an organizational mindset which enables an organizational culture.

We should always remind ourselves of what James Carse said, “Since a culture is not anything persons do, but anything they do with each other we may say a culture comes into being whenever persons choose to be a people. It is as a people that they arrange their rules with each other, their moralities, their modes of communication.”  While I (slightly) hesitate to suggest people, technology (software) and information, each by themselves, are simply discernible bits of something that are actually nothings, I will suggest in an ‘organizational brain’ frame of mind those things are nothing until they actually “do with each other” and collectively create progress. A culture forges them all together into something worthwhile.

From a larger perspective one could suggest the Cloud is the key to making it all work, but the truth is, from a more granular pragmatic aspect, it will most likely be cognitive algorithms (intelligence-based software). This is true because progress, and agility, isn’t tied to access of knowledge, but rather use of knowledge by individuals and individuals interacting with each other. It within the collective interaction, or culture engaging with a system, from which continuous improvement and progress is found. On a separate note, I would be remiss if I didn’t say if you have to “reskill” your employees, it’s a reflection that you have not created an organization in which people are “continuously skilling”. Create a business that is continuously improving, even its employees, and you will never have to “reskill.”

Which leads me to emergence, predictability and people.

One of the questions I asked myself is not only can an organization be 100% emergent, but if it actually were could it have a healthy culture (because culture does need some predictability)? Well. I believe yes and no. Yes because people behavior naturally arcs toward predictive, repetitive, behavior and rhythms. So, while an ‘organizational brain’ organizational-type structure may encourage 100% emergent, people will inevitably seek some aspects of predictable. That also explains the no. No replication of systems & process ignores the fact replicable activity is where pockets of efficiency reside and without any replicable behavior optimal organizational efficacy can never be achieved.

The tricky part is the ‘organizational brain’ is while predictability and planning are the fundamental desire of any business (and anyone thinking) in general, they are delusional aspirations. Yes. A good business can assess probabilities and likelihoods and, yes, they should certainly attempt to control as much of the environment contextual dynamics as possible that ensure the likelihood of success, but, ‘at that time no one knew what was coming’ is the greater likelihood each and every one of the employees face in the thousands of everyday decisions they must make — little, medium and large, in terms of importance.

So future success resides in the coalescing of prioritized fragments into a conceptual whole in a timely fashion. This will demand not only the organizational brain embracing critical thinking, but also the ability to envision how that thinking can exist in a future state. It also demands a certain organizational brain worldview with regard to People:

• Personal: people are a complex mix of generalist capabilities and interest residing in a specialist happy world. The world is usually good at rewarding the specialty skill a person offers all the while not rewarding the ancillary interest i& skills often lying dormant within a person. In other words, the world is quite happy offering support to only parts of people and not the whole. I would suggest the most meaningful life is one in which the whole of the individual has permission to not only be exploited, but ‘used.’
• Potential: people are walking vessels of untapped potential. Capitalism, and reality, almost dictates some choices which inevitably leave a significant portion of each individuals’ potential untapped. Conceptually, any business that can permit an individual to tap into potential, or maximize potential, will benefit (while benefiting the individual).
• Productivity: while it may be uncomfortable to say in a world shouting “you are not defined by your work” it would be silly to suggest our work did not define parts of who and what we are. Work, which represents a significant part of our lives, is an expression of a huge investment in time and energy. Therefore productivity, or our actual output, is one of the most tangible measurements of all that time and energy. I would suggest that if you maximize your potential not only does your productivity increase but the quality of the productivity increases.

** note: quality of productivity can be measured on two aspects – actual quality of the output as well as quality of the input. What I mean by that is I, individually, will feel better or be more invested in what I produce if I feel like I have invested more, and different strengths/interests, INTO that production. It is not a big leap to believe that inner investment will translate into a better product itself. In other words, the individual productivity incurs intrinsic and extrinsic value.

• Progress: results are tricky. This is why gamification was/is so appealing. This is why ‘destination addiction’ is a thing. But we know from research that finite progress (milestones, sprints, etc) are a doom loop of chasing things in which people get trained to chase output instead of outcomes. People inherently gain greater satisfaction if they show progress – better today than yesterday, better tomorrow than today.

It is when a business can align all aspects that not only will they maximize the potential of a person, which the business benefits, but it will also maximize personal meaning, therefore, maximizing the organizational brain.

** note: meaning typically gets defined by ‘understanding one’s impact on the betterment of something other than oneself’, but I believe it is a little more complex. It is an intricate weave of doing (creating or making something – even if it is ideas), actualization of that doing, investment of oneself into that doing, a measure of progress (better today than yesterday) and an actual impact. Its personal growth with an impact.

Regardless. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out the way I am discussing technology is possibly the ultimate expression of augmenting humans/people rather than people augmenting AI/technology, i.e., the sole purpose of the AI infrastructure is to simply make people be the best they can be.

In the end.

I believe most people are confident enough to think they can get the resources they need to solve any problem they can actually see (or any opportunity they can see clearly enough). So, if we maximize the organizational brain not only will some individual “see”, but the rest of the organization will “recognize what is seen” and the brain will act in a coherent fashion.

That thought possibly gains importance because in today’s world, whether you like it or not, people are expected to cope with increasing complexity, change and diversity. Simplistically this means in a complexity world people are asked to tackle a much greater diversity of problems/opportunities. All the while we seek to maintain some of the efficiencies of life (or the business) – the rituals, replicable events, etc. – but to get ahead, or maintain some progress, knowledge and information has to be absorbed to meet the demands of future problems/opportunities. Said differently, complexity demands structure AND flexibility. And while that sounds almost impossible, if not uncomfortable, I will remind you of Atkinson “Motivational Determinants of risk-taking Behavior”. We are capable enough, all of us, to navigate complexity if placed in the right mindset and if the appropriate knowledge connects with our curiosity because, in my opinion, once curiosity is engaged one can see existing patterns as well as new patterns. In my opinion, once the organizational brain is engaged everyone, and the institution itself, will prosper and progress. I imagine what that really means is the organizational brain constantly expands to accommodate more people, ideas, curiosity and activity which, in turn, accommodates whatever complexity the business world can throw at it. Ponder.