====
“You can’t alter the past. The only thing you can alter is the future. People write stories pretending you can alter the past, but it can’t be done. All you can do to the past is remember it wrong or interpret it differently, and that’s no good to us.”
Diana Wynne Jones====
“Undoing history is a waste of time. Ignoring it is even worse. However, repairing the injustices of the past in time, now that is plausible.”
Joshua Isbell====
One of the topics that seems to bridge strategic thinking in business and thinking about life is our relationship with the 
past and the future. On both we consistently rummage thru the past seeking some answers for the future, consistently wonder if our future is fate or ‘fit’ <whether it is of value to utilize what we learned from the past> and all the while, for the most part, we avoid the present until it can no longer be ignored.
What that means is fate, and the future, will always appear to rush upon us. In other words, it doesn’t happen, until it does.
As we wander through the wretched in-between, between past and future, for the most part the present plods along day after day, lulling us into thinking that any future we may fear <uncertainty falls within this realm> will always be somewhere in a distant future. Uh oh. Until, all of a sudden, the fated doom we predicted is upon us and all the time and days we could have turned that particular fate aside or bent our path toward a different fate, well, has passed. The truth is within every plodding day is actually a day in which you could impact your fate, in other words, fit your future to you. Tomorrow, in terms of our ‘doom fate’ thinking and scenarios, may never come, but that doesn’t mean all the todays are inevitably linked in a chain toward SOME fate. It may sound banal, but it will always be a ‘today’ which will be the time we have to divert less-than-desired fates – in other words, we ‘fit’ our future if we use the present well and choose our ‘todays’ wisely.
So how do you discern the right “today to do something” <because it is absurd to suggest investing 100% of your energy and focus 100% of each day>? Well. Simplistically, there is always a chance in something happening by doing something. When someone, anyone, takes action to attempt to make something happen, that something becomes more likely. So doing something is better than doing nothing. That doesn’t mean you should just ‘do something’ <I would also note doing nothing, choicefully, is doing something>. But what I would suggest is that ‘day to do something’ should be judged by how you can create your fate, not recreate your past. I say that because we’ve all seen our situations change and whether we like it or not we will see it change again. But, let’s be clear, life is never a race to restore a past situation nor does one have to hurry to meet the future. Sometimes simply watching offers the most productive opportunities. Ponder that last thought as I would suggest most of us have zero interest in attempting impossible tasks. Investing energy in a task which time has passed or is not possible within the existing context is wasted, or less-than-optimal, energy. I would also suggest attempting to go back to a past state is simply to accept defeat. We must always progress, create something new. It will never the same as it was and trying to recreate the past are the actions of fools and foolish desires. I will suggest this attitude is freeing – in business or in life <strategy>.
The trick is to take what has happened to you and learn from it instead of being trapped by it.
Which leads me to horrible events.
Discerning truly horrible events is a topic in and itself. Suffice it to say not everything is a crisis nor is everything horrible if it goes bad. I would suggest almost 97.5% of mistakes <I made up that number> in business and life are survivable, hence, horrible is relative.
With that as context, no event in life is so terrible that one cannot rise above it. Now. Some people think some events are insurmountable and some experiences change you forever. That could be true, but I tend to believe it is only true if you deem it to be true. The terrible events and experiences reside in that past – they are over and done. What that means is if you cling to it and let it shape you, you are doomed to live it forever. In other words, you are granting it power over you. What you should do is accept it, set it aside, learn from it, and shape your future as you wish it to be in spite of what happened. This taking your fate in your own hands rather than having your past dictate your fate. Look. I am not guaranteeing this will insure success, but, well, if you do something, something is more likely to happen. That’s it. No guarantees, but increases probabilities.
===
“Remember the past, plan for the future, but live for today, because yesterday is gone and tomorrow may never come.”
Luke the Evangelist
===
Which leads me to engineering, or re-engineering, our fate.
The present is never neutral and in order to grasp fate, and the world, we have to engineer and shape some concepts which nudge the world. This means we are ‘of’ our environment and still can ‘to’ our environment. That’s kind of important because if we perceive the present as something that can be engineered, we go about shaping it. I would also argue that if you use conceptual thinking to navigate reality you are more likely to gain better understanding not only of the environment, but have one foot in some understanding, or at minimum ‘sense’, of the future. This does not mean you need answers before doing anything only that the ability to conceptually get some grip of reality before acting is useful. I cannot remember which philosopher said this, but knowledge actually aggregates around concepts and conceptual thinking means that concepts get redesigned, and reengineered, as knowledge aggregates. This means concepts naturally shift to meet emerging environments (the future) – and knowledge has a new basis for new learning. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out the “re” part of the re-engineering. The entire point of the piece today is the future is always some version of the past yet your fate will be indifferent to your past. So the “re” is how someone uses the past as a launching pad, not an anchor. The past doesn’t dominate your view, or bias, of the future but rather it should fuel alternative paths and concepts. You have to disassociate yourself from the idea the future will look like the past, yet, find the aspects within the future which the past lingers. There are always lesson which can be drawn from similar past experiences but they will be lessons of analogies, not parallelisms.
In the end.
Everyone, and every business, faces horrible events, all have opportunities to reengineer one’s fate and fate will ignore
your past – if you do. But ignoring the past doesn’t mean being untethered from it, just not completely tethered to it. Look. The present will never really demand heroism, just engagement with the present. So, the only trouble you can run into is to keep standing back from it or turning aside from it when given an opportunity. The truth is the horrible mess of life is your life. No more, no less. There is no sense in waiting for it, or anything, to get better, it’s better to just stop putting off things, live it and engage. Yeah. There will be horrible events ,but I will remind you that everyone thinks courage is about facing death without flinching. But almost anyone can do that. True courage is facing the horrible messes, and messiness and uncertainty and ambiguity, of the Present without flinching. Enduring the boredom, the grind, the messiness, and the inconvenience found in doing what is right, not easy. And through the un-flinchingness and endurance you ‘future fit’ what you have in the present and, well, go on. For the future is always a version of the past, but fate, in the end, ignores the past. Ponder.
===
relationship with probabilities. In the 1980’s I managed the Valvoline Motor Oil advertising and grassroots business. This included motorsports which will make sense why I point out a bit later.
Valvoline had an opportunity. They had done some comparative testing and found a performance difference. Creatively we had attached a visual which amplified that difference to create a vivid metaphor which had a Valvoline semi-truck pass all the competitors’ trucks going up a hill while the voiceover walked people through the difference. The combination of words and visual were a compelling communication that Valvoline surpassed everyone else <the close was also “#1 choice of car mechanics”>. It was pretty simple and pretty powerful. And pretty much suggested the competitors were shit in comparison. Valvoline loved it and it was a defendable claim with research. This is where probabilities enter onto the discussion. The discussion revolved around “what is the likelihood a competitor challenges and we receive a cease & desist.” The conversation quickly concluded “extremely high probability” <our guess was someone would pull their own research to make our research look a bit murky in its claim>. Now. We also assessed a likelihood we would win or lose <because we had support>. This probability was a bit more hazy. Oh. And whether we actually cared if we won or lost <that was a bit less hazy>. But this entire likelihood/probability discussion led to producing an entirely different execution saying almost exactly the same thing, but with a different visual to have in our hip pocket. The initial competitive execution ran for one month in high rotation, competitors went ballistic, brand awareness & preference went thru the roof, market share increased, and we quietly pulled it off air right before we had to get into an extended fight legally and ran the non-controversial execution. My point here is that a pragmatic discussion revolving around probabilities helped us develop a plan of action of which we created a potential crisis and, yet, averted it at exactly the same time.
build programs to maintain positive awareness and optimize positive awareness opportunities, i.e., when you win or figure out some vivid demonstration of your product positioning. Depending on the quality of your sponsored team, if you look at individual races each probability of a win can seem fairly minuscule particularly as you assess all marketing dollars available to you. But then when you sit back and say “likelihood of a win at least once in a season”, well, all of a sudden people around the table sit up a little and apply a higher likelihood <I know that’s not the way statistic/probabilities works but this is a pragmatic business probabilities discussion>. As soon as you reach this point in the conversation, of probability accepted, then everything circles around “how do we optimize the opportunity.” In other words, you move into ‘thrive’ mode and a win crisis <and, yes, when someone wins it is always a scramble no matter how well you prepare> it is not “oh shit”, but rather “let’s go.”
even before you become intentional, you have to believe you can be trapped. I say that because if you do not, then your intentionality will most likely be misguided or maybe better said – not aggressive enough. You will be intentional, but intentionally passive. If you see, and agree, there are things out there intentionally trying to influence you – and that on THEIR good days they win – then maybe your intentionality will have the appropriate focus and commitment.
So. Meta and the metaverse is now upon us.
While I do worry that this metaverse will encourage people to flee reality, I worry a bit more that it will become some false haven to flee yourself. What I mean by that is in the metaverse you can, conceptually, create the “perfect version you seek” in yourself – as a person and in some context. It is not difficult to see people running to the metaverse as it almost seems like today’s world, reality as it were, the self help people and the advertising and the futuristic blowhards, encourages us to think there is something wrong with us. That we aren’t ‘enough’ or passionate or focused or … well … we are lacking in some form or fashion.
Cats. Halloween has too strong an association with cats for my liking.
Hallowmas is a three-day Catholic holiday where saints are honored and people pray for the recently deceased. At the start of the 11th century, it was decreed by the pope that it would last from Oct. 31 (All Hallow’s Eve) until Nov. 2,
Although almost every Halloween decoration seen is with witches flying across the full moon … just another marketing lie. The next full moon on Halloween won’t occur until 2020. The last was in 2001. Before that it was in 1955. Brilliant marketing … but it is just another lie <sigh>.
Awesome <and we wonder about a national obesity issue … sorry … different post, by the way, I blame cats for that too by the way>.
same time. Now, this may feel like a crisis, but I’d suggest its more that it’s a number of issues, many of which feel unsolvable or unstoppable, all occurring at once. This leads me to intentionality. In order to meet the moment, we need to shed the thinking that (a) we need to deal with one at a time, (b) they are unsolvable, (c) I can do nothing that will have any real impact, and, well, implement some intentionality at an individual level, a community (collective) level and societal level. Yeah. I’m suggesting intentionality can bend the arc of existential issues away from stagnancy (or regressive behavior) and actually toward progress.
And while we talk about how the internet and social media creates an existential issue, let’s take a moment and reflect upon how television has affected intentional mindsets. I would argue that if television reflects our values, principled behavior and what we stand for, the whole system is rotten. And if that system is rotten, we need to think about how we are bound to a system. That is most likely the greatest existential issue, yet, we never seem to discuss it nor discuss it existential nor discuss the intentionality one must take to ‘unbound’ a system and from a system. Systems are bound by mindsets. Oh. We may talk about fairmindedness or equality (or equitable), or meritocracy or any other cage we have built that is a system within which we do and think, but existential systems are sneaky bastards. They establish a foundational mindset which colors everything else in hues that are always a derivative of that mindset. Suffice it to say, I believe we are in the midst of an existential unraveling with regard to societal expectations and aspirations.
community and society. It demands a coherence of resilient intentions because diffusion in environment – all these existential issues – quadruples the challenge for any intentionality. One must assume the mantle of responsibility and responsibility requires intentionality. Inevitably this intentionality is the weapon against disorientation. Intentionality gives is a ‘sense of agency’ in which we no longer simply get buffeted by asynchronous waves of skepticism and obstacles to progress but rather we become ships on a sea of progress. We become responsible and accountable and gain at least some semblance of control. But that is just your part. Communities must work together, the collective needs to accept both individual and society as part of the grander narrative and society needs some common sensemaking. I would argue the trick is to mix and match strategies in response to the nature of the opportunity and the behavior, actual and desired, of the population. We need to stop attacking genuine good intentions and intentionality with false cries of “Hypocrisy!!” toward all moments where someone’s intentions fall short of some dubious judgement of someone else’s behavior.
Look.
====
I talk about emergence and agility a lot. In fact, I sometimes believe I talk about it so much people think I don’t believe in any replication and standardization. Today I’d like to resolve any misunderstandings. If we are honest, all of us, successful business is in the replicating business. Replication is the foundation upon which all profitability and execution effectiveness resides upon and it isn’t the place where the typical employee drops down to a lower level of mental performance.
information and I will also suggest replicating information is the key to not only ongoing success, productivity, improvement as well as agility.
Data is actually the result of someone doing things over and over again through connections with other people. Maybe think of it as a massive research program of ‘one-on-one interviews’ <not just of people but with resources, machines, etc., i.e., the system itself can be interviewed> that provides some quantitative and qualitative pattern/coherence information to think about. And, as with any research, when you compile the interviews, you can very easily lose sight of the fact that each data point represents real people who dedicated their real attention at some particular identifiable moment. But if you look at data that way, well, you realize that opportunities can be seen as clusters of people acting in a coherent/connected fashion over a period of time. I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out everything I just said is replication.
information is necessary, within the given time horizon and context, to enable the persistent pattern of things. I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that this information enables people to make decisions and do things in the service, or in relationship to, other groups of people. Information elevates the value of interactions and connectivity. In a nutshell that’s the business of replicating business and that’s the value of replicating information.
decision making, needs to expand beyond the moment itself and incorporate some larger patterns and consequence recognition (not just causal).
Look. Replication is actually a dance, not marching. And even then, the natural order of replicable things is that it can fit a lot <that’s what makes it useful>, but not perfectly. It’s not optimal, but can be quite useful. It’s the core of organizational efficacy.
This expense can come in a variety of larger perspective forms — character, self-limitation and time.
immediately but at some point – you realize you have to be accountable for what you have done under the guise of ‘surviving.’
about what you do and how the objectives need to align with a certain moral code <this can get even trickier because not everyone’s moral code is the same>.
organization will, at its core, be at the mercy of how well they interact with each other. That said, forcing interactions <forced collaboration or even ‘social events’> tends to be counterproductive because relationships are inherently emergent (connections create). at their core these human connections are mini-learning systems in that each interaction forges the interactions, and connections, to come. What this demands, though, is some fluidity within the organization. Without fluidity the connections remain stagnant, or worse, cocooned, and the organization stops learning. 
ways that we can easily (or easy enough) navigate. That becomes good enough for us. I bring that up because, conversely, this is why designer ethics is important. They are the organizers of ‘our space.’ They design the world we walk, and think, in.
be re-designed to optimize against those objectives.
demands some aspects just in how they suggest going about the business of doing business (and this varies by business). Its kind of the game, and games, one plays to fit in within a business. They are not always the things we naturally would be, or do, when we have the freedom to relax at home. But then, in addition, there is social media. Social media, for most people, is an asymmetrical ‘non relax’ game. What I mean by that is while someone certainly will have some consistency between a Facebook, Instagram, tiktok, whatever, the truth is that the ‘public game’ is played a bit differently on each platform. Each platform, and each ‘tribe’ you interact with on social media tugs at, and out, a specific part of you. It makes who you are when you are free to relax uneven. And this is where I go back to ‘trickier proposition’ thought. Who we are is being constantly pulled at by the environments within which we reside. And I mean constantly. Work is discussing bringing ‘your whole self’ (which is ludicrous), social media discusses things in a brutally one-dimensional context and even social community discusses community cohesiveness in some very ‘us versus them’ narratives. I would suggest before social media having a ‘self-narrative’ that was a bit easier to narrate was, well, a bit easier and home, as I am discussing it, was a bit easier to have.
suggest authenticity of self, others will speak of being genuine, heck, Shakespeare suggests “be true to thineself”, all I suggest is home. Find your moments of home and visit home as often as you can. The world demands you leave home and even encourages you to stay away from home, I will not suggest you can never leave your home, the world doesn’t work that way, all I suggest is make sure you have a home and know it is your home. Because, in the end, that is where your truest freedom not only resides but offers your touchstone to freedom when you are away. Ponder.