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

“The unexpected, always the unexpected.

If they expect you to move right, move left. The first law of survival in this jungle that you’ll inhabit.

The unexpected move. “

—-

The Avengers

========

“She was already learning that if you ignore the rules people will, half the time, quietly rewrite them so that they don’t apply to you.”

—

Terry Pratchett

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

Well. Far too often in business we talk about making an “unexpected move” to gain an advantage as “zig when they zag.”

So lets’ take a minute and talking about the whole “zigging when they zag” bullshit. To be clear. On a football field zigging when they zag can be effective, but in business it is bullshit.

Look. I am all for running with a temporary advantage when given the opportunity <and, yes, about 97.385% of advantages are temporary — I made up the 97.385% number>. But that is not ‘zigging’.

I am all for hunkering down on a specific distinctness when it appears the rest of the category is bumbling around in an array of meaningless claims. But that is not zigging.

I am all for leaping through a window of opportunity when the window cracks open. But that is not zigging.

Suffice it to say … zigging, in general, is a stupid strategy.

Let me explain why.

Most industries, once they have a fair number of competitors, is more like a 7 lane superhighway where everyone is driving in the same direction within the same guard rails.

Not everyone will like thinking that, but the truth is that most businesses have smart people who see the same information and do all the necessary research with people who are likely, and not likely, to buy whatever it is they are selling and therefore strategies are in the same realm and everyone is pretty much competing in the same arena.

This means a couple of things.

• • Everyone is speeding toward the same approximate destination.

  • If something is obvious to you, it is most likely obvious to them.

What all of this means is you have to move, but most moves have to be done artfully.

So maybe despite the fact I balk at the whole ‘zig when they zig’ and ‘unexpected’ anything in business gives me heartburn it is possible I could discuss the art of the unexpected move.

I call it “art” because unpredictability as normal behavior is bad. No one likes someone who is unpredictable 100% of the time and organizations <alignment, operations and ‘day to day doing’> tend to respond poorly to unpredictability (so do customers).

In my highway metaphor unpredictability most likely means either <a> a crash or <b> slowing down and you get passed or <c> you are now on a completely different road than all the other competitors speeding toward sales, & customers.

As for predictable? Yikes. Boring. Lack of creativity. Bad <in a different way>. Let’s just call predictable “lack of any art.” In my highway metaphor this most likely means you are cruising in one of the right lanes, the slower lanes, and people are passing you all the frickin’ time.

This suggests making a move in your industry take more art and artfulness to navigate the path you desire or take advantage of the opportunity that may open.

This suggests, in the business world, you sit up and pay attention just with a little more focus when someone pulls out the “maybe we should zig when they zag” tritism. You do so mostly because anyone who says that who is not on a football field most likely has their head up their ass <but want to say something catchy in a meeting to be noticed>.

I say that, again, because most time in a business industry companies are going in a direction for a reason … that is where the sales are. So ‘zigging’ when everyone else ‘zags’ more than likely means they are heading toward sales and you are not.

Ok. Now. If you want to tie ‘unexpected move’ to survival … well … that is a different story. Survival does have a nasty habit of forcing some unexpected maneuvering. Ok. Maybe out of desperation the predictable in us decides that maybe being ‘unexpected’ may actually be called for.

I would suggest that if you find yourself in desperate times rarely is anything artful in that moment. But I would suggest that in a desperate survival mode I can offer two lists you should write up on some big board in some big conference room and make sure you discuss. There are basically 4 basic responses to a threat <or opportunity I imagine>:

• • • Fight

    • Flee

    • Deceive

    • Submit

Any move you choose to make will be derived from one of these four spaces.

Choose wisely.

Once you have chosen <wisely> effectiveness in a survival fight basically comes down to 4 things <in the order of importance>:

• • • aggression and willingness to hurt your competition

    • willingness to get hurt yourself

    • skill and knowledge

    • strength and power

Some may haggle with my order, but the top two will dictate your success regardless of how you stack the last two. And of the last two I would suggest most of the time knowing what to do is more important than brute strength.

Choose wisely <but always choose the first two or you will get crushed>. I offer these two lists because when anyone suggests zigging when someone zags I bring these out.

Shit. I bring these two lists out almost any time a business wants to talk about effectively competing in an industry.

Why?

Because nothing really matters if you do not figure out these two lists.

Why?

Going back to what I said earlier … advantages are temporary   and the other guys/gals you are competing against are as smart as you are. You don’t zig just for the sake of zigging <that is wasted organizational energy> and if you do have to take an unexpected move it is most typically a response to something in the situation <opportunity or threat>.

While we like to talk about zigging and zagging the reality comes back to the highway. You have to move forward and keep moving forward <or get run over>. The only zigging anyone should ever talk about is either moving into another lane to pass someone or another lane to let someone pass you or change lanes to avoid a crash.

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

“Desperation is the raw material of drastic change.

Only those who can leave behind everything they have ever believed in can hope to escape.

William S. Burroughs

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

Unexpected moves just to do something unexpected is stupid.

It is in the same category as change for change sake.

It is in the same category as zigging when they zag.

Now.

Unexpected moves made in the search for something incredible waiting to be known <some desired destination>? Well. That isn’t stupid.

===========

“Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.”

Carl Sagan

===========

Unexpected moves made to survive on the competition highway? That isn’t stupid.

Unexpected moves made to veer through a window of opportunity that arises? That isn’t stupid.

But zig when they zag? C’mon. That’s just stupid.

It is stupid because more likely than not it just means you will have not left the competition behind, but rather just left the competition.

“Why am I grown Old in seeking so barren a Reward as Fame?

The same Parts and Application, which have made me a Poet, might have rais’d me to any Honours of the Gown, which are often given to Men of as little Learning and less Honesty than myself.”

=

John Dryden

——-

“I feel like I’ve swallowed a cloudy sky.”

Haruki Murakami

Fame.

Fame is an appealing concept to almost everyone. Hear me out. Even if you are one of those people who say “I don’t want to be famous”, you actually do.  Yup. Maybe not ‘red carpet’ famous, but instead maybe if but for one minute ‘noticed by many’ famous.

At the crux of this mental battle we all have is: at what price would we pay for it … this ‘fame’? What price would we pay even for a sliver of fame?

Would you pay anything for “so barren a reward as fame” as John Dryden characterized it? What is the exchange you are willing to make?

Which leads me to selfies, instagram, pinterest, tumblr, Tiktok … pick one.

In technology’s world of the web we are not seeking our 15 minutes of fame, but our 15 seconds of fame with two paths lying ahead:

<a> hoping it will either turn into 15 days of fame as it gets reposted & discussed & editorialized, or

<b> hoping it turns into nothing … as it is embarrassing in reflection.

Therein lies the challenge of gaining fame … even a sliver.

Anyway. I have a theory about fame. Ok. I actually have two theories.

To be clear, these theories, theorems, postulates, whatever you would like to deem whatever glimpse of brilliance or absurdity within what I share, its my own with no research; just looking around at people and having listened & watched probably a million through my professional career.

First thought.

Genes. Chrissie Hynde <Pretenders lead singer> said this once:

“As far as success goes, I’ve never really got too excited about losing or winning. I don’t have whatever the gene is you need for that. Whatever the gene John McEnroe has, I don’t have that.

I don’t care.”

Some people don’t simply crave fame. It is part of their DNA. It is in their genes. I say this because far too many of us <myself included> mock the fame seekers as narcissistic or shallow or, well, pick your poison, but, the reality is that they simply have a gene we do not.

This doesn’t mean I have to find it likable. It simply means I need to recognize that not everyone is the same. And it also means we need to step back and recognize that fame can be used for good or for bad and that fame, while sought, is rarely controlled by the ‘soughter.’

Second thought.

My sense is that to most of us every day schmucks that the whole concept of fame is simply a means to an end, i.e., a vague concept that really has to do with esteem and self worth.

What?

Yeah.

I tend to believe most of us don’t really want the spotlight for life. We simply want to know that we are worth a shit.

That we are good at something.

Conversely, we fear be mediocre. Ok. Let me clarify. We fear being 100% mediocre and that fear affects how we view ourselves.

Looking at ourselves internally and looking at our selves externally seem to rarely match. We are either inflated with regard to ourselves or we have some deflated view of ourselves.

Neither is good.

“All I ever asked of life was that it should pass me by without my even noticing it.”

Fernando Pessoa

This is where that 15 seconds, or 15 minutes, of fame steps in. A spotlight shows us, even for a glimpse in time, some reality.

Something, well, good.

That we are actually good at something.

That people recognize it.

And that moment is it.

It’s enough.

Most of us don’t desire more than that. Just the validation is enough. We can step back into our lives content and continue the grind. Even if we continue the grind with a slightly livelier step knowing that somewhere someone valued us and our contribution.

And, yes, I am unequivocally discussing fame.

Not the smile of a child, the nuzzling from your dog, or even some very personal soulful evaluation and endorsement of your behavior which can provide valuable value affirmation, but differently than fame.

I am discussing fame as is in the harshest glimpse of society and life.

The unhesitating judgment of a cold and often brutal world. Unbiased personally you know when you walk away you weren’t cheated in judgment.

And in that judgment you were noticed and passed judgment.

“Everyone deserves a standing ovation at least once in their life because we all overcometh the world.”

R. J. Palacio

To be clear. The corrolary to what i just shared is your flaws, mistakes, misjudgements, also can get scritinized in the spotlight. Hence my opening where I offered an A path and a B path. Wander into the spotlight at your own risk.

That said. Fame, using Dryden’s language, it is most often not found in “the torrent of the people” or “the riot of a multitude.” Fame is most often found in a moment where the price is nothing more than facing our insecurities on whether we are good enough.

And, in that moment, the fame pendulum can swing far one way or the other.

We are not good enough.

And the world stands and stares.

We are good enough.

And the world stands and stares.

Simplistically, therein lies the price of fame.

The fact you will find out whether you are good enough. And maybe that’s why we all seek some version of fame at some point. Maybe we all really do want to know the truth; harsh or not. Maybe, just maybe, that is what fame, to the non-egotistical, is really about.

Because attaining a rich reward, or, so barren a reward, is a reward nonetheless.

====

“We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give.”

Winston Churchill

====

Merry Christmas everyone … and to celebrate I will go back in time a little.

My gift to everyone who visits Enlightened Conflict this year is that I share the most famous gift a writer has given Christmas … the answer to the letter to the editor to “Is there a Santa Claus?”

Go back in time, but please don’t lose your sense of child wonder in what makes Christmas so great in the present.

=====

Is There A Santa Claus?
Editorial Page, New York Sun, September 21, 1897

We take pleasure in answering thus prominently the communication below, expressing at the same time our great gratification that its faithful author is numbered among the friends of The Sun:

Dear Editor,

I am 8 years old. Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus. Papa says, “If you see it in The Sun, it’s so.” Please tell me the truth, is there a Santa Claus?

Virginia O’Hanlon

———

Virginia, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except what they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men’s or children’s, are little. In this great universe of ours, man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy.

Alas! How dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus! It would be as dreary as if there were no Virginias.

There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The external light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies. You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if you did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that’s no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

You tear apart the baby’s rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived could tear apart. Only faith, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, Virginia, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.

No Santa Claus? Thank God! He lives and lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay 10 times 10,000 years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.

—————————-

Wonderful words any day … wonderful words for today.

Merry Christmas.

————————-

“Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.”

André Gide

 ————————–

I am always wary of those who come out blazing by speaking “the truth.” I believe rarely are things black & white. In fact. I believe truth is often contextual and often slippery to get a hold of.

Now. Let’s not confuse facts with truth. Lots of facts exist. And in a mutually exclusive environment someone can hold up a fact as a single-minded fragile truth. The difficulty is that everything is connected with everything and a single fact does not ever live in a world solo. It rubs elbows within a community of other facts. And as they rub against each other they create, well, truths. Truth is a combination of facts.

I would also suggest truth is often elusive. In that I mean if you care about truth and are a truth seeker you are always in the pursuit of truth as facts replace facts (as facts tend to do).

Now. I want to be careful. Yes. There is truth in the world. Even if some facts change all they do is change the shape of most truths, not make them ‘untruths.’ I do believe we sometimes forget that. Simply because a fact changes does not make the whole become irrelevant. It can, but most times it does not.

I believe rather than discussing truth, or a truth, as static we should refer to it in, well, progress terms. The pursuit of truth is one of progress.

Things may arc toward truth (assuming there is active involvement in the pursuit of), but that arc is not smooth nor does it actually move in one direction. Truth, itself, is uneven in that in its combination of facts those facts can reside in the past, present and future as well as within the truth itself and ‘with-out’ (correlative connectedness). Truth is, well, very often emergent. Therefore, we truth seekers deal with many wrong turns, stops (which look like dead ends but aren’t really), doom loops and a variety of backtracking trips. All in all, though, things continue moving toward Truth. Truth is often contextual, often situation-specific and often can take on a slightly different hue when viewed by different people.

Truth changes. Truth changes in some unexpected and unpredictable ways. Being blind, or remaining purposefully ignorant to that, shifting of truths can cost you, well, Truth itself.

Anyway.

I have been called optimistically cynical. I guess I question everything upfront (or maybe one would hope as I have become older I can judge what to question and what to accept upfront), but always believe great things can come of the pursuit of truth (rather than use the cynicism to drag me away from accepting a truth).

I would like to believe I am one of those people who are constantly seeking truth.

I would like to believe I collect facts and seek the coherence that shapes truths.

I would like to believe I am one of those people who sees truth as kaleidoscopes of colors rather than simplistic black & whites.

Well. I may not be, but it is certainly a good objective to try to attain. Maybe I am simply a truth seeker work-in-progress.

Well, even if you never find truth, I could argue that trying to achieve that objective is not the worst thing in the world. In fact. Maybe it is the only way to get to Truth.

————————–

“The best is the enemy of good.”

Voltaire

———————–

I am sure everyone has either heard of, or read, the book “Good to Great.”

I am not as sure everyone has heard Voltaire’s “the best is the enemy of good.”

Well. Voltaire only beat the book by about 200 years and all while trying not to die in a duel or get his head chopped off.

Two points with this quote.

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

A shitload of people in the past, who never used technology let alone electricity, said a shitload of smart things that are relevant today. One could ask “how the hell could do they do that?” If one asked, I would remind everyone that principles, and principled thinking, are timeless and while past events are contextual, past thinking tends to adapt to context.

Ponder.

Second is the truth behind the thought. You can settle for good or you can do something better. I don’t need a book for that either. What we mostly get wrong in business, and life, is thinking we need to worry about doing ‘bad shit’ or doing something wrong. That is actually the least of our worries. Why? Because for the most part doing bad shit, or doing things wrong, is never satisfying. People, in general, are satisfaction seeking entities. This is where ‘good’ comes into the picture. Good can be quite satisfying. In fact. Good can become addictive if that is all you want. Good can be done in extremely high quantities. But. I would be remiss if I did not point out no matter how many ‘goods’ you do they will never attain the quality of a ‘best.’ I will not suggest everyone should do ‘the best’ or even seek to do ‘the best’ every single time. If we are honest, that is an energy sucking way of life. What I will suggest is that good is so seductive it is the enemy of best.

Yeah. I just flipped the quote.

Yeah. I am pretty sure that is what Voltaire was trying to tell you.

Ponder.

=====

“… it’s time for me to push you out of your comfort zone. It’s time for you to be 100% honest with yourself.

You’ve had your entire adult life to accomplish your financial goals.

I’m looking at your profile and you’re not even close to where you need to be, much less where you want to be.

It’s time you fix your broken plan, bring in Mr. Trump’s top instructors and certified millionaire mentors and allow us to put you and keep you on the right track. Your plan is BROKEN and WE WILL help you fix it.

Remember you have to be 100% honest with yourself!”

———–

Trump University Playbook

=====

“It is never hopeless. But sometimes I cannot hope. I try always to hope but sometimes I cannot. “

—

Ernest Hemingway

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

“Do you like living paycheck to paycheck? … Do you enjoy seeing everyone else but yourself in their dream houses and driving their dreams cars with huge checking accounts?

Those people saw an opportunity, and didn’t make excuses, like what you’re doing now.”

———-

Trump University Playbook

=======

Ok. Let’s address the elephant in the room. We all, all of us, believe we deserve some things.

Yeah.

Deserve.

Opportunity in Life. Keep what we have. Earnings for work and more earnings if we believe we are producing ‘harder work.’ Happiness. All of those things, plus, whatever you may want to add.

I state that as a Life truth so I can talk about the responsibility of a ‘promiser of things’ to us. Because if what I have outlined in the ‘deserve column’ is a Life truth, an accepted attitudinal thread in society, then someone seeking to tap into that thread bears a responsibility.

So let me talk about this responsibility.

An empty promise may be the worst promise someone can ever offer you.

I sometimes call it “false hope.”

** note: offering an empty promise can have different depths ranging from seemingly well intended (to inspire some positive action) to outright lie (snake oil salesman)

And let me be clear. Lots of people, myself included, find any promise of hope so attractive that it is incredibly easy to not look behind the promise to see if it is full or empty.

Inevitably, people receptive to empty promises are people most likely to feel a need. And when I say “feel” it can very easily edge into the personal “what I deserve” mental space.

This is also a very common space for a lot of people. We see the promise and look around us and, well, say things like:

“I am smart enough.”

“I am capable of this.”

And.

“I deserve this” as much as anyone else (particular the ones I am looking at who have it)

In the marketing and behavior world this is called “managing the need perception.” Conceptually, the higher someone drives up someone’s “I need” attitudes, the more likely they are see ‘something’ instead of ‘empty’ in the promise.

At its core this is not about risk in choices <the downside to my choice>. This is more about embracing hope <the upside of my choice>. And that is where ethics and morality come into play for the ‘promiser.’

I feel qualified discussing this because the majority of my business career has been all about ‘offering promises and hope for something.’

You learn very very quickly that as a promiser you can sometimes become blinded to the potential emptiness aspects of what you will offer and there is a natural allure to focusing solely on potential of the ‘better or best’ aspects of what you will offer. I imagine the decision on what to do with your promise is a combination of integrity and true business. Because, yeah, I want people to buy my shit, i.e., to see the promise that resides within what I have to offer. And, yet, experience shows you thru customer feedback and the retail clerks dealing with past buyers and online forums that not everyone you sold your promise to actually had their hopes met.

Those weigh on you.

Well. They weigh on you if you have any ethical compass.

The ones who have no, or little, compass are the ones who adamantly state one of two things :

• Some people are not happy with anything <”they are being unrealistic”> – i.e., “ignore the bitching”
• Look at how many people are not saying anything bad – i.e., “the sales justifies my behavior”

Look. I am not suggesting this is as easy as I just pointed out. As someone who has sat in boardrooms and looked at increasing sales and complaints and reviews it is incredibly easy to justify your own beliefs in your own products, services or company.

It is inherent in your business acumen if you are even worth a half a shit because part of what most likely makes you successful in business is belief in yourself, your business and your idea.

That said.

The best of the best business people constantly weigh how they manage what people think and what they are going to be asking someone to do when they make their personal commitment to your business, product & idea.

The majority of us business schmucks wander somewhere in the middle. Sometimes getting it right and sometimes getting it wrong <in the balance>, but inevitably our pendulum swings mostly in the middle of fairness, honesty and ethical.

The worst of the worst, the snake oil salespeople, never weigh what they are asking people to do and solely focus on ‘promise fulfilled’ … and damn the ones who didn’t, or couldn’t, attain the promise of what could be.

I admired the first group. They had figured out how to be steadfastly ethical and successful in business. Kind of the no compromise, in a good way, candidate.

I struggled to deal with the last group. They believed a sale was a sale, any profit was good and the burden of responsibility resided solely on the buyer.

All that said.

Trump is a snake oil salesman.

Just as a reminder, during the depression when times were hard people bought snake oil as a hopeful salve for whatever was troubling them.

They were con men dedicated to an unethical targeting of a slightly naïve, hard working, mostly struggling but good hearted people who desired some easy salve for some of their ills.

And, yeah, someone could argue “buyer beware.” But that is at its core … well … bullshit. Sellers actually have, and should have, more responsibility than the buyer. A seller, more often than not, knows what someone can afford and what they cannot afford as well as whether their hopes are even in the realm of possibility.

This means if as a promiser you see that they have little or no chance and that a bad decision on the buyer’s part would have a high likelihood of not only not delivering upon their hopes but actually could tangibly negatively affect their lives, the promiser has a responsibility, no, an obligation to do what is right.

Using Trump as the example I could suggest he is only really guilty of unethical opportunism. However, I would actually suggest he is guilty of 2 things:

<1> assuming his life objective should be the life objective of everyone <winning is all that matters>, and

<2> moral relativism – which he disguises within what he calls ‘not political correctness.’

All that said. Opportunism, at its core, is directly related to what we people believe we deserve. We people inherently build blocks on which we stand of things we believe we deserve.

The basics: food, health, education, place to live.

But it gets a little trickier once we actually get, and have, something. We believe we deserve what we work for and once we attain something that ‘level’ is the new normal for ‘I deserve.’ That is something psychologists call “hedonic adaptation.” And this happens at all income levels because anyone at any level can feel stretched or challenged economically <while still actually being rich beyond belief in terms of what is available to all of us 24 hours a day>.  All people are seemingly continuously seduced by the urge to acquire, and acquire more, and indulge <when the opportunity arises>. All people attach the thought of ‘deserve’ once they have acquired some level, some things or some status. You earned it <in your mind> therefore it is yours.

I don’t have anything against it. And I certainly understand the psychology of ‘once you have something not only do you not want to not have it anymore … but you want more’ <or the next step up>.

Money leads to lifestyle upgrades. But, once again, that is fraught with conflict. Once you achieve the income you desired … well … you go back to desiring more. And imagine if you become stagnant? Yikes. Our natural ‘adaptation’ anger kicks in.

But this also means that people inherently overreach because we try and reach out for ‘more than what I have.’ We inherently believe we are smart enough and capable enough to be better than what we are today.

Uhm.

If only we had the opportunity.

This belief, oddly enough, is exacerbated by failure <sometimes>. The more we fail when attempting to reach something we believe we inherently deserve, well, we will overreach even more to compensate for the time we didn’t have what we deserved <psychology research shows this>.

** note: this entire concept gets exacerbated if one does not have money, tried to work, and, yet, seemingly opportunity is always slightly out of their grasps or they feel like opportunity may have once existed but no longer exists. this idea would be at the core of what some people call “white class victimization.”

And this is where the true slippery slope of unethical opportunism rears its ugliest head. What this means is that unethical opportunism is most often driven by digging into what we believe we maybe not deserve, but what we would naturally attain if given the opportunity <this is a sly version of ‘deserve’>.

Most of us simply feel we deserve a chance. Deserve a chance for something better. The ‘degrees’ of what someone feels they will deserve will vary by person. And suffice it to say there will always be a group of people who believe they deserve significantly more than what they have and because of it will roll the dice <although they will not see it as much of a gamble as someone else>

But the bottom line is that 99% of us feel we deserve something better.

Which leads me back to Trump. The Trump ‘promise’ sounds big and luxurious and exclusive, but it fails the majority and rewards the minority – the majority being the everyday American and the minority actually being the wealthy (or some specific niche segment of people because he is a transactional segmentation snake oil salesman).

Frankly. In a country in which maybe our most impending problem is massive inequality between the haves and the have nots that is a recipe for disaster.

At minimum … it is guaranteeing false promises to the majority.

And Trump gets a little worse in this scenario than the typical ‘empty promise’ seller. A president cannot simply promise people wealth, opportunity for growth if they invest in him, cash their check as they cash in on the ‘promise’ and then ignore their ultimate result <success or failure> while moving on to the next scheme or promise.

Well. He could. Shit. He has <in business>.

But that is not what presidents or good leaders do.

And it certainly is not what America deserves.

In the end.

When you feel like you are getting screwed or that the system is rigged in some way against you, your sense of ‘I deserve more & better’ is heightened.

We all do it.

It is difficult to fight that feeling.

And, you know what? Sometimes we will not be successful fighting the “I deserve” monsters in our heads.

And maybe that is my biggest point.

A good leader knows we will not be successful fighting them off all the time and will not take advantage of our weakness.

Trump, all his career, has fed off the carcasses of this weakness. I don’t mean weak people just the natural weak moments in human nature.

He is a taker.

The world will always have takers and the world will always fall for takers. That doesn’t make being a taker good. Nor does being a taker mean you would be a good leader.

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

“I believe the world is divided in three groups: givers, takers and the few that can balance both impulses. If you are a giver, it is wise to define your boundaries because takers will take what you allow them to; all givers must learn to protect that about themselves or eventually, there is nothing left to give.”

Tiffany Madison

=========

Look. Here is the biggest problem with trying to sell empty promises.

It builds cynicism and erodes hope.

While I could certainly highlight ‘lost lives’ I will instead highlight ‘killing hope.’ That is the biggest price we pay for buying empty promises.

And, I have to tell you, that is why I hate, abhor and despise people who purposefully, and knowingly, sell empty promises and false hope.

We all deserve opportunities. And we all deserve receiving something as a result of hard work.

We do not deserve empty promises.  And we certainly do not deserve someone who suggests a future in which the majority will most likely, eventually, sit back in their worn chairs and think: ‘sometimes I cannot hope. I try always to hope but sometimes I cannot.’

Remember. Someone seeking to tap into our thread of “I deserve” feelings bears a responsibility. That main responsibility is to our hope. Someone who steals our hope is not worthy of us, or our vote.

——

———————————–

“I feel like I’ve swallowed a cloudy sky.”

=

Haruki Murakami

—-

Ok. I am a principles person. By that I mean I believe, and have found, that most business principles have a timeless quality to them. The majority of the best of the best principles offer solid fundamentals.

That said. I cannot tell you how many times I have sat in a business meeting, often with very smart business people, and someone pulls out <verbally> some marketing, or any business process/idea/way-to-think from over a decade ago as if it represents a principle rather than a process <which is implementation OF a principle>.

As I sit there and listen, well, I feel like I have swallowed a cloudy sky.

<note: it feels a little uncomfortable>

It’s not that the old principle is wrong it has just been improved upon from an implementation aspect.

My whole issue in this situation is a version of unlearning.

Anyway. By a ‘version’ I imagine I am thinking it is maybe more unbundling and shedding some of the outdated features and learning some of the newer features rather than simply unlearning something.

I fully understand that most business people are under constant pressure to learn more and to learn quickly and to mostly focus on the shit that is most important to them. Therefore, they will also tend to absorb one of their ‘non expertise competencies’ in the most simple sensible fashion possible.

But here is the issue in today’s business world.

The future belongs to the people who can unlearn stuff faster than the rest WHILE leaning into the timeless principles.

In other words. The ability to apply principles in new contexts.

I know I didn’t say ‘adapt’ or anything except ‘unlearn shit.’ I did that because it is almost impossible to learn something new until you have created some mental space by letting go of something else.

** note: it is a skill to know what to let go and what to hold on to.

So I am suggesting you cannot do that <adapt> unless you learn how to do this <unlearn>. You either learn to unlearn quicker, on everything that reflects context, not just your core competency or … well … you will either be too slow <because that one part is like dragging algae on the bottom of a sailboat> or you will fail <because even that one part can blow up the entire engine>.

I know.

I know.

What I am suggesting is hard.

REALLY hard.

Because, as I noted earlier, discerning between principles and implementation of principles is often difficult to discern let alone explain in combination with the fact this will sometimes means letting go of something that has worked really well for you for a long time.

Now. To be clear.

I do not think that just because something is an ‘older idea’ that it is not usable. In fact I believe we have shed more good thinking under the guise of some bullshit ‘pop business culture’ soundbite type thinking than is good for us. But there are aspects of old thinking & ideas that can be updated.

I don’t suggest this simply or flippantly. I do so because I see the value of new thinking, but from a more practical aspect – the business world has changed in some dynamics that should make us not simply reapply a slightly tired business thinking ideas.

Once again. This is all hard. Really hard. It gets harder because the business world is demanding us to ‘think new faster.’ Most simply this has created the perception business life has become even more fragile than ever before which increases the stress upon us to do things faster (which encourages is to reapply past ideas & thinking that may have worked).

The perception is buttressed up by some contectual facts. A Yale professor noted the average lifespan of a company listed in the S&P 500 index of leading US companies has decreased by more than 50 years in the last century. <67 years in 1920s to 15 years today>. I’d also not in 2020 around ¾ of the S&P 500 are companies that either did not exist in 2010 or were below the awareness radar.

So how do principles stand the test of time. Well. Relevance is the name of the game. Which means context matters and adaptability addresses the most basic business truth that much of what used to work will not work now and what works today will most likely not work in the near future.

Old business models and old business thinking has been shaken to the core which has two obvisous consequences:

fundamental principles are mistakenly tossed away as outdoated (a mistake)

new (loudly spoken) ideas are confused with real principled thinking (a mistake)

This is not just because of ‘old people.’ This is thinking survival. You store away thoughts in your head and prioritize what you just use, and reuse, and what you unlearn and what you learn anew.

Look. I know I still hear people quote ‘good to great’ tripe <when I wish more people would pull out Covey’s ‘Habits of’ instead> so I know we get confused on what to hold on to and what to let go of.

I know I was just in a meeting where an incredibly smart person discussed the traditional purchase funnel <see image to left> and he was kind enough to chuckle when I pointed out that model type thinking had solid aspects, but there were significantly newer models which reflect the dynamics of today’s word better.

I guess I need to remind myself a couple things:

1. 1. I live, eat & breathe new thinking and new ways of doing things.
   2. Most people do not.

This doesn’t mean I am better than anyone, it is just that I am always seeking the ‘right way to think in a particular situation’ rather than ‘best practice for all.’ And I am involved with such a wide variety of industries and business and business people that ‘one way does not fit all’ and context, or contextually applying principled thinking, can often make a principle look not like a principle, but rather look like a new idea.

Today’s business world is all about living in a non-stagnant world. Business has always been restless … it just seems more restless.

Stay still and get run over.

Something you learned in the past, which is logical & makes sense, seems counterintuitive to ‘unlearn’

Or as John Maynard Keynes said:

“The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping the old ones”

We are all creatures of habit and custom ingrained by decades of repetition.

In addition. Smart people have a tendency to hold on to sensible smart ideas.

Escaping old ideas is hard.

REALLY hard <especially if they were good>. And sometimes seems counterintuitive to let go because “I found something that works and I want to maintain it as long as I can.’

Sounds smart.

Sounds sensible.

Uhm. Now hear the sound of your business getting crushed.

All that said.

What made me start writing this post?

An old friend of mine wrote the following words on his linkedin site and I liked them <albeit I did find a typo … to his chagrin>. It is about branding and advertising … but the concept behind the words ring true thru any business category:

===

I want to encourage our industry to evolve beyond the tired branding principles that haven’t changed since Oglivy made his bones over 30-years ago.

If you find yourself baffled by double-speak and special language that only brand experts seem to understand, trust your instincts and find a firm who is fast and whose counsel makes rational sense.

A client told me about his experience with one of the agencies in his stable:

“… it’s like talking to the Mandarins that keep all commoners from the Forbidden Palace … I don’t speak their language … the process takes too long … and I have other things to do ….”

Getting to the Forbidden Palace of Brand shouldn’t take three months and war chest of fees that would be better off in working media.

This, I know, will upset an industry cobbled together on pre-recession consulting contracts just to come up with a snappy line, color palette, and logo.

If you find yourself sitting in yet another meeting where somebody poses the question: “But who are we really, and who do we want to be when we grow up?”

Run.

You can shape your brand in less than four weeks. You and your company knows who they are and your consumers know who you are. The faster you come to leverage points and missed opportunities, the faster your retail or sales organization can get back to doing what they do best — SELLING.

You need to unleash a burlap sack of caffeinated ferrets into your marketing world to get things done, excite your organization, and make sales happen.

That’s where I come in … head caffeinated ferret at your service.

Mandarins need not apply.

===

Look. I know it is difficult to stay in touch with the newest best thinking. I also know it is difficult to stay in touch with the principles. I even know it is difficult to discern what is good new thinking and what is shitty useless new thinking.

But.

Tired business thinking is tired business thinking.

Sorry.

But it is what it is.

Thinking with fresh legs will pass tired thinking any day.

All I know is that, personally, every time I hear someone speak tired business thinking I feel like I have swallowed a cloudy sky – its pretty but useless. I do believe the business world does need to reenege with some of the timeless principles but at the same time i believe the business world need to reinvigorate those principles within a contextually dynamic world.

Maybe I am also suggesting we need to begin teaching some classes on the differences between principles and ideas. Ponder.

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

“In a finite game, the rules are fixed until there is a winner, but in an infinite game, the rules must change during the course of play.”

James Carse

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

“If life’s journey be endless, where is its goal? The answer is, it is everywhere.”

Rabindranath Tagore

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

While this is about finite versus infinite, it is really about winning or success.

• a commitment to the future versus a commitment to a conclusion in the present.
• using resources or using ambition.
• repeating behavior instead of reinterpreting, reimagining, principles for new contexts.

Now.

This piece may not be for people who like specific goals and milestones, but for a joker like me who likes the randomness of life and finds pleasure not in linear success, but the spontaneous successful moments that appears in life the whole idea of infinite is far far more appealing to me than the Finite.

“I have no way of knowing whether the events that I am about to narrate are effects or causes.”

Jorge Luis Borges

Let me be clear.

There is absolutely a need for ‘finite’ type activity. Some people prefer working toward specific objectives and finite activity has value in its, well, finiteness. That said. As Goldratt suggested about business: “there is no finish line.” The grander objective of any business is never something finite, it is actually infiniteness – thrive-ability for an unforeseeable length of time. And that thrive-ability is actually grounded in, well, complexity (and the finite tends to thrive on simplicity).

The complexity that everything is connected with everything & the difference between beginning & ends is simply one’s perspective. cause & effect is a linear idea in a non linear world.

The complexity of reinterpretation based on context wherein ambition to meet the needs of a situation trumps simply using resources available.

The complexity in recognizing that progress has no finish line and that successes are just situational (but should still be celebrated).

Now.

This entire idea is outline in James Carse’s book “The Infinite and Finite Game.” The book is not a read for the faint of heart. Fascinating, interesting and, at times, unintelligible. Yet, at its core, it explores what is actually at the heart of the challenge facing the business world – must we view things in a finite way to be successful or if we viewed it in a infinite way could we get out of the horrible cycle of shortermerism, profit over people, traditional hierarchy, and the general muck business seems to be mired in.

Anyway.

The most visible concept of finite in business is gamification. That alone should make everyone dislike gamification. It is simply a series of challenging people to work in an endless array of games where there is a winner or loser.

But the finite/infinite relationship comes to life in a variety of other ways.

Abstract versus tangible:

Infinite is abstract. Finite is tangible. Unless you can tether the infinite with some narrative, some vision, some story, some metaphor, running a business with an infinite mindset is going to feel a lot like chaos. And it may actually be (although it may not be in that there are other surrounding principles which permits the organization to act in a coherent way).

Another abstract versus tangible aspect is value. Now. Most businesses do not discuss finite versus infinite in terms of Finite value versus Infinite value. They should.

In business Finite value can most often be found in maximizing a transaction (between purchaser and enterprise) – maximizing present value.

Infinite value can most often be defined in maximizing a life (of a business enterprise) – maximizing future value.

Ponder.

Cooperation:

Carse suggests finite versus infinite is about competition versus cooperation.  This is an important distinction because rivalry, or competition, is self-terminating. If business were a 100-yard dash this may be okay (maybe), but its not. The purpose of any business is actually to be infinite where its life has no foreseeable conclusion and progress has no foreseeable stopping point. Once again, in Goldratt’s words: there is no finish line.

I would point out that this is really about decision making. Good decision-making needs good sense making. I imagine I am suggesting sense making demands we remove competition (and its unsavory companion – rivalry) to be successful.  I imagine I am suggesting true, effective, collaboration cannot exist within competition environment. I imagine I am suggesting collective sensemaking is collaboration. I imagine I am suggesting shelving a ‘benefit now, disadvantage later mindset’ tied to tangible finiteness and tapping into infinite value.

Ponder.

Emergent:

While we cannot control the future, we can certainly control the conditions of how the future we want is constructed. This is actually probabilities management, not goals management (kind of the business version of “push versus pull” marketing strategy). That said. Emergent defies most planning (finite management) and embraces ‘smart strategic opportunistic” behavior (potential management). Yes. There has to be an artful balance of finite, self-interest/transactional, and infinite – the larger greater good (self-interest cannot be separated in the long run from the interests of the world” Daniel Schmachtenberger) . Emergent demands a buy in between the individual and the collective wherein the individual ‘self authors’ (autopoietic) with an accepted vision of the larger group so that all decisions & actions remain coherent.

** Note: Autopoietic – self authoring.  Society is emergent in that people self-author their own definitions of success and self-narrative (meaning in the world & society) versus society establishing the definitions with which an individual should judge themselves (and be judged).

** Note: autopoiesis (from Greek αὐτo- (auto-), meaning ‘self’, and ποίησις (poiesis), meaning ‘creation, production’) refers to a system capable of reproducing and maintaining itself. The original definition can be found in Autopoiesis and Cognition: the Realization of the Living (1st edition 1973, 2nd 1980)

I would suggest Emergent could be called deterministic chaos in that Complex systems are both deterministic (when constructed well) and chaotic (when working well). Therefore, success is found in both constraints and in the unconstrained, the finite and the infinite.

Ponder.

Abstract pattern recognition:

Part of infinite is shifting patterns or maybe the ongoing instability of patterns, therefore, finite resides within the pattern itself. Now. Power has always resided in the tangible which inevitably arcs toward simplicity (if not oversimplification). Yet. When external events disrupt the pattern then we, individuals/organizations/society the effectiveness of existing patterns becomes less effective, new aspects into patterns yet to be defined and then new patterns occur. It is important to note that most existing patterns do not function when conditions change.

“Humans reproduce geometrically while resources reproduce arithmetically.”

Malthusian Theory

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out no business can exist without any pattern or pattern identification. Patterns identify structure and all business needs some structure. That said. Finite tends to define patterns in a static way (linear) and infinite tends to define patterns from an abstract perspective (coherence). Both have some value although the former is fragile and the latter is antifragile.

Ponder.

Idealism versus realism:

Idealism versus realism is often a debate between abstract and tangible as well as possibilities and pragmatism. When someone says “I am being practical” 99% of the time they have resolved themselves to a binary world in which the choice making, the decision, is some simplistic fork in the road. The truth is crossroads are more roundabouts rather than some ‘road not taken’ type decision.

That, my friends, is the finite versus infinite mindset.

“La fixité du milieu intérieur est la condition d’une vie libre et indépendante”

(“The constancy of the internal environment is the condition for a free and independent life”).

Claude Bernard

Every business demands realism. The issue is when that realism suffocates the idealism.

Ponder.

In the end.

The most basic aspect of finite versus infinite is transactional versus long term value. Present value versus future value. And while both have roles it would be a mistake to solely choose one over the other.

Look. The truth is people, to be at their best, need to have some core consistency (passion, vision, character, whatever), some finiteness, in order to be free enough in the infinite universe to be successful.

Not to get too philosophical but a successful business is always a fragile balancing act between being independent from the external environment and actually of the external environment. In other words, balancing the finite and infinite. Business demands not only recognition of the finite versus infinite aspects of business itself but also the people who make the business work.

Ponder.

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

“And in that moment, I swear we were infinite.”

Stephen Chbosky

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

—-

“The line of life is a ragged diagonal between duty and desire.” –

=

 William R. Alger

—–

Well. I am not sure I have ever seen a more succinct explanation for Life as a struggle as well as Life is never a straight line.

Life truths?

Life is an ongoing struggle.

And Life is rarely a straight and narrow path.

Why are these ‘truths’? Because inevitably all lives are made up of choices.

A shitload of ongoing choices — small and large and every size in between. And these choices we make all tell us the path(s) our lives will take.

Now. I do not believe our Life, or destiny, is pre-ordained in a black & white definition. What I mean is that even if I did believe in a higher order <God has a plan for each and every one of us> destiny, I would tend to believe it was a map of possibilities. Therefore, we make choices aiming toward something in general <whatever your personal something is> … and amble down a path, or number of paths, that is not preordained but ones we choose.

But.

I like … no … love the thought that we get tugged by some sense of duty <right thing to do> versus desire <some type of self-gratification … spanning from full indulgence to full altruism> as we make all these choices.

What does is mean? A diagonal line.

Oh.

Nope.

A ragged diagonal line.

Should we choose one way … that is the way we will go.

Should we choose another way … we go that way instead.

This means Life consists of paths that branch out turning right and left, this way and that way, running straight and crooked, turning sometimes randomly & severely in a variety of angles.

Yeah. Surely some paths are more likely than others, but we can choose any path to take. And each choice begets more branches ahead — some seen and some yet to be seen. At the core of this thinking is that Life is less about following some planned path, but instead suggests that each choice is contextual – to the environment, to one’s experience & to one’s knowledge.

Now.

I imagine if one lives a stagnant unmoving life the choices may be simpler and the events affecting the branches are fewer. Yet <just in case ‘stagnancy’ appeals to you as an ‘easier life choice’> stagnancy or ‘hiding from Life’ doesn’t guarantee shit.

Why?

Because as your path crosses with others – others who are also making choices –  as you cross the choices of strangers, family, friends, enemies, whomever, their choices affect our path. And their choices sometimes force choice where choice never resided before … or if we even wanted to make a choice at all.

The more people we meet, the more paths & branches crisscross, and cross again. It becomes a tangled confusion of so many choices and paths and interlinked branches it becomes easy to think of it all as chaos. Especially if you think of people and events as threads and not dots in a moment in time:

——

“There is a trail of existence that follows everyone, threads of life that people spin out and leave behind wherever they go.

Threads cross all the time.

Threads cross and cross again – time and place if in no other way – even when the people appear unaware of each other. No one pays attention to others around them unless the overlap happens again.

Sometimes, people miss each other only by a few seconds, yet they are connected.

Sometimes place is the reason for the overlap but time is not.

Sometimes the overlap is purposeful other times happenstance.

The threads are there, no matter.

Ah. When they glow, they are one destiny.” 

Inspector O <james Church book character>

——

It is not chaos, but, your life is affected by these ‘trails of existence’ — impacted by what was, is and what will be. As I type that it can become easy to think you have no control <or simply throw your hands up in the air in frustration>.

Well. While we certainly can be impacted by others or ‘things out of our control’ what remains in our control, always, is the choice. Our choice. The choice to do what we may with the circumstances at hand.

The choice remains with us.

The choice between duty and desire.

In addition.

In each tangled chaotic web of events, threads and paths, it is all bounded by the practical. The practical aspect of what you can actually do, and cannot do, within the choices you make. I am not speaking of dreaming the impossible <because dreaming is good>, but the actual reality of what can be done.

note: the ability to pragmatically assess what IS possible within a given context and what is not takes experience and an eye biased toward some pragmatism.

Oh.

Back to duty & desire.

There is where free will seems to reside. The choices made by duty & desire.

Yeah.

This all sounds chaotic and impossible to navigate. But think about this. Look to the past and it appears to be a neat set of choices made and not made. This is the power, and danger, of reflection.

It all appears like a schematic of choices made of duty … and those of desire. And encounters of events and people who forced us to make choices. We make it all look a little tidier than it was.

Oh shit. Wait a second.

Now.

I imagine if anyone were to look to the future it would simply appear to be sheer chaos. A snarled thread of paths and choices.

Relax.

This is where the original quote comes back to play — our destiny resides in our choices between duty and desire. Period. Sometimes the choice is black & white and often it resides in the gray. Unfortunately, regardless of its hue or shade or color, the choice will place us on a path toward our destiny.

In other words … a ragged diagonal path through Life.

Well.

This all may make us uncomfortable — all this choosing amongst the snarled threads of Life wondering if each choice is somehow easing its way down the ragged diagonal path toward a destiny we either actually seek or one we will be comfortable with in the end or one we cannot even envision yet.

Uncomfortable because we people like have to have an explanation that satisfies us.

And by having this attitude we run the risk of just not seeing it as it is … simply making choices in the moment between desire and duty.

Look.

I Know I am biased and have my own opinions on Life. Heck.

Many months ago in 2010 I wrote about the fact I love being “everywhere at once.”  It was in that piece where I closed my thoughts with: ‘Where do I want to be 10 years from now? Everywhere. All at once.’

Agree or disagree … but … it is a ragged diagonal path we live.

All of us.

I imagine if you define it simply as a shitload of choices made between duty and desire, the ragged aspect will not bother you as much because you are on a path toward a destiny that can be explained in the end — “I balanced duty & desire in my Life.”

Well. If that is measurement of how one made choices, or took control, of their destiny, I believe it would be a life lived well.

Mr. Magorium:

“37 seconds.”

==

Molly Mahoney:

“Great.

Well done.

Now we wait.”

==

Mr. Magorium:

“No.

We breathe.

We pulse.

We regenerate.

Our hearts beat.

Our minds create.

Our souls ingest.

37 seconds, well used, is a lifetime.”

–

Mr. Magorium’s Wonder emporium (here is the clip )

Well. 37 seconds … well used … is a lifetime. This is a big thought. Big enough that I think most people will balk at it.

We breathe.

We pulse.

We regenerate.

Our hearts beat.

Our minds create.

Our souls ingest.

Most people will balk because they can’t figure out how to do what they want to do even within 2 hours/7 days a week. In fact. I imagine most people think of ‘doing things’ in terms of … “oh, I only wish I had time to … bla bla blaaaa …”

Or.

“I wish i had more time.”

<followed by a wha wha waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ... that’s whining in case you need a definition>

Look.

Here’s the deal.

Everyone has the same amount of time.

We all get 24 hours in a day. We all get 365 days every year <except one year and it is really only one month anyway>.

How we choose to spend that time is about prioritizing. Figuring out what is most important to us <and, yeah, I said ‘us’ and not someone else and responsibilities and stuff like that>

In fact I would argue how you spend the time is kind of irrelevant, it’s more the fact that you recognize you actually have a choice with what you do with your time and, well, choose.

In fact. Maybe even choose what to do with the next 37 seconds.

Anyway.

We make choices.

We live with the consequences.

Use your time for something useful <or don’t>.

That’s up to you.

Once again.

99% of the time the choice is yours.

99.9% of the time I would argue the next 37 seconds are yours to choose what to do with.

But, please, please don’t tell people you don’t have enough time. And if you want to argue you with me that it is impossible to do anything useful in 37 seconds I will argue with you that the best thinking, the best living, the best creativity, is done within constraints and 37 seconds may feel like a huge constraint, or conversely, it could be the hugest freeing amount of time you have ever had.

Just ponder.

Because 37 seconds … when well used … is a lifetime.