—

“In a so-called information society, minds are not only the most important economic asset — companies with minds make money; companies with money and no minds lose the money — it’s the same thing in everything. The networks are not programmed by technology; technological tools are programmed by minds. So the human consciousness [is the source], because everything now depends on our ability to generate knowledge and process information in every domain and activity. Knowledge and information are cognitive qualities from the human mind. Yes, human minds usually are connected to bodies, which means that you have to take into consideration the overall system of human existence, social services support, etc. But fundamentally, the human mind has always been, but more than ever now, the source of wealth, power, and control over everything.”

Manuel Castells Interview: Conversations with History; Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley

—-

I get annoyed by telling people to get out of comfort zones and I get even more annoyed when someone says it with regard to conceptual thinking.

First. I bet 80%, maybe 90%, of everything you would like an employee to improve upon & learn is within their comfort zone. Let’s stop telling people they have to be uncomfortable. They can be comfortable AND learn shit.

Second. Almost all concepts have one foot in the present and one foot in the future (or within an emerging opportunity). That’s the strength of a concept. It leverages existing resources and institutional wisdom to gain velocity within newly existing opportunities (the best concepts are actually a version of Loewy’s ‘optimal newness’).

Regardless.

Institutions, themselves, have a version of a comfort zone. It is what I call “Institutional Debt” (this is the organizational version of what software industry calls “technical debt” where suboptimal software is created by less-than-well-crafted coding added to software infrastructure not created to optimize the addons).

** note: Tech debt is something accrued when code is written in a suboptimal way. The term originated with programmer Ward Cunningham in a 1992 report

Because of this ‘debt’ Institutions struggle to “see forward.” In other words, one part of their institutional debt is a disproportional blindness to emergent aspects and the other part is a blindered vision on current situation. The organizational has to be organized to constantly augment its situational awareness so that institutional wisdom is not a constraint and incoming wisdom increases the value of the existing parameters. Another part of institutional debt is actually found in the systems themselves and the last institutional debt is how the people OF the institution think about the systems themselves.

As Peter Drucker said, “People in any organization are always attached to the obsolete – the things that should have worked but did not, the things that once were productive and no longer are.”

Conceptual thinking, or iterative strategic thinking, reduces institutional debt.

Institutional debt has obvious problems but the one least discussed is how they create a version of  “wicked problems.”  This is grounded in the truth the more you ignore it, the more it builds up and becomes impossible to ignore. More and more a business which is less focused on emergent opportunities will build debt in outdated ideas, misguided thinking on what’s important and processes which have seen better days (once worked but are having diminishing positive returns).

I believe saying “change is hard” is misguided. Change is actually easy – once you see a reason to change and the benefit of the change.

We fool ourselves into believing change is hard because we confuse it with risk. Much of business change has to do with shedding institutional debt BUT the people actually do not see it as debt – but wisdom.

And this is where Conceptual thinking shines.

There is a massive value in working with other thinkers, who do not think the same you do or you may not even know particularly well, focused on developing concepts against a common vision. To be honest, I cannot figure out of this is an argument for, or against, remote working. What I do know is that people who have a common vision, a common desire and a common view on what progress looks like, will naturally cluster. It is quite possible its easier in physical proximity but that’s a different issue for a different day. All I know is that Conceptual thinking, and actually using concepts to mutual benefit of the business, levels up everyone and everything.

Why do I feel so confident saying that? Conceptual thinking is the anti-matter to Institutional debt matter.

I will end with two quotes:

“Augmentation is fundamentally a matter of organization”

 

“Past wisdom must not be a constraint.”

Institutional debt is fundamentally a matter of organization, therefore, augmenting existing wisdom and thinking is a matter of organization. I hesitate to call this “culture” because I believe it is more attitude and intentions. If an organization clearly states its intentions, and attitudinally believe the organization should be continuously making progress against those intentions, conceptual thinking is the pathway forward for a Conceptual Age Organization seeking to insure it sheds its Institutional debt.

After reading about deconstruction and reconstruction thinking with regard to what I believe is how business thinking should be, one could easily become fearful of “frozen.” In other words what I have described to date with the Conceptual Age and a Conceptual Age organization, in which it seems that every person in the organization is being barraged by a knowledge-based software with random information and being asked to make sense of it all, well, it sounds overwhelming. It also sounds like there must be a direct relationship between information received and information used. If it sounds like that then, of course, we all recognize that when people get overwhelmed, they ‘freeze’ – make no decisions. I’d suggest that success within complexity, and complex organizations , is more like ‘obliquity’ – achieving complex objectives indirectly.

So let’s think about how we achieve this obliquity within the Conceptual Age organization business model idea.

It was Daniel Schmachtenberger who said we are “making more and more consequential decisions with worse and worse sensemaking to inform those decisions.” The basis of this thought, in business, is the consequence of a business environment invested in “data dumps” on people who are, for the most part, not particularly data literate. In pragmatic terms we have more knowledge and information than what we know what to do with. The cognitive complexity of most problems, and opportunities is beyond the capability of a single mind. This does not mean everything needs to be met with collaboration (in fact collaboration may actually mean a worse conclusion than a single mind incapable of assimilating all knowledge) but it does mean individuals need to become better at sensemaking and conceptual thinking. Now. There are two sides to this equation. The human mind and what is presented to the human mind in terms of knowledge and information. I will set aside the mind as a given (capable of reaching clarity and data assimilation) and focus on the input. In a Conceptual Age Organization, I am suggesting an Intelligence Driven software parsing out knowledge in ways that engage cognitively within a conceptual, sensemaking, framework. Rather than think about this in an ‘overwhelming’ way I choose to view the possibilities in terms of effective information distribution is all about the mental narrative battle. The challenge, and opportunity, is to distribute knowledge and, yet, eliminate cognitive load. Returning to Daniel Schmachtenberger, it is he who suggests society & civilization is suffering from a damaged information ecology. I am simply suggesting building a business model grounded in a healthier information ecology.

With that in mind, what is a healthier information ecology in a Conceptual Age organization? Well. Let’s accept the fact that all ideas can be weaponized – for opportunities or to make something worse. With that acceptance the organization should seek to create a battlefield on which the combatants, the employees, can be successful. We need to not only create the technological tools, but wield the technological tools in a way which can shape the thinking, and concepts, from which business potential can be achieved. As Marshall McLuhan said “we shape the tools and the tools shape us.”

This is where nuanced algorithm delivery of information matters. There is a “zone” in which information provided will generate a “return on information.”

In 1957 John William Atkinson wrote Motivational Determinants of risk-taking Behavior in Psychological Review. He suggested that if you can choose the grade of complexity <difficulty> of a task most of the decisions are taken in a mid-complexity-level. Too easy tasks or too difficult tasks can neither provoke a strong feeling of satisfaction nor a strong disappointment and vice versa.

Highly motivated people often choose a realistic complexity of tasks whereas low motivated people choose tasks that are finally to easy or too difficult for them.

Now. I would debate JW Atkinson because I believe if I set aside the fact bills have to be paid at some point, I would say he doesn’t give ‘appeal of success’ enough emphasis. Especially if the appeal of success is tied to “doing something” or maybe better said ‘doing something that may truly matter.’

What I mean is that if you consciously decide to ‘go big and win big <or lose big>’ your satisfaction criteria changes and, therefore, you are willing to plow your way through more complexity and difficulty.

That said.

This chart, and concept, is quite similar to the one Ian Leslie outlined in his book Curious about Curiosity.

Low knowledge discourages curiosity in that they don’t know enough to focus the pursuit (its kind of like lack of return on energy). Either we find it difficult to believe it would be interesting to pursue this knowledge or, with no knowledge, it can feel too daunting a task.

This means having medium knowledge, aware but not an expert, increases curiosity (and the pursuit of knowledge). High knowledge discourages curiosity because we feel like we know I well enough there would be diminishing returns if we invested in out curiosity to get more.

Ian Leslie notes that neither of these things make someone incurious, this simply showcases the walls we put up against certain curiosity.

We willingly enter the “curiosity zone” when we know something, but not too much.

This is all a derivative of George Lowenstein’s “information gap” – the gap between what we know and what we want to know – and curiosity is actually a response to this gap.

Now. People being people, if upon entering the information gap our curiosity is faced with too much complexity it will likely veer off on a different tangent.

This is where I circle back to complexity. Complexity and curiosity are linked.

See enough complexity and your curiosity views it as a puzzle to solve, but too much complexity and it becomes a mystery. Puzzles have definitive answers. Mysteries are messier and often do not have clear answers and you have to get comfortable with the truth you inevitably end up with probabilities. The truth is complexity, itself, is a mystery to be managed and navigated and complications are puzzles.

That said.

I would argue the business of the future will use algorithms to deliver knowledge to individuals so that they purposefully step into information gaps, gain the data & knowledge they need to navigate the curiosity zone and make decisions, isolate probabilities and pursue progress (which is typically found in more knowledge and more about navigating the information gaps businesses inherently have).

Look. I don’t think I am different than most people. We all want to ‘do something.’ And I would argue most of us like to solve complexity. that doesn’t mean we want to fight it 24/7 just that we get a lot of satisfaction in facing down the mysteries of complexity and still figure out how to make some progress with, or within, it. I believe we know, consciously or subconsciously, that effectively navigating complexity maximizes, well, everything – life or business. I also believe we understand that today’s complexity is only going to get more complex. I also believe that while complexity can be frustrating and we can doubt we can solve complexity, in general we know complexity can always be navigated. That said. Not everyone has a map nor has the time to figure out the map. But what we do know is that the enemy is complications – complications are roadblocks to potential within the complexity. therefore, simplistically, success opportunities, good decisions, exist within complexity only if complications can be removed.

I am not a personal branding fan, but in this case I think most everyone would like to be able to say “in a complex world we navigate complexity to uncover, and eliminate, complications blocking potential.”

I say that we would all like this because I also 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).

 

• • • • Complexity is a given.
      • Complexity is expansive.  Tapping into it maximizes potential. It is networked and non linear both of which are what makes a people, or business, successful.
      • Complicated is reductive. It keeps things from potential. It is a linear connection which no longer works efficiently or effectively.
      • Simplicity cannot exist without complexity. It is embracing complexity to the benefit of people, business, systems, communication etc. or. Maybe better said. Efficient bundling of complexity to increase effectiveness.

————————

It is standard operating procedure in today’s world, whether you like it or not, that people are expected to cope with increasing complexity, change and diversity. The tricky part is that complexity IS the nature of things, not things themselves. It was Russell Ackoff who labeled these interconnected systems as ‘messes’. This means looking at things, or something, close enough and it only seems to get bigger in its connectedness (degrees of consequences and connections). This means decisions do not hold true to a cause & effect, but rather shifting contexts with shifting consequences.

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.

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” and Leslie’s “curiosity zone.” 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.

Once curiosity is engaged one can see existing patterns as well as new patterns.

** note: this human pattern recognition is tied to the algorithm-based Intelligence based Software idea I have wherein I suggest two threads of information flow – predictive and emergent – are created in aligning Cloud, institutional knowledge and individual potential/thinking.

Anyway.

Let me end on this thought about decision making and complexity.

Discovery has always been grounded in knowledge – the known and the unknown. People knew about gravity before Newton nailed it down, knew Earth circled the sun, effective building of structures and even Columbus knew the world wasn’t flat when he decided to set sail <fairly common knowledge the world wasn’t flat to sailors>. Yet we spend a lot of time seemingly reeducating ourselves on what I would call “institutional knowledge”. We do that a lot in business too.

I imagine my point is that “institutional knowledge exists” <even in basic principles> and we loop back on it throughout the knowledge lifespan challenging it. I would also point out that this knowledge, or any knowledge I imagine, is progressed by how it is articulated. And then proof varies depending upon the technology (or whatever is needed to prove) at that time. I say all that to suggest that there are no real secrets or 100% mysteries. The truth is humans, given the right knowledge & information in the right context (not too complex and in an information gap), figure things out no matter how complex it may appear. And in doing so they take the old thought or knowledge and bring it slightly further along than where it last rested.  That is called ‘progress.’ And that is also my proof that complexity is expansive, if not infinite, because when complications are solved & removed, complexity just expands to accommodate more people, ideas, curiosity and activity.

I will end where I began – “obliquity.” The process of completing complex objectives indirectly. Accepting complexity and tackling complexity are distinctly different things. Acceptance is simply recognition it exists, and go forth. Tackling is an agreement you will wrestle with complexity. To me, a Conceptual Age organization demands acceptance, if not celebration of, complexity but not tackling it. In other words, accepting complexity is an indirect means to an end in that you can seek solutions without trying to solve it.

Ponder.

……. slow down … do not pause ………

====

“… they should try slowing down instead.  In our study of businesses (conducted with the Economist Intelligence Unit), the companies that embraced initiatives and chose to go, go, go to try to gain an edge ended up with lower sales and operating profits than those that paused at key moments to make sure they were on the right track.

What’s more, the firms that “slowed down to speed up” improved their top and bottom lines, averaging 40% higher sales and 52% higher operating profits over a three-year period.”

–

Harvard Business Review

====

This is about something called ‘critical slowing down.’ To be clear. This is not “make haste slowly” which I have written about before.

In business, and Life I imagine, some people are masters in appropriately reading a situation and assessing timely ‘slowing down’ which enables speeding up.

This is a business management skill, an invaluable skill, and it is incredibly difficult skill to master.

Slowing down to speed up fights against all the natural business instincts. It is a phrase often tossed around in business, one often discussed, one often not done.

It is not done because most people suck at this balancing act (appropriate slowing down and appropriate speeding up). This balancing actually demands one recognize the environmental contextual aspects. Yes. There is a natural oscillation between the two <speeding up & slowing down>. For example, science has shown that climate actually slows down preceding abrupt climatic shifts.

Regardless. Let’s just say that in business slowing down very often becomes high impact high probability events and that the fluctuation between slow to speed increases impact. This fluctuation creates angst and decisionmaking stress because most people tend to see disaster in the swing <which is, in reality, a pace driven transition> because we are leaving one natural state and arriving at another – liminal space.

Let’s face it.

Not many business people are good at undergoing any critical transition let alone a ‘slow down/speed up’ transition.

Why?

Because each aspect in and of itself is a natural state and each begets inertia <at its worst> or chaotic activity <which is close to as bad as inertia>.

Inertia weakens internal stabilizing forces which compounds inevitable change forces.

Chaotic activity sometimes appears good <it is the semi-appealing ‘we are being busy at being busy’>, but that behavior begets multiple variables which evolve unpredictably and ultimately inhibits critical transitions.

Both states inevitably create what most people see as the unintended consequences in which something can get knocked off balance and become ‘extinct.’ And sometimes the consequences can occur without ever showing signs of critical slowing down.

Here is a truth: consequences occur whether they are intended or unintended.

This business truth happens because business systems, more often than not, are a bit more complex, and contain some complications, in their underlying dynamics than simplistic theory or simplistic diagrams attempting to create structure to an organization and its dynamics with the market & consumers/buyers.

I would suggest that you cannot draw a picture for what is <because it is obsolete as soon as it is drawn> and you cannot draw a picture for what will be <because predicting multi-dimensional dynamics is outside the purview of reality>.

All that said. That is why you cannot pay enough to a business person who has the ability to know when to slow down to enable effective speeding up because, whether they are labeled as such or not, they know how to navigate complexity.

It is here I would be remiss if I did not note, more often than not, the ones who claim to be good at this, are not. It is the ones who do not make the claim, the ones who recognize that more often than not it is something you just kind of sense, that you treasure.

All I know for sure is that I have been fortunate enough on occasion to have slowed down in business and had everything speed up afterwards. It feels amazing and the organization & employees, many who balked at the slowing down, absolutely love the freedom that came after the slowing down.

Here is the truly difficult thing about this whole ‘slow down/speed up’ thing.

You know when you get it right.

But you don’t know when you get it wrong or even when you may have missed the opportunity to ‘slow down to speed up.’

And that makes it exponentially more difficult to convince people it is the time to slow down <and the benefit will be speed later> and exponentially more difficult to figure out when to do it <and makes it impossible to train anyone for>.

I hesitate to say it is a ‘gut/instinct’ driven skill because then many people automatically suggest “judgement over experience.”

In addition I also hesitate to say this is solely a knowledge-driven/experience-driven skill because that ignore the ‘art’ aspect of this.

I would say that this particular business skill is one of those things:

<1> you either have the instinct or you do not and

<2> the instinctual judgement is more often than not driven by at least some experience, and

<3> experience increases the likelihood, but doesn’t guarantee, of future good use of your instinctual judgement.

Many business people screw the pooch on the entire slow down/speed up idea and also falsely implement it.

The most often abused slow down/speed up tactic is, well, there are a couple.

1. The project meeting in which all projects are discussed by everyone.

This is close to slow down/speed up, but not the best kind. This is actually “stop, share, get critique, and go.” More often than not this is simple ‘scrape some barnacles off the bottom of the ship’ type management. Sure. It can help speeding up but incrementally … not exponentially.

2. The ‘kick off meeting.’

This is the infamous “let’s take a moment and make sure we are all aligned before we getting going.” What a bunch of baloney. Yes. it makes sense to insure everyone is on the same page when getting started <although I would point out that more often than not everyone doesn’t give a shit about the overall objective just their own components objective and timeline>. But this is not true slow/down speed up … this is more about alignment.

Look. Real slow down/speed up management is midstream management where you have some critical learnings and maybe even some momentum. And you purposefully do not have everyone stop … just slow down … assess … kind of like having a fighter squadron get fuel in flight … and then shoot off on the mission.

Real slow down/speed up business management creates exponential dramatic speed increases and, at its best, velocity. Reality shows that these dramatic shifts don’t really happen as part of a business status quo. They are situational, contextual and often do not happen because a business doesn’t have a business person who sees it, senses it or can steer it.
Bad slowing down never creates good, or effective, speeding up. It just slows people down and most often frustrates employees as wasted time.

Good slowing down creates dramatic shifts – in speed, velocity and in direction.

More often than not they are driven by one person who senses a contextual shift in the dynamics within a situation. One person who doesn’t have a picture drawn to adapt against but can draw a picture of what they see & sense from which others can leverage from to generate speed.

Truth: not everyone can do this.

In fact, while most people, in general, suck at make choices the business people who are really good at making the faster better choices and recognizing when to slow down to speed up are few & far between.

That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t seek it just understand that more often than not you will just slow down <and not speed up>. All that said. Remember. Critical slowing down is never about slowing down it is about speeding up your business.

——

———————————–

“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.

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

“Don’t tell me how good you make it, tell me how good it makes me when I use it.”

Leo Burnett

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

Even though I don’t get paid to do so, I think about work, its meaning to people, how it may create some meaning for people and how we could make work, and the way we work, better.

“Man is an agent… a center of unfolding impulsive activity “teleological” activity… seeking… some concrete, objective, impersonal end. …he is possessed of a taste for effective work, and a distaste for futile effort. He has a sense of the merit of serviceability or efficiency and of the demerit of futility, waste, or incapacity. This aptitude or propensity may be called the instinct of workmanship.”

Thorstein Veblen 1899

I, personally, believe whatever work we do, especially if we get paid for that work, always means more than just ‘work’ or a paycheck. It is part of our identity. This view is not shared by everyone. There are many people who say “your work is not who you are” or “work should not define you.” I believe that’s absurd.

That doesn’t mean I believe work should be all that defines you, but even if the workplace, itself, treats you as if you are a widget or judges you in some less than human ways, more an ‘output generator’, this does not mean you should ignore the workplace as ‘de-humanizing’ (or wall off because it doesn’t encourage ‘positive human identities’). In fact. I believe its healthier to say “despite the environment, its more than a paycheck” and start thinking about what you do that actually has meaning (things that make things, or people, better). I believe its healthier because work, whether you admit it or not (or like it or not), represents a significant portion of waking hours within which there is a constant feedback mechanism between “what I do” and “what I get.”

What I “get” is sometimes called ‘purpose’, I will not do so. I think it easier if people just acknowledge that everything we do touches people, and by extension, changes people’s lives – in a little, medium or big way. And, yes, I said everything.

Which leads me to the invisible economy.

To be clear, in economic terms the invisible economy is a reference to ‘unmeasured GDP.’ This is not what I am talking about. My invisible economy are the unseen workers, who contribute to not only GDP but just to making sure the daylight working force gets its shit done.

• • • The high school maintenance person at 6:30 in the morning clearing the grounds for students
    • The nurses walking in for their shift at 7 am (and the ones leaving who got there at 10 pm)
    • The trucks rumbling down the streets at 4:30 in the morning carrying supplies & food stuffs for buildings, offices & schools throughout each city
    • The groundskeepers who mow all the public lawns & fields, at 6 am, before everyone arrives to use them
    • The garbage trucks
    • The building cleaning teams working overnight

They aren’t faceless, just invisible doing what they need to do so well we don’t even notice. Yes. When they do their work well we don’t even notice. I bring them up because far too often we look at these invisible workers (when we choose to see them) and think “they must be miserable” or “they must be doing it just for the paycheck.” Well. I certainly know some people who say and think this.

This belief is driven by the insidious ‘some work is more valuable than other work.” That’s utter bullshit. All work is invaluable to a business. All work.

Note: if you doubt me on this please take a look at Zach Mercurio’s study “Its Time to Stop Dehumanizing Frontline Workers”

“I don’t know how to talk to everybody, only to somebody.”

Howard Gossage

Look. I love working. I am probably a borderline workaholic. It kills me a little each day I am not working. I have had two of my closer friends say in different words that my work defines me. I cannot argue. And, frankly, I don’t want to. But that’s not the point <although it will contribute to my points>.

My point has 2 aspects:

The perception that work is a grind. Yes. Sometimes it is. No. You don’t always have to be passionate or find some grander purpose . But. Work is still a valuable part of a life.

At best, work should be fulfilling and your efforts reflect tangible benefits.

At its worst, people drain the meaning out of it and encourage you to believe anyone could do it. That said. Even at its worst the benefit of what you do STILL EXISTS its just that the environment and people are trying to convince you it does not.  If you listen to people telling you your job is mundane and worthless, it becomes easy to believe so. Don’t.

Related to that.

A significant amount of people in my generation are ‘dropping out of the rat race’ and shifting to ‘doing something that matters’ <let’s call it ‘doing something nobler’ for the sake of this post>. They are doing so like it is a light switch moment in Life.

Off with ambition and ‘work.’ On with noble and ‘purpose.’

Watching closely, younger people see what is happening, hear our words, and are questioning whether the work world my generation created isn’t lacking something or that there is something wrong with ‘this rat race they built.’ Therefore, they are coming out of the blocks into the working world looking for careers ‘doing something that matters.’ Seeking to make some grand gesture or higher purpose investment of time & effort.

Well.

With all due respect to my generation <and hopefully young people listen and follow along> I think we are making a mistake. In my pea like brain I think this whole discussion of ‘purpose driven business’ or even ‘business with a conscious’ is kind of wacky. Ok. Maybe not wacky, because it has great intentions, but misguided. It is so, well, grand. I tend to believe we would be better off focusing on the gestures.

Teaching that work can be done with purpose … not TO a purpose.

Teaching that purpose doesn’t have to be grand … but rather working with purpose is noble in and of itself.

Teaching that work, done well, is meaning in and of itself.

Inevitably it seems to me that we would be better served if we simply taught people <and encouraged people> to be the noblest version of themselves regardless of what they did in the working world and who they worked for. It seems like work itself would be better served because then work IS never just a paycheck or some achievement, but rather HOW you did your work.

Note: There is a difference between doing and achievement.

Anyway. Here is a big problem to work: how an individual defines progress.

“Our motivation/focus/attention/behaviour will naturally gravitate to things that provide the richest sense of progress.”

Dr Jason Fox

If the de facto emblem of progress is money or materialistic proof, people will inherently gravitate towards it even if it may not actually be the ‘richest sense.’ This issue gets compounded because at exactly the same time we often value effort more than we value, well, real value. What that means is currently far too many people view progress through a progress toward riches and not rich progress perspective.

Note: I will not invest a lot of time today on progress, but I would highly recommend reading “How to Lead a Quest” by Dr, Jason Fox or for a less intellectual view try my piece The Forward Progress Theory or How Exceptional Doing can Drive Progress.

Without getting too philosophical I would suggest, if you don’t get your definition of progress right, you will never truly find meaning at work and the arc of your career life will bend toward “it is just a paycheck.” And if that happens, I would suggest the problem is not work, or what you do, but rather you and how you think about your work.

Anyway.

This is all food for thought and I imagine my thoughts will be tested in the coming years as technology (AI & automation) seep into work itself.

I, personally, believe discussions of a world in which people do not have jobs, or don’t have a job, is absurd. And, yes, I see a distinction between “work” & “job” and I see work as being ‘creation/doing’ and job being a hollow label for showing up.

Note: listen to Mike Walsh and Calum Chace discuss this..

I do not believe automation or AI or technology will replace human doing jobs, but it will surely change how people work.

I do not believe a job is just a job.

I do not believe people don’t intrinsically enjoy at least some aspect of work & working.

I do believe if you strip away many of the industrial age tropes that barrage people showing up everyday and doing the best they can every day, you will find a core substantive intrinsic interest in productivity.

All that said.

I fully understand increasing self-awareness runs the risk of creating further disengagement with the institution itself even as the institution pursues a different, better, way of judging/assessing human (identity) value in the workplace. On the other hand, we, the workers:

• know there is not only something wrong with business, as an institution
• know there has to be a better way of conducting business
• know most businesses do not maximize our potential
• know (for the most part) we do not get assessed properly.

In other words, we know our work (mostly) matters and we know it is partly a reflection of our identity and we know the institution of business doesn’t engage workers in ways that enhance our identity and meaning in the best, and most effective, ways. In knowing that maybe any short-term disengagement is simply the cost of a longer term better way of doing business.

Let me end by saying:

• 99% of jobs are more than a paycheck
• 99% of jobs that feel just like a paycheck, are actually more than just a paycheck
• 99% of people who say their jobs are just a paycheck, it is actually more than just a paycheck

All of these above are unresearched numbers, but I would bet they reflect some basic truth. Ponder. Because every day you bring home a paycheck it just doesn’t reflect dollars & cents, but also how you did what you do and how it impacted other people. Once again. Ponder.

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

Why are we so full of restraint?

Why do we not give in all directions?

Is it fear of losing ourselves? Until we do lose ourselves there is no hope of finding ourselves.

————-

Henry Miller

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

Wimp. Gutless. Chicken. Wuss. Mamby pamby. Spineless jellyfish.

Pick your word.

That is what business has become.

Yeah. I know. Harsh.

Go boldly is just not a phrase you hear often in business anymore.

Not even whispered.

Heck.

Not even kiddingly.

Instead we use words like ‘managing risk’ or ‘planned change’ or “restrained response is necessary” or “we need to follow the process” or … well … any other chicken shit scared-to-do-what-needs-to-be-done word or phrase.

Now. To be clear.

Everyone talks about being brave — “let’s be bold”. Yeah. Everyone sits in meetings and waves their hands enthusiastically or look around sternly making statements and actually talk about bold thinking and bold moves and, well, being bold. Attend any planning meeting or transition meeting or change meeting, in fact, pretty much any meeting in a business office and at some point someone will throw the ‘let’s be bold’ card out onto the table.

What happens next?

Everyone looks as Bold sits there on the table within the reach of anyone. Sitting there on a plate like everyone’s favorite donut .. all the while everyone looking at it is on a diet.

Oh, so tasty.

Oh, I can’t touch it.

This most typically happens in some snazzy meeting room and when someone starts talking about the direction of the business and change, but it also comes up when talking about some new initiative, some new ‘creative thinking’ or … well … anything that may appeal to younger employees or anyone who truly wants to do something good, or spectacular, on the business. 

Conceptually … the desire is there. So why is there no real bold behavior?

We are in a mamby pamby business world.

We are in a ‘let’s stick with the tried & true <safe> to maintain whatever growth we just celebrated in our last meeting” <which was most likely really crappy but justified by a verbal ‘better than the competition’> world. We are in a “let’s be edgy but don’t scare off any potential customers” <which those people most likely aren’t a viable revenue stream anyway> world.

Unfortunately for these spineless shits sitting around conference tables … reality in today’s business world is that we are actually in a “smart bold actions at the smartest time” <but … uhm ,.. apparently no one is smart enough – bold enough? – to identify the smart time>.

It sucks.

We are now living in a “rationalize minuscule change as bold actions’ business world. It is demoralizing as well as a less than effective business strategy.

All that said.

This lack of boldness strikes deepest during transitions and change. And I can logically explain why.

Change in business scares the shit out of any manager & leader.

Okay.

It scares the shit out of 99% of business people <mostly the older more experienced>.

Yeah, yeah, yeah … change sounds great, but in practice it is a shitload like chaos. You plan, but as soon as transition hits its full stride the plan is … well … no longer a plan.

Ok. It is the remnants of a plan.

This means many managers are left with scraps of a plan in their hands and this means that many managers are left to make their own decisions and left to their own devices. This also means that many managers find out they are gutless chicken shits.

Why do I say that?

In their minds ‘go boldly’ is defined by “implement the plan.” Boldly implement the plan to the nth degree.

Without a plan? The cold fear of the unknown and being unsure freezes boldness.

<sigh>

Wimps.

We have become a business world of wimps.

And this lack of a bold muscle can cost you in a variety of ways.

If you do not go boldly you will not only never find success, frankly, you will also ever find “you”, as in yourself, as in “what I am capable of.”

By the way … bold does not mean ‘stupid’. Bold simply means attempting to control your destiny – your personal one and your business one. And in doing so … well … you are letting the chips fall as they may by managing the chips as well as you can.

In Greek this is called Kairos. Kairos is the ability to adapt to and take advantage of changing circumstances.

The concept suggests you have an opportunity to manage what fate has in store for you … if you manage the circumstances as they arise.

And how does this relate to ‘be bold’?

Well. Kairos suggests that fate has a whole array of possibilities to shove your way – not just one in particular. Uhm. That means, if you buy that thought, depending on what you do and how you act and what you say … uhm … Fate just may end up offering you a possibility other than what it thought it was going to offer you a moment ago. This also suggests some boldness increases the odds in your favor with regard to fate. I personally do not think this is ‘fate favors the brave.’ I believe it is less about bravery and more about simply boldly acting upon what your experience suggests is the way to go as a way of managing your Fate.

I could argue that 90%+ of business people do not balk at the idea of ‘being bold’, but balk at actually being bold.

I could argue that the % may even go up higher during business transition <change> times.

Yeah. Even with a real challenge and the authority and space to operate “bold” is unfortunately very very low on the list of business behavioral attitudes.

What is high on the list?

“Restrained response” …

“Restrained behavior”

“Restrained risk.”

I have one word for you.

Wimps.

“Restrained” is for all the fucking wimps.

Look.

We need more smart bold non-wimps in today’s business world.

We need less chicken shit, scared to move, business managers and more bold managers who seek possibilities with a 360 degree view … without restraint … and the desire to do the right smart thing in any direction.

Lastly. Better than any whizbang cultural “happiness mojo” initiatives, being bold, embracing bravery within the business actions, will increase the energy of the organization, attract young people & increase overall productivity as well as engagement (which is the real prize in a business).

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

“Theory is good; but it doesn’t prevent things from existing.”

—-

Jean-Martin Charcot

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

“We must live in the best way this existence that has been given to us, embracing the flow of events. It is up to us to try in every moment of our life to do our best.”

—

The Branches of Time

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

So. A better business world. I imagine everyone feels this is an important objective, but:

• Not everyone would define better the same
• Not all better is created equal
• Not all businesses believe a better world is the way to become better

In fact. On the third point I would suggest this is where ‘business improvers’ (consultants, gurus, futurists, etc) step in and play a role. The majority of business fixers fall into one of 2 camps:

1. The “let’s make your business run more efficiently” people. They’ll discuss process, simplification and digital transformation. Yes. They’ll couch efficiency in some nice fluffy narratives, but in the end they are simply suggesting the machine isn’t running as well as it could and needs to be finetuned or rebuilt. They see behavior as the be all end all.
2. The “people potential” people. They’ll discuss, well, people. How to get people to work better together, how to build an environment in which they are engaged (with caring AND process/tools/digital) and how to foster a healthy culture. They see attitudes as important as behaviors.

That said.

Ask any business leader and they will:

(a) always believe something in the business could be better &

(b) always be seeking to make things better.

Period.

I do not know one leader who is completely satisfied or, on the flip side of the coin, believe a business is maximizing its potential & opportunities.

Here is where different ‘betters’ start coming into play.

Most leaders address a desire to be better transactionally (albeit they may, on occasion, frame it as a ‘structural organizational betterment’). Yet, “better”, when one views it from a ‘world’ perspective, demands addressing structural elements. This includes engagement (which far too often business people think of transactionally).

Ah. Engagement.

Everyone knows the key to maximum productivity and maximizing business potential is engagement. Always has been and always will be. I would note that ‘engagement’ fans always focus on ‘people’ (working together, understanding vision, embracing meaningful work). but engagement, in a business eyes, often expands out to engagement with process, engagement with technology, engagement with machines/production lines, engagement with ‘system tools’ of which people are often the most critical aspect, yet, business will measure engagement “with” something, not “by” someone. That phrase distinction may be one of the most important thoughts I will share today. Ponder it.

But let’s go back to the people/human component … and transactionally. Despite all the discussion around culture (which is when people decide how they want to behave on a coherent fashion) the truth is most businesses try to ‘create engagement’ (which is a problem in & of itself) through transactional methods (which is a problem). Carrots & sticks.  Incentives. “Bribes” (free lunches, ping pong tables, flex times, laptops, etc.). Not only is this not effective (at least in terms of creating long term systemic behavior), but it also shows a lack of understanding in what people truly care about.

All that said.

The business world knows it needs to change. I would suggest younger people feel more strongly about structurally addressing this then older business people who have learned to suffer/live in the business environment & therefore feel more like transactional things are the most pragmatic ways to ‘change it.’

The issue is that the gap between ‘knowing’ and actually ‘doing’ is a real sonuvabitch to cross.

I would suggest the key to crossing this gap is not in the ‘specialists’ or the experts in how things are already being done, the key exists in people who know enough about some specific skill to lay a pragmatic foundation and have the ability to see a new way to build to possibilities. I would suggest there are a number of these people out there who embrace that idea – Daniel Mezick, Perry Timms, Gustavo Razzetti, Neils Pflaeging, Edwin Van der Geest, the Corporate Rebels folks.  While each of them may approach it a little differently, the business world needs more of these type of ideas/people if it truly wants to get better. We need more connectors, aligners, maybe call them the chiropractors of a better way of doing business and a better world.

Look.

Better business needs a structural change. Period.

Better business needs a vision, not transactional changes. Period.

Better business needs an attitudinal adjustment (toward organizational structure, toward how people skills can be maximized, toward how productivity is viewed, toward what businesses role in community/society is). Period.

Now.

I have hesitated to use Purpose because I believe (a) it is used improperly 90% of the time and (b) it is actually better to focus on engagement & contribution and Purpose/results will be an outcome. Purpose is the reason for which something is done or created, the reason for its existence, its use, and its usefulness. Usefulness to others is the mechanism of purpose’s well-documented positive individual and organizational effects. When individuals and organizations think and act with their use to others at the forefront, they’re being purposeful and making their unique contribution (source: Zach Mercurio).

—–

“When purpose is embedded into an organization’s culture, it constantly reorients people to focus on contribution.”

—–

I often translate for all my business leader friends who see “purpose” and panic that it is some nebulous ‘save the world’ bullshit:

“if the people are engaged and focused on contribution they will be more productive, generate more high quality output, be brand ambassadors, be innovative (yes, they will want to contribute ideas to the business itself), be more effective in their behavior (service, customer interactions, vendor relationships, communications) and, you know what? … you’ll be more profitable too.”

source: Zach Mercurio

Or. As Zach shared with me:

It’s actually a basic business principle that’s been dressed up by “thought leaders:” Purpose is contribution, or if you like, “value creation.”  Purposeful organizations and their people focus first on contributing and on creating value. They trust that the effects (results) will follow. As Drucker once said, “Profit is not the purpose of a company. It’s the test of its validity.”  The more valid your contribution, the more results you’ll see.  Every “financial result” is mediated through a human being. Human beings who experience meaningfulness and purpose are far better mediators than those who just “need to get the numbers up!” Frantic leaders (i.e. traditionally-minded business leaders) focus first on producing results, but the problem is you can’t have get an effect without a cause.  You can’t have a result without a contribution.

Anyway.

I will say this entire ‘better business for a better world’ topic is fascinating.

While we credit Millennials for the refinding of our business soul (its partially whatever we call Purpose, but its mostly a simple recognition that something is wrong in the way business is being conducted and there has to be a better way) the truth is that this has nothing to do with age or some generational labels. Mary Parker Follet in early 1900’s. Drucker in the 70’s. Toffler in 1985.

They told us this is the way to do business, but when we chose Friedman (with a good dose of Gordon Gecko) business started down the slippery slope of dollars over contribution & responsibility (not Purpose).

The issue now is, as we all know, getting off a slippery slope is hard (you cannot climb back up off it, you need to jump off and restart or get pulled off by a helping hand) so those on it are, well, on it. i find while we suggest it’s a love of the status quo more often than not most business leaders know they are on a slippery slope and can’t get off it.

I am not a Millennial and i have ached for changes like this for, well, forever. Drucker outlined all of this in New Realities 1990, Ewen in Captains of Consciousness 1976, & the Geckos ignored it and the non Geckos (like me) were not strong enough to fight it.

I will say that now we fight.

In the end.

A better way of doing business for a better world.

This is an incredibly difficult topic to navigate. A business first & foremost needs to be successful to survive and its objective is to do things to survive/thrive. And, yet, the path to do so is actually to NOT think about business, but rather think about people, attitudes & maximizing their potential. There is a delicate balance of two truths – a business needs to be in the business of doing business and people are at their highest engagement when they are doing things not because it is business but meaningful. therein lies the paradox. and within that paradox resides the potential.

But. There has to be a better way and we know there is.

Drucker clearly knew this.

Simplistically, while engagement is the key to productivity, contribution is the key to the future of business – a better way of doing business for a better world.

If people contribute, feel like they are contributing and the business, itself, contributes to the greater world the highest level of value (contribution) has been achieved.

I would argue in doing so the business itself will also attain its highest level of effective productivity, solid efficient productivity and consistent profitability. I am not sure what more a business could desire. I am also not sure how that isn’t better business for a better world.

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

“A boss creates fear, a leader confidence.

A boss fixes blame, a leader corrects mistakes.

 A boss knows all, a leader asks questions.

A boss makes work drudgery, a leader makes it interesting.

A boss is interested in himself or herself, a leader is interested in the group.”

—–

Russell H. Ewing

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

This is not about threatening employees about making mistakes <i.e., ”you are gonna get fired if you fuck this up”>, but rather threatening employees who are exhibiting behavior that isn’t what you want from them. This is also less a thought about managing individuals, but more about managing a culture and groups of individuals – exploring systemic behavior issues.

Now. I have to tell you.

Having managed a shitload of people there has certainly been some point where I wanted to threaten my employees if not just strangle them <and I am sure the feeling was mutual on occasion>. Most of us just take a deep breath. Maybe close the door of their office and throw something. And then calm down enough to realize that most employees’ actions & behaviors are derivative of our own leadership.

As a corollary to that thought, if the actions & behaviors reflect a more systemic issue and not just some random individuals, well, you know it is reflective of your own leadership <or lack of leadership>.

Ah … “most of us.” Well. Not “all of us.”

Management by fear is the go-to tactic of the old generation of business leaders. They were also the ‘benevolent dictators’ <sort of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Men of Hitlers> as well as the dickheads who treated everyone like shit except the ones who did exactly what they were told to do.

Once again, about the only business people who believe in this type of management are:

<1> those who have never run a larger organization which demands cultural alignment for effectiveness,

<2> managers over the age of 55 — mostly white ones,

<3> weak leaders, or

<4> narcissistic arrogant dickheads.

=========== 

“I suppose that leadership at one time meant muscle; but today it means getting along with people.

Indira Gandhi

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

Threatening employees with forced confidentiality agreements, law suits, sweeping statements of firing a shitload of people, and even “you are either with me or against me” type threats is not only stupid but it is less than effective.

That doesn’t encourage the best behavior, which is self-motivated, but rather all this does is create ‘forced behavior.’ Now. I am no behavior expert, but even I know if I am forcing a certain type of behavior and, ultimately, that behavior is never absorbed as ‘self-affirmation of what I believe and like”, well, the first chance an employee gets to ‘unforce themselves’ they are gonna do it.

Here is what most of the good leaders know.

You can never, and I mean never, absolve yourself of the behaviors of your employees. You are either complicit or encouraged or simply an enabler. You are, whether you like it or not, responsible for your employee’s actions.

What does that mean?

If they do things that piss you off you, most likely, have pissed them off.

If they show you little respect, you, most likely, have shown them little respect.

If they show you lack of loyalty, you, most likely, have not earned their loyalty or shown behavior that deserves loyalty.

If you do not recognize anything I just wrote as truth, you, most likely, just threaten your employees every time they do something you don’t like.

Look.

I have absolutely talked to an individual employee about their expense reports.

I have absolutely spoken to an individual employee about their behavior in the office.

I have absolutely sat down with an individual employee about what they should, or should not, be saying to people outside the office.

But, more importantly, I talk with the accounting department, the HR department and department heads to find out about what the organization is systemically doing with their expense reports, behavior in the office and talking outside the office before I speak with any individual.

I don’t think I was a particularly great leader, but even I knew that systemic behavioral issues were my issues — not their issues. I also understand that threatening employees, or even the trite ‘carrot & stick’ thinking, was ineffective if you wanted to build a culture where individual employees didn’t cheat on their expense reports, didn’t do stupid shit in the office and didn’t say the wrong things about the company outside the office.

A leader knows threats are stupid if you have any desire to build a long term culture. You set expectations, provide a vision that people can be proud of and the reward is not anything individual monetarily or even ‘keeping your job’ but rather the employee looks around and sees solidarity – the prize is being part of a team aligned on an objective.

Some leaders don’t see that. All they see is bad behavior and offer threats to seal the cracks in the system. All that does is mask the problem not solve the problem. All that solves systemic organizational bad behavior is good leadership — not threats.

Fear, despite what some may suggest, is not a particularly great motivator in business.

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

Pope Francis saying No to An Economy of Exclusion

—-

Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have created a “throw away” culture which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the “exploited” but the outcast, the “leftovers”.

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

This is about jobs., working, productivity and meaning. I will begin by leveraging off the opening quote and discuss exclusion & inclusion.

Exclusion in work is working in a detached way. You are not really being exploited you are just scraps in the business world. The ones doing the “mindless work.” Unfortunately, disengagement numbers suggest a shitload of people feel like they are in this category.

Inclusion in work, to me, is meaning or finding ‘joy in the task.’

In 1949 Harry F Harlow, Professor of Psychology at the University of Wisconsin, outlined an alternative  … something he called ‘intrinsic motivation’: “The performance of the task provided intrinsic reward. The joy of the task was its own reward.”

Beyond motivation this idea is also linked to productivity. Inclusion matters because economic knowledge exists in bits & pieces within an organization scattered amongst systems, process & people. This means value creation is often a dynamic discovery process, not a more static system driven process. In other words. The more workers are included in the discovery process the more dynamic the value creation.

Contribution.

Meaning at work truly comes down to one thing – contribution. What I mean by that is, if the response to your job/doing (the stimulus) is “I have contributed” <with tangible proof or intangible reward>, you will have meaning. Now. Meaning can come to you in a variety of degrees – all powerful in their own way, but in totality is most likely attaining the highest order of contribution.

The most basic is “I” have just become better. This is an internalization of personal improvement suggesting “I am not stagnant, I am growing.” The second phase is if you view that your ‘growth’ has contributed to the people most important to you – your team, tribe or department. The third phase is to the organization itself. Something you have done, like a pebble in a pond sending out ripples, has contributed to the larger success of the organization & business. It makes one part of the ‘productivity enterprise’ so one doesn’t feel inconsequential even if the enterprise is massive. Lastly, is society or community or global. Your little contribution was part of a big contribution positively affecting someone, or some-ones, outside the selling aspect of your business.

Progress.

Simplistically, we all want to get better. Better at being a person, our skills, socially, professionally, for our kids, morally, etc. Therefore. The progress measurement is most likely, at its simplest, “better today than I was yesterday, better tomorrow than I am today.” I am not a motivation expert, but if I set up a feedback loop to show this to a worker <doesn’t have to be daily but maybe weekly at minimum> then a worker sees progress tied to ‘contribution’ <value & meaning increase with this alignment>.

To be clear. This is different than milestones, sprints & any measured activity. While those things can be useful to get things done, they do not insure meaningful progress. They are completion checkmarks and meaning needs progress checkmarks.

Decision utility.

To me decision utility, especially when it comes to workplace productivity, is a mix of doing & thinking. Most people focus on the doing aspect of decision utility, but I believe everyone likes to ‘think’ in terms of ‘my thoughts matter’ <the harsher version is “I know I’m not stupid and having my thinking contribute to what I do and we do proves I am not”>.

That said. It was Clotaire Rapaille who pointed out in America our heroes are athletes, entrepreneurs, police officers, firefighters, and soldiers – all people who take action. We may respect thinkers, but we don’t celebrate them nearly as much as we do our ‘doers’. As Rapaille said: the American Culture Code for work is WHO YOU ARE. We often seek so much meaning in our jobs, if our job feels meaningless, then “who we are” is meaningless as well <at least in some dimension>.  If we feel inspired by our job, if we believe that we are doing something worthwhile in our work, that belief bolsters our sense of identity in that we feel like we have some grander Purpose.

Our work ethic is so strong because at the unconscious level, we believe that if we work hard and improve our professional standing, we become better people <note: that’s not particularly healthy but its good to recognize it>.

I bring in work ethic because this is where game theory plays a role (Jason Fox speaks of game theory as a way of viewing employee motivation). As a reminder, I see decision utility as in thinking & doing. Thinking as in ‘solving a complex issue/problem AND doing something about it.” I first began discussing game theory in 2010 when crafting critical thinking games for children. The fact kids like thinking & game theory ratchets up complexity of problems sequentially as one is solved. Critical thinking at its most basic level is trial & error. However. Game theory also ‘dials down’ complexity to insure one doesn’t get too frustrated with failure. A child gets rewarded for failed attempts as well as successful attempts. In other words, you get value off of decision utility where marginal units are rewarded with higher value <and standard units get rewarded despite failed attempts>. I envision workers would respond just as positively to this activity – a combination of thinking and doing to create some progress.

Lastly, with regard to decision utility, let me lean into ‘marginal units‘ and the economic concept of marginalism. The fact that prices don’t correspond to the total value of all goods in existence, but rather the marginal unit (the value of the next unit>. I am not a behavior expert, but I would suggest meaning in work would seem to be of more value to the worker if they were constantly being rewarded for the marginal unit and not just the costs of doing.

Lastly.

Values.

I was tempted to call this ethics, but I tend to believe work is more meaningful when it feel substantive of values (to increase value) and virtue (which is a feeling outcome of doing things with value substance).

“Striving to meet the deepest moral needs of the person also has important and beneficial repercussions at the level of economics. The economy needs ethics in order to function correctly — not any ethics whatsoever, but an ethics which is people-centred.”

Vatican (encyclical Caritas in Veritate)

Values is, well, the good stuff that infuses all the doing and thinking. As I have said numerous times before, winning the right way creates the highest satisfaction possible <versus just winning>. People feel ‘fuller progress’ if they know they did it ethically, within the rules/laws & with a sense of dignity. I could suggest this values orieneted work feeds the moral soul, but I will not. I will just say we sleep better at night when we do it this way.

Anyway.

Self management permits the internal to be maximized on an individual basis permitting the whole, the business itself, to intervene with regard to eternal problems. This matters because the most basic economic problem is allocation – how the business can allocate its scare resources so as to best serve the interests of the business as a whole. Business should seek to maximize its people resources, minds & bodies, t maximize its inherent other scarce resources.

This leads me to systems & processes (often called best practices) which are based on restrictive assumptions to create an equilibrium between inputs & outputs for efficiencies.

If the individual is empowered to maximize their productive (on all measures listed above) the internal maximization of resources naturally occurs so that the organization itself can assess external challenges which may demand resources. This ying & yang insures maximum use of people, process & resources.

So. Here is what I think.

We are a doing people. People inherently enjoy thinking & doing and when it is visible <showing progress> we actually derive meaning. As a corollary, When our doing doesn’t seem to offer value, or meaning, it strikes at us emotionally – in a negative way. Our soul is in doing. We find our way by saying “let’s go to work” on something. This includes even pursing the seemingly impossible. Because in the end we are dreamers. We do because we dream and dream big, i.e., give us an impossible assignment and let us go do it.

For in the end, for all the culture code speak and thoughts about what makes us happy, People are pretty simple. We like making the impossible possible. And that is what makes People, well, People. At the heart of dreams and making the impossible possible is, well, doing. In the end I struggle to find a better meaningful value than “doing a dream.”

=========

“Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future.

—-

Niels Bohr

——-

“The future is purchased by the present.”

—

Samuel Johnson

===========

“If the people in this room were right just 1 percent of the time, we’d all be telecommuting from Tahiti, eating dinner in pill form and having literal sex with our virtual selves.”

The Futurist (James Othmer)

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

Around the new year everyone gets into the prediction business. Basically, a shitload of people become “futurists.” Well. I wrote in 2011 the whole ‘futurist’ career was bullshit and suggested I could never be one. Let me begin by explaining where “Futurist” began.

The “Manifesto of Futurism,” written by Filippo Tommaso Marinetti was published on the front page of the French newspaper Le Figaro on February 20, 1909. It proclaimed the desire of the author, and his fellow Futurists, to abandon the past and embrace the future.

The point here on the whole concept of a “Futurist” is that their very existence is disdainful of the present.

Anyway.

Should we have an eye to the future? Absolutely. To not do so is to remain stagnant with regard to thinking.

Should we ignore the present? Absolutely not. If there was ever a time that a Futurist discussed the present, now would be the time.

Future thinking is purchased in the present. In other words, something existing within the present – most likely some type of behavior is the future opportunity. Saying that permits me to say that I believe Futurists, or the label/title, is kind of silly. Suffice it to say looking at trends and envisioning ‘what could be’ doesn’t need a title. And you certainly cannot earn a living doing it if you get paid for successful futuristic prognostication.

Why? Because the probability of being right is very very low. Pretty much every so called futurist <excepting maybe Toffler & Drucker … who never called themselves Futurists> has had an incredibly poor success rate in outlining future trends & behavior <and sometimes even attitudes>.

“The futurist was never cutting edge or far ahead of the curve. He was often only just a few minutes in front of the pack, or a couple seconds ahead of the global zeitgeist, or at least of the middle american one. It is rare, and a gift, to be able to see something was going to be big in a mainstream way months and sometimes years before your hipsters, your early adapters, your so called thought leaders embraced it.”

The Futurist

Moving beyond simply slamming futurists, in my mind I believe futurists shouldn’t predict they should inspire thinking <which could beget the future>. This kind of career activity is sort of like NASA, i.e., unintended innovations and learning.

The truth of a trend spotter or a ‘futurist’ is that they steal <reassemble> the thoughts of others and repurpose them for slightly different purposes under the guise of ‘recognizing disparate facts that impact the bigger picture.’ Once again, I do not begrudge them. That takes a skill (I highly recommend both Mike Walsh books, Dictionary of Dangerous Ideas & The Algorithmic Leader as he is what I envision a Futurist SHOULD do). Its just that many of the so-called Futurists take advantage of a world where it is acceptable to not to know the answers to the questions that the world asks every second of the day. It’s okay to not know what you want, where you want to go and who you want to become.

It’s okay to wonder.

It’s okay to question and ask.

And it is okay to not to know<although those listening then take it as gospel>.

And what’s not okay is to stop wondering. So the faux Futurist steps in and uses all of those to create answers (to unanswerable questions) and create a made up future world everyone can think about.

Ok. All that said.

Here is a truth <and Futurists clearly understand this>. The people they are talking to don’t really want wisdom. Those people just want shortcuts to getting more. Therefore if the message doesn’t match the ‘more’ desires ultimately it doesn’t engage the listeners because it doesn’t contain the inevitability of something positive.

It may sound cynical but nowadays a message needs a sense of some guarantee that prosperity will never end <that is a thought from the book>. And therein lies my biggest issue, the fact that trend watchers are seeking future prosperity versus discussing empowering present prosperity.

That “seek future vs. empower present” is the issue we should skewer 99% of so-called Futurist, predictors, over.

The truth is that the future is actually found in the now. Uhm. I mean that future ideas are actually found in the now. Note that this ‘now’ is not just in thinking, but in doing.

Thinking about what is happening now <attitudes>.

Thinking about what is being done today <behavior>.

Say what? How can it be futuristic if it is just a derivative of something in the present?

Well. To me real futuristic trending type thinking has to have a slightly pragmatic foundation residing somewhere in the minds of the rising generation. The real, the truly meaningful, behavior shifts occur not within a generation, but within transition of generations. Therefore any pie in the sky type thinking has to be made up of some pie that <simplistically> the kids of the present have an interest in eating of. For any future type ideation will live or die not with existing attitude generations but more so in evolving attitude generations.

To be clear. People’s attitudes do, and can, evolve as they age and experience things <and they are exposed to new and different attitudes and behavior>. But that isn’t futuristic thinking, that is simply critical mass thinking (I recommend Mark Earls “Herd” for this).

It’s a different ability. That is someone who can look at existing trends and attitudes … mostly looking at those that reside in fractions or in the minority of minds … and figuring out which ones will actually gain enough traction to attain the critical mass to ‘evolve’ the majority of attitudes.

I say that but also suggest that this is often a Sisyphean task.

Attitudes are imprints. They are almost like tattoos. Once established they are almost impossible to remove.

Think about how the past minority point of views have shifted to a majority more mainstream view acceptance and, yet, there still remains a solid steadfast unrelenting minority attitude system in place. Evolution of attitudes is like glaciers. And they also tend to follow generations … and not single generations. Early adopter generation transitioning to a vocal minority generation to a majority acceptance generation and ultimately a generation who not only has the attitudes but behavior is established.

Ok. Last thought on predictions.

Toffler co-wrote the 1970 book Future Shock and also Power Shift and also The Adaptive Corporation <all of which I have sourced so often it is embarrassing>. And while some of his writings were off base and some a little bit of a stretch, most of his writings were incredibly insightful and we are living much of what he outlined then – today. He predicted the rise of the internet, the impact of the internet on the workplace, how technology would affect sociological norms as well as labor needs and he even discussed the decline of the nuclear family.

In general, he foresaw the larger impact related to technological advancement.

And far too often we ignore what he wrote and had the foresight to point out. My point is far too often today’s experts and pontificators act like what is happening today is some seismic shift reflective of an earthquake happening before our eyes.

They are wrong.

What is happening today is the tsunami occurring on our shores from the earthquake which occurred under some deep ocean decades ago. And that is what Toffler outlined for us. And that is what I wish far more people would invest the energy researching to better understand why things are happening in the here & now (not just Toffler but the underlying attitudinal shifts).

As I write I can look up on the closest bookshelf and see my well worn copies of Future Shock and PowerShift. Toffler writing should be mandatory for anyone who wants to discuss current trends and current business issues. And you, and I, should demand that they do so. To not do so is to commit professional malpractice. At its least worst it reflects intellectual laziness to discuss what is happening today without the proper background.

Well. Paradoxically … future ideas are actually best found in looking backwards — at those who are coming up behind … the young. Futurists have to look forward, but seek truth in the young. Their predictions will never come true if there isn’t a pragmatic realistic foundation to be found within the youth. With no traction, the idea, shit, any future type idea will die.

As I type that it sounds so obvious, yet, it seems like futurists and trend identifiers seem to focus on today’s people and gaze at the horizon.

Shit. What do I know.

I am not a futurist. I am not a predictor. I like to live in the present & make sure I have a future to be doing something in. I also know that past behavior is NOT a predictor of future behavior. So what do I know? Predictions are shit.