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

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).

==========

“The world is full of stories, and from time to time they permit themselves to be told …”

—–

An aboriginal saying

============= 

I believe that the magic and power of a story can encourage and fascinate you.

In prehistory, outside the cave it was dark, but inside they had a fire and somebody was good at telling stories. Every time I write, I think of the cave.

We are one group, outside it’s dark and wolves are howling, but I have a story to tell.

—–

Haruki Murakami

===========

Ok. While I sometimes believe the whole ‘storytelling’ topic has take on some fairly absurd dimensions in business (and fortune cookie wisdom advice), I will admit it’s difficult to discuss stories too often.

The fact is that being able to tell a story, okay, tell the story you want is possibly one of the most important skills anyone can have – in life or in business.

Let me stay on the business side of stories.

Throughout my career I have had the fortune to work with the most unglamorous consumer and B2B products & companies you could ever think of <industrial products, commodity like machinery, etc.> and some fairly glamourous products & companies. What they all have in common is that they have a story to tell and when told well it makes them successful — in sales, in market place positioning, in competitive scenarios, in public discussions, etc.

I used to think storytelling was so natural to everyone I assumed everyone would want to tell their story, or maybe better said, talk about their business, their company, their product, as a story.

I no longer think that.

I haven’t figured out if it is that not everyone can actually tell a good story, or, that business has beaten the shit out of people so badly that the default articulation is a list of functional features and pragmatic benefits. What I do know is that business storytelling, in general, sucks. It is absolutely horrible.

Meaningless metaphors and less-than-relevant analogies and misused quotes are scattered among the useful functional and pragmatic in the attempt to elevate that which is usefully boring to interestingly useful. And because that is the case most people either think storytelling is really really hard or that storytelling really has no place in what they are doing.

That is nuts.

The truth is you can take the most boring of boring, the most functional of functional & most ‘seemingly same of seemingly same’ and wrap it within a story and it … well … becomes compelling, interesting and distinct.

The truth is any business contains the essential parts to create a story … heroes, villains, vivid demonstrations or metaphors, life & death and even mysteries and solutions.

The truth is anyone can tell a story <it is possible that not everyone can write a story though>.

In fact I feel relatively confident is stating that a good story to tell makes everyone better & more interesting.

I do not care what industry you work within or what type of product or service you sell or represent your word is full of stories and, most likely, a fabulous story just asking for permission to be told.

All that said. Someone is most likely sitting somewhere scratching their head thinking … “WTF, that sounds good but I have no clue what to do.”

Aw.

You do.

You do know what to do.

Stop thinking about selling your idea or selling your product/service or even selling your company, think about telling a story.

Shit.

I could work for a nuts & bolts manufacturer and be able to put a picture of two nuts & bolts side by side <one mine and one someone else’s>  which look 99.9% exactly the same … and be able to say … “Let me tell you a story about this nut & bolt … because its story is different than this nut & bolt. They look the same but their story is different.”

Oh.

And my story wouldn’t be solely some manufacturing mumbo jumbo, but rather a story about who counted on it and how my nut & bolt was the best friend to someone and … well … you get the point.

Unfortunately we don’t seem to be in the storytelling business in business these days <although we sure do talk about it a shitload>. Instead we bore down on manufacturing specifications, stress quotients, side by side rankings and a whole bunch of technically important functional aspects.

And you know what?

That shit is important.

Really important.

To be sure … if it is my nut & bolt holding a wing on some plane carrying 300 passengers you can bet your last dollar the technical aspects of my nuts & bolts matter. I don’t argue that.

What I argue is HOW the technical aspects are articulated and delivered. What I argue is that if I can make my nuts & bolts look like a city of ideas through some story … I win.

Stories make presentations more interesting.

Stories make bland functional aspects take on some color <which equals value>.

Stories persuade people think <and thinking equals engagement>.

Stories to motivate us to see beyond the simple nut & bolt.

On a parallel path, suffice it to say, what you say is lost, if you do not master how you say the story. Yeah. It just becomes a bland list of words cobbled together.

Storytelling has been a mainstay of the marketing world since forever. And while it tries to sneak into the non-marketing aspects of the business world it often gets stiff armed by functional communicators – “get to the point” people.

This ‘get to the point’ point is nonsense.

Storytelling doesn’t sacrifice the functional and pragmatic and practical … it actually elevates it to ts highest value. I could argue that stories are the essential driver of value, change & persuasion … throughout the history of business.

Look. I would never tell a business to not show the numbers, graphs and facts. It is important.

But strategic use of a good story can make those same bland things surprise people, make them become compelling characters in a story and instead of being cold hard facts laying on a page they can become things that make us think & feel.

Story telling is important in that it engages people, communicates relevant meaningful information, builds value on some things that can often be difficult to build value on and, ultimately, it makes you, your product or service & your company distinct.

Why? Because it has a story to tell.

The business world is full of stories, and from time to time they permit themselves to be told …

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

“Toil and risk are the price of glory, but it is a lovely thing to live with courage and die leaving an everlasting fame.”

—-

Alexander the Great

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

“The time is always right to do what is right.”

—-

Martin Luther King, Jr.

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

“I would rather die right then live wrong.”

—–

Bruce McTague

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

Well. I believe Alexander’s full quote was:

It is a lovely thing to live with great courage and to die leaving an everlasting fame,

Macedonians!… Why do you retreat?!… Do you want to live forever?!

In the name of Zeus!… ATTACK!

So. I tend to call this “selective thoughtful recklessness.” Yeah. I am not really sure something exactly like that exists but, whether it has a name or not, it is a characteristic of winners and ‘everlasting fame’ as well as a characteristic of everyday schmucks like me who want to do the right thing, desire some everlasting fame as in ‘known for doing good shit the right way’ and am willing to work hard for it <that is the ‘toil’ part>.

This may sound a little crazy, but I do believe if you are dedicated to doing the right thing and doing good shit you have to be comfortable assuming some risk.

Now.

I get some shit for my ‘comfort with assuming risk’ <I believe security is, if not an illusion, mostly a superstition keeping people scared of shit>, my attitude in general with regard to risk, and my general disdain for people who have the absurd principle of ‘making a decision instinctually.’ All that said. I came up with my own phrase – selective thoughtful recklessness. This combination seems to me to be better than simply being rash or foolhardy in behavior. It is better because I have a full respect for consequences and hold consequences in high regard.

To be clear. There is never any absence of forethought <which is where I typically find ‘instinct’ fails miserably>. I certainly have extreme care and concern with respect to not only other people’s welfare but my own. Sure, yes, there may be a bit of daredevil in the attitude but without the flair and debonair style associated with a daredevil.

What is there is a certain defiance to odds once a decision has been made and a complete “In for a penny, in for a pound” attitude. <Cambridge Dictionary: something you say that means that since you have started something or are involved in it, you should complete the work although it has become more difficult or complicated than you had expected >.

My epitaph will absolutely be “I had a lover’s quarrel with the world”, but my mantra seems to be captured in what I said upfront … “I would rather die right then live wrong.” That is not courage, nor is it an attitude, it is a choice that simply requires some mental resilience. You feel doubt, resistances to choice and even outright disagreement but someone who embraces the selective thoughtful recklessness remains mentally resilient towards anything that attempts to stop you from doing what you believe, and maybe even know, is right.

And maybe that is where the thoughtful daredevilishness steps in.

In order to find glory <in this case I believe glory is ‘doing what is right’ and not some fame or accolades> you have to first & foremost reframe the story of what is and what is possible. I am not suggesting some alternative universe nor am I suggesting fooling yourself into believing something truly impossible is possible. This is more along the lines of the traditional disruptor definition — seeing the conventional in unconventional ways. By reframing the story the boundaries & limits in the original story become new & different boundaries & limits. Rarely do they align with the old ones and it is within these differences that the ‘thoughtful reckless’ wander.

But this also demands one other thing.

Let’s call it ‘intense listening without attachment.’

What I mean by this is you have to be aware of everything going on around you, but you do not necessarily get attached to what is being said. It’s like recognizing the clutter around you and rummaging thru it for the useful and avoiding the useless. This would also include at least being aware of your own biases and trying to un-attach your listening from them as much as possible.

Lastly.

Here is maybe the most controversial thought I will share on finding glory.

Be small. Yeah. I just said ‘be small.’

To be clear. I don’t mean live a small Life but I do mean if you want to find the kind of glory I am discussing, and you want to be selectively thoughtfully reckless, and you want to die right rather than live wrong, you end up thinking about being an energy for ‘doing’ like an atom, or a pebble in a pond, where you make yourself as solidly, strongly and distinctly rightly small — and then choose your path. Thinking about that, well, maybe that is why I balk at ‘daredevil’ so much. It sounds big & flamboyant. I find that being defiantly, and successfully, right in your choice is more often found in the ‘toil’ — in the small stuff and avoiding the small stuff at the same time.

It is more about being solidly small in your solidly rightness.

========

“Let others lead small lives, but not you. Let others argue over small things, but not you. Let others cry over small hurts, but not you. Let others leave their future in someone else’s hands, but not you.” 

Jim Rohn

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

And, yes, maybe it is about a small quiet courage found in the everyday.

Do I think I am courageous? Certainly not.

Resilient? Absolutely yes.

But this kind of resilience seems to contain a version of courage that is easy to miss. It is a small resilient courage.

It is the small courage you hold on to … to stay when it is easier to leave.

It is the small courage you hold on to … to keep doing when everything says ‘quit.’

It is the small courage you hold on to … to respect difference when we would much rather judge.

It is the small courage you hold on to … to accept some vulnerability when building a wall feels much safer.

It is the small courage you hold on to … to recognize your own agenda needs to be revised to accommodate another’s better idea.

It is the small courage you hold on to … everyday <even though it takes some ‘toil’ to create it>.

It is the small courage you hold on to … to not only become who we really are … but which enables the better version of who we are.

It is the small courage you hold on to … in a world that often doesn’t seem to encourage courageous everyday acts.

Anyway.

Life isn’t easy. Business isn’t easy. And navigating both shouldn’t be easy. All I can suggest is some selective thoughtful recklessness can help you out on occasion. I can also promise, when done well and with ‘good as an intent’, it gives you a shot at glory.

Just remember.

… it is a lovely thing to live with courage and die leaving an everlasting fame

 I would rather die right then live wrong

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

“A fool will always come calling.”

unknown

——————–

<note for today: we all have a little fool within us>

I will begin by saying ‘fool’ is a tough word to direct toward yourself. The definition of fool is: those who have the quality or condition of being ignorant and confused about matters, or those employed in making jests about the general circumstances of ignorance and confusion which exists among people.

Well. Here is a truth. It is just part of Life that our inner fool will always come calling at some point.

If you are honest with yourself you will realize at some time, at some point, you will discover you have engaged in some foolish acts or foolish thinking and <foolishly> made the appropriate internal justifications to convince yourself that you aren’t a fool.

Don’t beat yourself up.

Don’t fight it.

Stop investing energy justifying your actions.

We all have a fool inside us.

I actually file a part of this thought under the whole ‘managing regrets’ topic.

If you assume the fool inside you is always fighting to get out and do something foolish then it is a waste of time to regret doing foolish things. Well. At least you shouldn’t invest a lot of energy beating the crap out of yourself for ‘being a fool’, but instead pay attention to managing your inner fool. Yes. Don’t ignore it, but manage it.

Don’t act like “well, that is not me so that is atypical behavior” because, as I said, it is you – it is typical you. You just have to recognize that you do have an inner fool who wants to enjoy Life.  Personally I think its silly to not admit it and even a little silly to not actually embrace the fact. Why? Purposefully ignoring truth because maybe you are afraid of accepting the truth means your inner fool is managing you rather than you managing your inner fool.

Well. That sounds like a fool to me.

I would suggest this  is all about assuming responsibility for all aspects of who you are — the fool and the non-fool is part of who you are and what you do.

And, yes, you are a fool if you deceive yourself into believing this is not true <or you do not have a fool within you>.

Look. If you accept this thought, then maybe you will end up understanding only a fool seeks answers and it is the wise who seek the questions.

In constantly seeking the right questions your inner fool cannot deceive you.

You will probably be less gullible.

You are probably more likely to see things as they really are.

You will probably have your own opinion <rather than just use other people’s opinions>.

You will probably better recognize what makes you happy.

You will probably be deceived less by the illusion of what Life may be cluttering your life with … and see more clearly within the moment.

You will probably manage regrets significantly better because of focusing on ‘regret’ you will focus on ‘did I ask the right questions?’

And, probably, you will live a life a little closer to whatever ‘truth’ is … and that ain’t a bad place to reside <even if it can be an uncomfortable place to reside on occasion>.

Life cannot be planned in a way that is fool proof. At best you can just keep on asking the right questions and adapting.

“A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.”

Douglas Adams

I bet this quote was said thinking about how outside fools affect your design. Instead maybe we should think of this with our ‘inner fool’ in mind.

That said I think we often underestimate the ingenuity of our inner fool. Ponder that <or risk looking foolish>

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

“Intelligence without ambition is a bird without wings.”

―

Walter H. Cottingham

=====

“It occurred to me that the voracious ambition of humans is never sated by dreams coming true, because there is always the thought that everything might be done better and again.”

―

John Green

=====

“Oh, it’s delightful to have ambitions. I’m so glad I have such a lot. And there never seems to be any end to them– that’s the best of it.

Just as soon as you attain to one ambition you see another one glittering higher up still. It does make life so interesting.”

―

L.M. Montgomery

====

I sometimes believe one of the hardest things you can learn in your career is that your best is not particularly special.

Learning the fact that your talent, in reality, is matched by a shitload of people.

Learning that your best is relatively easily matched by a shitload of people.

I thought of this when I recently saw the fabulous documentary about Janis Joplin < Janis Joplin: Little Girl Blue> and I scribbled down something she said:

“… at 27 i realized there are a lot of people with talent, the difference is ambition.”

Talent is talent.

Smarts are smarts.

Expertise is almost always relative.

At any given point in Life and your career you can look around you and, if you are self aware, you will note you are rarely the most talented, rarely the smartest one in the room and rarely the only expert. Yeah. Even on your best day you may not actually be the best.

I imagine that is a tough thing to get your head wrapped around.

Okay. Let me say it is a tough thing to wrap your head around. Its not that you truly want to be the most talented, the smartest or the most expert, most of us don’t really care, you just want to feel that at some point you are smart, talented and an expert at something. And when surrounded by people of similar talents, smarts and expertise … well … it is hard to feel that.

And what may be worse <to someone like me who would like to be judged on the raw capabilities> is that often the difference is ambition.

Look. I think anyone with any amount of talent or smarts or some expertise wants to reach a place where you are not only the best you can be but just, well, be good. I mean be really good at something. It doesn’t have to be some high falutin’ title or gobs of money thrown at you, you just want to feel a glimmer of being the best at some moment.

And even with all of the talent swirling around out there in the world I do believe it is attainable. But in achieving this I believe you actually have to get as close to the soul of who & what you are.

Talent only takes you so far.

Smarts only take you so far.

Even the drive of ambition can only really take you so far.

You gotta let your ambition be ignited by that little flame inside you which ends up firing the ambition to greater heights than just the talent & smarts you have. But. This means you have to “give” a little to “get” a little <if not a lot>.

Now. This is kind of dangerous from a personal perspective.

You may not initially think accessing this little flame space inside you would be dangerous, but it really is kind of a dangerous place, or at least fraught with peril, that place inside you where your soul, passion for what you desire & ambition resides.

And maybe worse? It is a little dangerous even if you balance it all fairly well. It is dangerous because to be as good as you can be you gotta give a little of yourself up to feed your talent and ambition to grow it beyond the normal levels. And each level can be so addictive or pleasurable you have a tendency to want to feed it a little more.

That is the price one must pay to reach the heights of ‘as good as you can be.’

Of course in doing so it becomes doubly dangerous:

You can easily make the flame inside burn a little too bright and you get fried from the inside out <or you simply get blinded and lose perspective>.

You can reach a height where you end up getting burned <you reach beyond your natural smarts, talent & expertise>.

And that is where the balance of talent & ambition comes into play.

When and where to stop.

And this is hard.

Really hard.

You would think there would be some stop signs or, like growing up, you recognize you have stopped growing and are at the height you will be for the rest of your Life.

But you don’t.

Heights with regard to ambition and being a good as you can be is something where you always feel like you can grow another inch, foot, or yard.

To be clear. I do not believe ambition is the most important tool to achieving success. I do not believe ambition is more important than talent, smarts/savviness or access to the proper resources. But I do believe ambition can be the difference maker all things being equal.

That said I do get tired of all the self-help books suggesting that ambition and determination alone will help you achieve your desired success regardless of talent and ability. It is a silly if not misguided idea. Think about it.

While we certainly can find some people who overreached their talent & smarts we also all know people who are aspiring to something which they simply do not have the ability to achieve. I read somewhere: “highly motivated people without ability can do stupid things.”

An ambitious attitude can engender the perseverance to guide one to some success and, ultimately, I imagine some version of self-satisfaction … as well as some stupidity.

The will, the desire, maybe even the dream to be & do something is absolutely a powerful personal engine. And sometimes, maybe even often, it can get you a little farther than your natural abilities may have taken you all on their own. Ambition can certainly help in maximizing talent because it can sometimes be the motivation to not only work hard … but maybe work a little harder than you may have wanted to.

Ambition does have a nice habit of insuring you don’t waste what talent you do have, but it doesn’t guarantee maximizing potential. It doesn’t because more often than not ambition isn’t born with a naturally smart compass … it simply powers you in the direction you choose <which is not always the direction you should go>.

Hey. I am not anti-ambition. In fact I think the way society looks at ambition is misguided. Far too often it suggests ambition as a bad thing as it mistakenly always ties it to greed, narcissism or desire for power. More often ambition is just a desire to not be mediocre. A desire to be the best one can be.

Certainly ambition can drive someone to cut corners and to assume “you do what you need to do to get where you want.” Ambition can, not always, muffle the voice of ethical behavior.

But making that a blanket generalization is a mistake.

Here is what I can tell you from a personal point of view.

I was not, and am not, particularly ambitious, but I did recognize that being in the zone in work was the best thing that ever happened to me. Leaving that zone was always a little emptier than when in that zone. And all I could often think of was getting back into the zone. My only real ambition was to be in the game and the best game I could be in.

I also realized that for me to play that game well I had to ‘give a little of me’ to ‘get the best out of me.’

Did I balance it well?

Shit.

I don’t know.

I doubt it.

All I know is that while I may not have acted like it in my career and Life <and I am sure I often miscommunicated this feeling many times> I have known there is always someone smarter, more talented and have significantly more expertise than I in any given situation and at any given time. And because of that I was consistently humbled and challenged — equally.

That was my balance.

As for everyone else?

When I look around in the workplace and tables in some bar as people debate issues and problems I am fairly sure that this balancing talent & ambition & reality is hard.

Ambition, and talent as well, demands a lot of you.

It would be far too easy for me to suggest that ambition demands some sort of dedication to hard work, focus, some sacrifice and honing of some expertise.

I actually think ambition, not blind ambition, demands you to not settle. And that is a big demand.

“You are only as much as you settle for.”

Janis Joplin

(your job as a manager is to make it easier for people to believe in themselves and what they do)

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

“Once we believe in ourselves, we can risk curiosity, wonder, spontaneous delight, or any experience that reveals the human spirit.”

e.e. cummings

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

“Trust yourself. Create the kind of self that you will be happy to live with all your life.

Make the most of yourself by fanning the tiny, inner sparks of possibility into flames of achievement.”

—

Golda Meir

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

Today I am rambling about the psychology of managing employees, specifically, an aspect of managing that I would call “believing and non-believing management.”

No. This is not about motivating employees.

This is more about unlocking employees – unlocking potential.

This is more about that seemingly nonstop discussion you have with employees where you curb the overreaching confidence in some and instill some confidence in others.

To be sure. If you talk with enough people who have managed groups & companies and you will notice that at some point someone will bring up “I have to be a psychologist.”

To be clear. Do business managers have to be psychologists to be effective? No. Not really. But playing the psychologist role on occasion certainly doesn’t hurt.

I am fairly sure what I am discussing has some high falutin’ organizational behavior ‘management principles’ published and formal white papers with long esoteric discussions on employee personality types and some personality testing voodoo.

I am fairly sure, okay … certain, it is possible to be a competent if not good leader without understanding all that personality crap. In fact I could argue, and I have argued, that personality tests trap individuals into some defined box in which if any of their behaviors don’t fit that box from that point on they will be mismanaged because they aren’t doing what the box said they would do.

Anyway.

Most good managers clearly understand that different people are motivated by different things and that different things can inhibit the potential of each employee.

Suffice it to say, in my mind, it really all comes down to one basic management principle: possibilities & pragmatism management. Unlocking each employee’s potential is almost always a balance of pragmatic doing and getting them to envision what they are possible of.

Simplistically, your objective is always to free your employee to be their best and do their best.

Now. Sometimes this means stripping something away and sometimes this means adding something.

And that is where my whole ‘believing & nonbelieving management’ comes into the discussion.

More often than not while you are teaching & coaching skills and pragmatic ‘here is what you need to do’ crap you will find yourself facing an employee who is either bursting with belief in themselves and their abilities or semi-frozen in an ‘unsure of what to do and if I can do it’ attitude.

Both need some attitudinal adjustments.

The ‘belief’ employees run the gamut from the young employee who is sure they are smarter and better than you <or others around them> to a senior sales guy who hasn’t met a sale he couldn’t make <doing it his way if only the company would get out of the way>.

The ‘nonbeliever’ employees also run the gamut from young & inexperienced to older doing it for the first time or even mid level employees dealing with something completely unrelated that has pricked their confidence bubble in some way.

And, no, I certainly do not consider any of this ‘cheerleader engagement.’ In fact I would suggest that any manager who does needs to rethink their thinking because this is all about believing & not encouragement.

Yeah. Managing people certainly can contain some aspects of ‘enthusiasm management’, but one of the most basic manager self-survival techniques you learn <or die> is how to manage without too much investment of self. Therefore I have always viewed this aspect of employee management as simply assessing their ‘believe level’ and adjusting appropriately to enable the true potential to be there when it counts.

As a manager you always hunker down on the pragmatic aspects of what needs to be done first.

Always.

It is kind of your heuristic trick to assess any attitudinal challenges to getting the frickin’ pragmatic aspect done.

But you always keep an eye, and an ear, open during the pragmatic assessing the ‘possibilities of whether the shit will actually get done and done as well as it can be done.’

This is the place where you look at the employee and assess the ‘belief factor.’

Some are easy to read. Some are a little more difficult. And, no, I cannot offer some trite generalism here.

Exuding belief believers can come in all shapes & sizes & behaviors.

Nonbelievers can come in all shapes & sizes & attitudes.

And it can get even trickier.

Tricky because the same employee who was bursting with blind belief one day will be the same employee sitting in front of you the next day discussing a completely different project or task … semi-frozen in non-belief. What that means is everyday, you (as a manager of believers & nonbelievers) cannot assume the person you dealt with yesterday will be exactly the same person they are today.

Yes. I just said that.

That sounds incredibly painful and inefficient, but it’s not of you believe you are in the believing management business. why? Well.  Zach Mercurio has an idea how to navigate this.

Research shows a 400% increase in employee productivity after meeting just one person impacted by their work.  That’s one way (and an effective way). But the point is you are seeking to not inject confidence  or belief, but rather to encourage belief to emerge naturally. This is emergent motivation or fostering intrinsic energy. That is believing in oneself and when you align it in believing n what you are doing AND aligning that with belief in the business vision and who and what the business is achieving, well, you have maximized the believing business.

I would also note a couple other things Zach Mercurio has stated (relevant to the believing and non believing business):

• 83% of people say meaning in work is a priority
• Regularly show people how their work helps others
• Connect people to the beneficiary of the work
• Show people how they matter
• Place contribution over achievement.

The interesting thing in this is:

• Technology is not about believing, it just enables people who believe in something, desire meaning, to do things to the benefit of people.
• Achievement and meaning are inextricably connected. While doing, with a purpose, is important it, ultimately, needs to have a benefit and, maybe most importantly, a benefit to people in some way. I point this out because it is this combination, or equation, that equates to contribution.

Look. The fundamentals of effective management are pretty much the same everywhere.

But this ‘possibilities & pragmatism management’ thing I am discussing takes some commitment. It doesn’t take being a psychologist you just have to be committed to managing the individual ‘believe’ gauge. And this means being committed to both stripping away some unnecessary <or risky> belief and bolting on some belief where needed.

Unfortunately this can sometimes take a fine subtle touch … and most of us everyday manager schmucks aren’t always subtle. Nor are we particularly talented at balancing both possibilities & pragmatism.

I imagine I wrote this not to offer any “how to” guide to anyone. I wrote it because I just faced it and thought about it.

In one day I had to ponder the talented more senior sales person almost blinded with belief charging ahead <not particularly aligned with what the company thought was best practice> and an extremely talented younger person threaded with the burden of nonbelief.

In one day I had to ponder how to deftly encourage a little less blind belief and thrust some belief upon another.

And that is most likely a typical day for a manager.

I didn’t care about personality type.

I didn’t confer with any HR people.

I didn’t go online searching for ‘communications techniques.’

I didn’t do so not because I didn’t want to … but because managers mostly don’t have time for that shit.

You gotta deal with what is in front of you and get shit done and get the best out of your employees.

My last point.

For all the talk of technology, algorithms and ‘digital transformation’, technology cannot make someone believe or non believe, only people can.

Period.

Believing and non believing management.

Possibilities and pragmatism management.

Kind of two sides of the same management coin.

====

“Was this not what you wanted?”

—

remnant-thoughts

===

I saw this quote/question posted on tumblr site and I had to stop and think. And, ultimately, the phrase got stuck in my head like a bad 70’s song with a catchy beat. Ok. Even worse than a bad song I associate this phrase with a typical incredibly stomach churning feeling. The words “was this not what you wanted?” more often than not creates an angst driven internal churning. Needless to say … not many good feelings get tied to this phrase.

That said. My thoughts crisscrossed between business and Life.

This is the business version of “was this not what you wanted?”

Ok. I don’t care if you are just starting out in business and are sitting in your manager’s office handing them something or you are the most senior of senior managers, if you are faced with a situation where you find the words “was this not what you wanted?” coming out of your mouth it is, well, not good. It generates a sinking feeling which is a combination of real tangible <I wasted my time and will now have to work on this more> and real intangible <I didn’t meet expectations>.

This all may sound oddly surprisingly – the fact that doing what someone wants is a perilous path in business. You would think that following orders could never be perilous. But, yet, it indeed often is.

First. The main peril resides in the fact many people do not really know what they want <hence the stunningly tortuous “I will know it when I see it”>.

Secondly. Sometimes, well, the initial ‘here is what I want’ is very wrong, in fact, sometimes even frightfully wrong. And I say that on even the most basic tasks you are tasked with. Managers are humans too <although they sometimes act like aliens> and many times they unthinkingly <or less than thinkingly> want some specific task checked off a to do list and set you off on your merry way to ‘do what I want you to do.”

Now. All that said. It would be incredibly easy for me to suggest that giving people what they want is a business career destined for failure. I will not. And I cannot.

Consistent delivery at work is most likely the most valued attribute an employee can offer. Without it you provide less tangible value as well as maybe the most important failure – your manager has less trust and therefore knows they have to invest more energy & focus on you. That is the kiss of death for an employee.

While doing what is wanted taskwise can be a surprisingly movable target, if you can master it, you become an extremely valuable employee or business partner. Yeah. Valuable <do not ever completely commoditize or devalue the importance of consistency>. However. Consistent delivery can also be a negative to an employee <insert a mental “yikes” here>. That is because it does have a nasty habit of nearing ‘commodity-like’ behavior. The implication being “anyone can do that.” And while that is more often than not a wrong perception, it is a perception nonetheless. What all this means in what I just shared is this is a very very fine line you walk – doing what is wanted consistently and, yet, avoiding the horrible ‘was this not what you wanted’ scenario.

There is a bunch of advice, some good and some bad, with regard to how to avoid the ‘was this not what you wanted’ scenario, but that’s not really the point. The point is, no matter how good the advice, you are stuck in the wretched hollow in between need and want. And in that wretched hollow you are guessing. You have received specific direction on what is wanted tangibly <uh oh … is that just the ‘basic delivery’ – and I want more – or is this the ‘desired actual delivery’?> in addition you have most likely also received some open ended “don’t just do … I want you to think about what you are doing” thereby creating some nebulous ‘want’ objective.

To be clear on the latter. Some managers cop out on that by saying “I didn’t need you to think on this one I just needed you to do what I told you to do on this.” It is a cop out. And if they are honest with themselves, it is a lie. If you have said once, at any time and any place and within any project scenario, “I want you to think an offer some additional thinking” that creates an unsaid halo over everything else that comes after. And, frankly, managers grab this halo and shove it in your face whenever they choose.

Anyway. Unlike in Life <where this can be fairly resolvable because it is internally driven discussion> in business this is not resolvable despite what experts may suggest. There will always be a wretched hollow in between need & want. In business terms that is most likely called “added value.” In business you are constantly navigating value provided. And that value is always partially need and partially want driven.

What I can tell you unequivocally if all you do is give someone what they ‘want’, more often than not you will end up far too frequently delivering stupid shit that doesn’t help the situation. It would be simplistic to suggest that success in business resides solely in giving others the things they need, and not the things they want because, as noted earlier, business truth typically lies somewhere in between.

—-

“Don’t give them what you think they want.

Give them what they never thought was possible.”

Orson Welles

—

Not knowing exactly what you want is actually typical. Most of the time business people don’t know what they want. And while that may sound like they are stupid, it is not driven <most of the time> by stupidity. It is more often than not driven by an inherent belief that everything can be better. It is also driven by an inherent belief that ‘better’ is something they have either not thought of or have not had time t think of <hence the desire to have you think because somehow you have the time to think when they don’t>.

Not knowing exactly what you want is actually typical. This is because … well … there is a bigger picture and a smaller picture. Some business people have a grasp of the bigger vision but are sketchy on the details of how to attain the bigger picture. Some business people have a grasp of the littler vision but are sketchy on how to attain the more nebulous panoramic bigger picture.

Not knowing exactly what you want is actually typical. That is because most business people are not particularly good at navigating big and small at the same time. and by “most” I mean junior, middle and senior business people.

This is not to suggest you should simply accept “was this not what you wanted?” as standard operating procedure. This is also not to suggest that you shouldn’t feel the sinking feeling every time you say it in business <because that feeling NEVER goes away … and I kinda think it shouldn’t because it is a reflection of meeting expectations which is a good measure for a good business relationship as well as personal assessment>.

This is to suggest the phrase is a reflection of the constant line you walk between the head and the wallet in business. I will also suggest that walking the fine line between need and want, sometimes this is the line between strategy <future value> and execution <present value>, means you are constantly teetering between good performance and bad performance.

And that is, frankly, harrowing. It is harrowing not just personally, but in the larger picture. You cannot have a long term strategy without delivering on a short term strategy. And you cannot be successful long term if all you do is deliver day in and day out focused on a short term strategy. This is true of a larger business as well as personal career.

I do not have any simple trite expert advice to offer today <unlike some of the tripe you will find online from so called experts>. Personally I have always focused on “what they need” without sacrificing “what they want”. I feel I can do so because in my experience most business people rarely are 100% wrong in stating what they want because most times they know more than I do about what they are in the business of doing.

Even that said, I have sat in hundreds of offices and businesses and said “was this not what you wanted?” — painfully I may add. I may have figured out a way to say it differently but in the end it is all just the same.

And it sucks. But its gonna happen.

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

“The only thing that has ever made me feel old is those few times where I allow myself to be predictable.”

Carlos Santana

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

General Mark Milley:

“disobedience, when done, must be done with trust and integrity, and you must be morally and ethically correct.”(Disciplined Disobedience)

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

Well. There is no lack of articles on generational gaps in business and, yet, almost every one of them focuses on simplistic “generational characteristics”, “old versus young” and “what millennials want” and shit like that. Sure. Useful but I would argue all young people have always wanted a version of the same thing “do good meaningful shit without all the old people bullshit.”

Anyway.

What no one seems to talk about is the core frictional axis in today’s business generational issue: business philosophy<embodied in how ideas are created & implemented>.

That said. While I will certainly piss some people off by suggesting 50somethings are slowing us all down <impeding progress> I will do so by hopefully using some rational arguments rather than simply ranting.

The foundation for my belief will center on 2 things:

• Compensating
• Compensation

Of course this is, in reality, about ‘letting go holding on’ <with a dose of ‘please move on’>. That said. 50somethings are the biggest impediment AND catalyst for progress.

Let me explain.

Impediment. They cannot let go. They are holding on with a stranglehold sense of fear to what they ‘know.’ I recognize that this is actually a topic on some elder generational life truths:

• No one can do it better than I can.
• It was always better when I was younger.
• It is always worse now than it was before.

Every generation as they get older believes this. Every generation of businesses has a bunch of people sitting in their corner offices looking askance as the young skip down the hallways tapping their proverbial fingers on their desks wondering how to corral all those young whippersnappers to do it the way they did it.

And it can get worse.

The old folk think they are living in the present <their perception> by implementing what is comfortable <the past> therefore their behavior is incredibly difficult to impact because their mind is telling them what they are doing is actually different than what they are actually doing.

Ok. Now that I have blasted 50somethings as being stubborn bitter curmudgeons and the biggest impediment to change, I will take a minute and also note, given the right attitude, 50somethngs can be the biggest enhancer/catalyst of progress. There is a relatively small percentage of 50somethings who have the ability to straddle generations <attitudinally> and have the ability to insert themselves into the younger generation’s minds and desires to strengthen the engine of progress rather than stall the engine.

Please note … I am not suggesting these 50somethings have to be as good as the young at technology or whatever new innovative techniques out there yet to be discovered, in fact, it may benefit them to not be or even try. Their value is in their heads and experience and the nudging of ‘what can be’ using selected knowledge from ‘what was.’

Let’s call it ‘selective best practice learnings.’ Topmodels suggested it was the happy few who could explain things. I have to tell you. I think the market place needs more of these “happy few” 50 year old+ employees than ever before (and I am gonna tell you why). Now. I am not suggesting all 50+ people are the same. And this generalization may be translatable to other age groups but let me suggest there are three groups:

• Over 50 and all they know and believe in is what they were taught when they were in their 20’s.
• Over 50 and they have all the knowledge they need to be on their own and like being on their own (I call these builders)
• Over 50 and have accumulated iterative learning over the years and have a unique combination of old and new (and like renovating)

(note: I wrote a post about Builders versus Renovators)

The first group is lost in the past. They will struggle because their thinking and ideas and even their vocabulary can be out of date. They will suck at transformation or renovation. Their hope is finding someone who needs to work on their internal construct of how to get shit done. But mostly these are the people when we were young we thought were ‘out-of-touch’ from the real world (or chuckled to ourselves because they would throw out up to date buzzwords acting like they knew what was going on).

The second group has accumulated enough knowledge and expertise and confidence where mentally they have flipped from ‘working for someone’ to ‘working for myself.’ They have recognized their ability to build. And they like building (which is different than transforming). They would suck at transforming because they want to run the place and not simply be an enabler for the organization to shift. (Ralph also talks about this within his newsletter as “fear of flying” and learning about yourself). They could possibly be out of touch or they could be leading edge entrepreneurs. But it doesn’t matter because they are now going forward as their own boss.

The third group? They are renovators. Companies should be fighting over these people. They are old but not old. They are experienced but still learning. They have a solid thinking construct but flexible in application. They may have their quirks (because I believe all of us older people start feeling more comfortable in our own skin and therefore are a little less worried about ‘fitting in’) but also tend to be more interested in the result than worrying about step by step how they get there. They can actually make the current buzzword understandable by using past functional learnings to explain them.

So. When I say “fighting for these people” I don’t mean to suggest that companies should be stockpiling these people at the expense of young energetic fresh thinkers and doers. I am simply suggesting that companies need a good tier of these boomer types to transform themselves when, frankly, a lot of companies need to be ‘transforming.’ (and my definition of transformation is leveraging from solid good older characteristics an injecting some new characteristics). I am also not going to suggest there should be a direct correlation between % of boomers in population and % of boomers in the makeup of business organizations. That would seem kind of silly to me.

But the numbers are pretty compelling that organizations should seek that third group of over 50ers (let’s be nice and call them boomers). In 2009 The PEW Center released a study outlining the current generation gap is the largest in the almost 50 year history of the study. Today, an astounding 79% of Americans believe that there is a generation gap in the ways young and old think and believe. Truly the only way to bridge that gap within an organization and eliminate generational divisiveness is to have boomers who can effectively communicate with and motivate all age groups.

There are not many of these 50somethings out there.

—————–

“The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.”

L.P. Hartley

—————————-

I equate it to the fabulous few who can travel to a different country and seamlessly blend into the attitudes & behaviors of the new country.

Generations are, in general, slow to change and adapt in a normal every day situation. Today’s 50somethings are exponentially challenged with change and are not dealing with it very well <i.e., not letting go very well>. I believe it was a French sociologist, Emile Durkheim, who developed a psychographic method to establish different socio-cultural groupings <I believe it is called the Sinus Milieu>.  Anyway. Basically it is a model that challenges us to think about behavior, preferences and cultural practices. The main premise behind the model is called ‘the lock-in principle.’ The principle simply states that if we get used to something we do not want to change our habits <or attitudes an beliefs> even if we are presented with something new or different that might be better. Simplistically it consistently shows <to a point that it is almost an unequivocal behavioral truth> that habit is stronger than the desire for improvement.

This thought partially explains that while 50somethings actually share the same desires as young people they are reluctant to let go of what they “know.” this gets compounded by two things:

1. With the advent of data & technology, the working business model has transformed from a “idea construction” model to a “idea destruction/reconstruction model“.
2. With the internet the gap between older experienced based knowledge and younger theoretical based knowledge has become sliver thin.

JEREMY SCRIVENS

“Over the past ten years, businesses have used Lean, Six Sigma, business process engineering and other techniques to drive costs out of a business. They have also succeeded in driving people nuts. Something really important happened two years ago. The percentage of people who loathe their jobs has been rising and the number of people who love their jobs has been falling. Two years ago these lines crossed. If we don’t find a way to reverse that trend then we are truly stuffed.”

Sliver thin? This is the compensation and compensating thoughts I shared upfront. 

• compensation

While this is about management style as well as purpose ultimately this is about money … not only how we personally get paid <earnings & wealth> but also how the company gets paid <profits, revenue, growth, etc.>. The current 50something management generation is literally and figuratively the generation that got squeezed. This was the generation who had to learn how to do more with less. This was the generation who was also demanded to generate more profits and sales increases … with less.

If there is anything this generation understands better, it is the concept of the squeezed dollar.

Now.  Let me explain. As business evolves and the economic environment surrounding industry evolves the needs of the business leader changes. It is natural to adapt to what the economic environment demands <or be killed if you don’t>. The burden of this business generation? The squeezed dollar <versus the bloated dollar of the previous generation>.

The current generation of business leaders has had to thrive in a ‘squeezed dollar’ environment.

• The squeezed dollar is the unfortunate fact that because of the boomer generation leaders’ wonderful success … the financial community demanded the same results … but the consumer demanded transparency.

Therefore in order to maintain continuous sales growth <which is actually a relatively ludicrous concept> and continuous profitability the current business leader had to find ways to squeeze the same profit/growth out of less dollars <cutting staff while cutting prices while cutting … and cutting … and … well … cutting>. I say all this because this economic pressure creates a certain type of management style in order to be successful. 50somethings learned on the job and actually were quite successful maintaining the boomer ‘earn as much as I can’ attitude <a version of extravagant desire for more> as well as working leaner … on the edge of what an organization is actually capable of.

Compounding this is the next challenge.

• Compensating

There is always a fragile relationship between generations … old holding on to what they know and have while the young are trying to pry things from the old … trying to get them to let go <of ideas, responsibility, things, etc.>.

From a ‘wisdom’ perspective the current generation gap is different, and more challenged, at the moment <although it has been this way in the past … just not within our experienced past>. While this wisdom gap between adults and the youth <in Life and in business> has always existed I will call this unique current gap challenge ‘the war on the adult advantage’ <or false knowledge versus real knowledge> for the sake of my discussion.

False knowledge. This is harsh <and an over generalization> but adults have always made shit up. We pass our opinions and beliefs along as facts … as real knowledge based on real life experience. Let’s call this the ‘years advantage.’ Most likely it is a ‘focus group of one’ knowledge but in the past adults could own this advantage the majority of the time. And at its worst … it is simply a defense mechanism to deflect youth energy away from something we would prefer them not to be focused on or thinking.

Real knowledge. Adults almost always had a real practical technical ‘how to do it’ advantage … mostly because in this case we had seen & done it. And done it many times so that it was almost with true expertise <or at minimum we had the process understood and efficient>. Nothing beats practical hands on experience <remember that old folk>.

The internet has squeezed both.  Today false knowledge can be challenged immediately.

And real knowledge?  Well. With some professional proficiency an adult will always maintain an advantage but with the advent of the computer and technology … many adults have actually LOST the advantage. Ultimately … the internet has squeezed this entire advantage perspective <actual wisdom as well as the learning process itself> to the head of a pin.

Only those adults truly agile and adept at thinking are maintaining this advantage.

But, in general, the 50something response?

We are threatened. The two main pillars of advantage have become toothpicks. So we hunker down. We take an increasingly bunker mentality and batten down the hatches <ok … no more tired metaphors>.

What do the 50somethings inevitably have to hold on to <and put a death grip to never let go of>? Whatever slim margin of advantage we can own, the unassailable portion, is ‘how we learned to do it’ — the process and the mentality and the ‘work’ on HOW we learned what we learned that got us to where we are.

Heck.  We got here this way … so any other way is a short cut <or not the right way>. Uh oh. Why is this an issue? Well. My good friends at topmodels.com helped me out again. They refer to it as “why faith is replacing knowledge.”

“… our world is getting more complicated all the time. Black and white, good and bad, right and wrong have been replaced with complicated constructs that leave most people in the dark.

As the world around us becomes increasingly fast paced and complex, the amount we REALLY know – what we can really grasp and understands – decreases all the time. Today it is more or less taken for granted that we do not understand many of the things that surround us, such as mobile phones and ipads. And even if somebody tried to explain the DNA code to us, we would probably be out of our depth.

We are increasingly surrounded by ‘black boxes’ … complex constructs that we do not understand even if they are explained to us. We cannot comprehend the inner processes of a black box but nonetheless we integrate their inputs and outputs into our decision making. The amount that we simply HAVE to believe, without understanding it, is increasing all the time. As a result we are tending to assign more importance to those who can explain something than to their actual explanation.” <The Decision book: 50 models for strategic thinking

Krogerus & Tschappeler>

Well. That thought scares the shit out of 50somethings. It stands against everything we were taught.

Faith versus actual knowledge? How can you truly understand if you don’t understand <all the innards and stuff>? The young are replacing <some> knowledge with faith … and the old are not letting go of ‘stop and learn the knowledge.’ There is certainly a balance … but 50somethings are not interested in balance … they are interested in having ‘no faith’ because they perceive it as having ‘too much risk’ or ‘not the way we did it.’

<insert ‘get over it’ here>

There is a massive opportunity for 50somethings if they can get their shit together and quit ‘compensating.’ If they simply quit cocooning simply to maintain their adult dignity <their wisdom factor> and seeking to simply maintain whatever slim perceived advantage they can have over the youth <not actually increasing the gap but simply strengthening the fine thin line between the two>.

Today? It is a more hardened thinner gap than in past generations.

The future is always ‘now’ to the young because the future exists in their ideas. Whenever the future ‘happens’ it becomes the present and then immediately the past <kind of my explanation for the excessive restlessness the youth in business have>.  50somethings need to learn to let go and hold on for the ride <as a conductor>.

Ultimately … the old have lost their traditional grip over the young and are holding on harder than ever before. They are over-compensating to maintain control <or their advantage>.

Bottom line on this topic. It really comes down to two things … attitude and respect.

Attitude.

The right attitude <combined with some respect> is the requirement for adapting to change and generations.

With the passing of time each of us changes … experientially and psychologically. In certain situations, younger people do not like accommodating themselves to traditional experiences and in others older people are reluctant to accept the new. In order for a person to change themselves, it is necessary that they not only be convinced of the appropriateness of this change but they also have to have the right attitude. The attitude matters because … well … this shit doesn’t happen overnight <despite the fact everyone seems to think if you don’t make changes immediately you will get crushed>. In order for everyone to adapt organizationally everyone, both generations, need time.  Time to assimilate the new and the old and create the necessary experience as well as process it to make … well … progress.

Respect.

Oddly, I will suggest it isn’t that the young should respect the old, but rather the opposite. I believe the 50somethings need to get their proverbial heads out of their asses and develop some respect for the young and what they can do <that we cannot>. Show them respect and I imagine they will show us respect <if we have the ability to deserve it along with the right attitude>.

In the end.

There is a lot of talk amongst older folk on “changing” and “adding purpose to businesses” but my prediction?  Existing leadership <and middle management> will screw this up mainly because they will only see the short term as an opportunity to get an older, more mature, cheaper employee and not recognize the longer term issues that will arise. They will screw it up because they will focus on ROI & not ROY:

• Lack of ROY <return on youth>: youth and young people are the cheapest innovation engine in any organization. While typically overlooked in an innovation model their innate ability to provide a fresh perspective through fresh eyes is invaluable. Organizations may not recognize their current loss with the ‘lack of youth’ within their organizations but it is having an impact. It has a domino effect within an organization. Without the ‘hidden youth engine’ more pressure will fall on older employees for innovative ideas … and these employees are more focused on ‘safe behavior to maintain employment’ and … well … you can see where this ends up.

Focusing on what we perceive as ‘generational differences and ‘youth attitudes’ <and not the organizational issues> I believe we older folk will not manage this issue well. Mainly I believe this because we will tend to focus on numbers & jobs and not some key psychological aspects <some Maslow stuff>.

There is truly no generation gap with desire to what we want <purpose, meaning, joy of task, being better, hope>, but the real gap exists in the minds of HOW things should be done.

As noted in my construction versus deconstruction posts, it is a new business world out there today and navigating the transition is where the best minds of the older generation should be focused. I could argue we are currently in the business world’s liminal space <uncomfortable, uneasy transition space> and if you agree, well, then we are simply on our way to someplace new & better. I could also argue we need a new business model for a new business world and fortunately for everyone the young are more capable of implementing this new model than any existing generation.

“If a vocal minority, however fervent its cause, prevails over reason and the will of the majority, this Nation has no future as a free society.”

=

Richard Nixon <silent majority speech to USA>

—

As the United State edge its way toward another election day, in honor of the fact a significant portion of the most capable citizens will NOT vote despite the fact the president has low approval ratings <say in the 40% approval rating> and the Senators & House of Representatives <the other elected officials> have even lower approval ratings <say in the teens … less than 20%> I am going to talk about the silent majority and businesses.

First. The concept of “silent majority.”

“a large and normally undemonstrative cross section of the country that refrains from articulating its opinions …”

Second. Most organizations have a ‘large & normally undemonstrative’ employee base.

Yup. Despite what you may read and hear on the internet about ‘the voice of the people’ most employees remain silent <at least in public>.

That said. We, who may have been fortunate enough to oversee organizations, recognize one of those most difficult things in a business organization is discerning whether the vocal few is speaking for the silent majority.

In fact. There has been an entire array of ‘learning & listening’ tactics developed to attempt to tap into the minds of the larger organization mind. They have been developed because no matter how good a leader is there is separation between where they are <and what they do> and where the ‘ground troops’ are <and what they do>. Good leaders pay attention to this stuff mainly for two reasons:

–          A content, reasonably-aligned, organization is an effective organization <and more efficient>

–          Activating the silent majority is like putting your organization into a higher gear <you go faster & exert more productive energy & produce more>.

Now. I suspect that I view this whole ‘activating the silent majority’ quite differently than traditional management & organizational behavior people>.

Most organizational culture people always seem to discuss ‘creating a culture of … whatever” … and then expect everyone in the organization to live eat and breathe it.

Well. Seems kind of silly to me.

Nice vision and certainly everyone should seek to create that cultural north star, but expecting everyone to do and act the same?

Silly.

Why? Because like it or not the world, and organizations are typically reflections of the world, are made up of a silent majority. You may not like it but it is what it is. And trying to change that is typically wasted energy.

Now. That doesn’t mean you cannot create a culture and utilize an entire organization.

Let me tell you what I mean.

–          culturally fostering an “I care” attitude.

To be clear. This is an attitude and not behavior.

Too often leaders confuse the two … mainly because they tend to be results people and want to see tangible behavior.

Silly. Focus on attitude through principles. Your objective is to foster an almost subconscious attitude which permeates day to day business life. The point here is not to measure anything <DOH!>.

Yes.

I just typed that.

This is more about priming the pump than pumping the water.

Sure. I envision if you do this correctly you will see some actual behavior consistent with whatever ‘I care about’ attitude you encourage. But if you start chasing behavior <or encouraging the best of the best behavior to the non best performers> you will actually begin to demotivate the silent majority and lessen your chances to activate when you want to activate.

Which leads me to number 2. Activating the attitude.

–          Strategic ‘I care’ behavior

Remember. I am speaking about the silent majority. If you have fostered an ‘I care’ attitude you can actually strategically ask for behavior. You see .. culture is more about how people do things then it is some nebulous ‘culture’ so if, attitudinally, the organization is carrying around a common set of principles if you actually ask them to do something within that set of principles you have, well, created behavioral traction.

Let me split this into random “I care” behavior and requested “I care” behavior.

One way is to maybe encourage a one <annual> time ‘I care’ behavior. The other way is to maybe set up a system that permits random one time behavior whenever the silent majority wants to exhibit the behavior.

Your choice. I am a ‘one time alignment guy’ myself but there is no real wrong way to do.

I prefer the one time alignment because I believe if you can get an organization all doing one thing at exactly the same time you get two benefits:

–          (1) it is like an organizational chiropractor aligning the backbone of the organizationally attitude & behaviorwise, and

–          (2) you get a one time organizational ‘lift’  from which your challenge is to maintain  <at least a percentage of it> the lift so that the entire organization feels, and sees, some benefit .

But. If you do not like that philosophy … just as with random acts of kindness … if you can foster an ongoing trickle effect that can be just as effective <so don’t let some consultant try and convince you that there is only one effective way>.

Ok. That said.

I decided to write about this today because political stability/functionability in the U.S. seems nowhere in sight. And, yet, there will be an election in which the organization <the people> could actually affect the end functional ability.

And while there are signs of unrest throughout the organization <the country> the truth is that we have not figured out how to activate the silent majority.

The learning to businesses is that polls can only reflect so much. Maybe some overall dissatisfaction. Maybe some overall specifics, but even the specifics get blurry when discussed in detail. A lot of the pompous people call it ‘low information voters’ or ‘the disengaged.’

Silly. And stupid. And wrong.

The majority of people in organizations are NOT disengaged, in fact, they are clearly engaged with regard to what crosses their desk or the assembly line or whatever task they have responsibility to complete in the moment.

They are clearly engaged in making it through each day successfully and hopefully, in some form or fashion, walking out feeling like they had a good day.

Far too many leaders forget his <or maybe in some delusional way they wish it were not so>.

Leaders need to remember something that the US Declaration of Independence states: 

“whenever any form of government becomes destructive …, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.”

Uhm.

This does not suggest organizational revolution. This actually comes to life in a ‘deactivated silent majority.’ And THAT does alter or abolish the organization. It is almost the worst nightmare to any leader — silent destruction of their organization. And it happens because leaders … even the good ones … struggle to discern the few loud from the silent many.

I will go back to politics to make my point. Someone said to me that it seems like the world is more split between extremes than ever before. And America <is almost> evenly split between conservative & liberal.

Well. No. None of that is right.

It was President Nixon who gave the speech in which he spoke of the “silent majority” in American politics.

These were the people who didn’t wave signs or march in the streets. They were the people who quietly went about their lives, going to work, raising their families and hunkered down within their communities. These were the Americans who want their leaders to set aside ideology and do what’s best for the country.

This is America’s silent majority. These are the Americans who watch ESPN and HGTV and American Idol and Modern Family at night instead of MSNBC and Fox.

Business leaders take note. It is exactly the same in your organization.

That said.

The minority is loud.

Typically the minority is fairly articulate.

Whew. Once again.

This means one of the most difficult things to figure out in business management is whether the vocal few speak for the silent majority.

Okay. Here are some things I do know about the silent majority in a business organization:

They are the local community leaders who make a country great.

They participate in community monthly meetings.

They coach the Little League baseball team or they drive their kids to soccer practice.

They have jobs.

They pay taxes.

They have full schedules.

They read newspapers <maybe online> but they don’t have time to get all worked up reading the extreme right or left blog sites.

They want a functioning government, at the local, state and federal level, but especially at the local level.

They want their schools to be good because it is better for property values <and better for their kids>.

They are willing to pay their fair share in taxes, but they are disgusted by how much waste they see in government.

They are willing to give their neighbors a helping hand, but they don’t appreciate people ripping off the system.

They like respectful dialogue and they don’t like the haters.

They don’t feel comfortable with those folks who are extreme with regard to … well … anything but doing the right thing & working hard.

The silent majority doesn’t actively participate in polls or conventions or caucuses … why? … because they have jobs they have to go do.

And maybe most importantly to leaders.

They don’t pick insurgents.

They don’t pick revolutionaries.

They don’t pick dark horses in their organizations as managers and leaders.

Ok.

Business leaders think about this:

–          All the liberals suggesting the people have decided that they are ‘in the right.’ They represent maybe 28% of the adult population.

–          The conservatives who argue the country is split and they will not back down on what is “right” <pun intended>? They represent maybe 24%.

Almost 50% remains silent. They are the silent majority. That is your organization.

Now. This is not an indictment on the silence or a suggestion that everyone needs to step up to the plate.

I am simply making a point. A point that the vocal in your business are the few. A point that it is always difficult to discern if the vocal truly represent the majority.

If you are a business leader and need something to think about, here is what I know about your organization employees. They want:

–          A fair shot at success.

–          A fair shot at living a comfortable life <not a luxurious life but a comfortable one>.

–          A stable life within a stable company.

Many remain silent <I imagine> because the majority <of the silent> probably kind of feel like it is obvious.

Interestingly when surveys and studies actually do get to these people, once you get beyond the gripes about government and greedy business people <both of which they have fair gripes with> they have some relatively simplistic thoughts on Life.

Fairness.

A moral compass.

Stability.

Pride.

Integrity.

Here is a truth that I wish people would remember.

No one, and research shows this time and time again, begrudges the rich who earn what they earn by working hard.

No one suggests that everyone gets a free deal.

No one thinks it has to be easy … but hope it could be a little bit easier.

And everyone wants their kids to have a chance even if they, themselves, may not have it.

Look.

Any business leader will be successful if they can attitudinally engage and strategically create behavior with their silent majority.

My fear is that many business leaders think their organization is NOT silent and they are hearing the streets howl with truth.

Nope. The truth more often resides somewhere in the silence.

===

“I can only say this: My whole life has been about winning.

My whole life.

My life has been about victories. I’ve won a lot. I win a lot. I win – when I do something, I win. And even in sports, I always won. I was always a good athlete. And I always won. In golf, I’ve won many club championships. Many, many club championships. And I have people that can play golf great, but they can’t win under pressure.

So I’ve always won.”

Donald Trump

=========

“Donald Trump cannot possibly understand [Geneva] because he has neither the experience, the expertise or the moral compass to grasp it,” Geneva is “a fundamental moral and tactical construct that serves as a foundation for the law of armed conflict, because all wars, including the global war on terror, come to an end.

We as a community of nations need to engage with one another and not be separated by horrible, immoral treatment of one side over another.”

——

Steve Kleinman

air force reserve colonel and an interrogations expert

===

Well. I almost called this “whatever serves your purpose.” It seems like every day we talk about winning and, yet, we don’t really spend a shitload of time talking about how we will go about winning.

Donald J. Trump has made me think a lot, like A LOT, about winning and how you conduct yourself in gaining wins .in light of the fact that not everyone conducts themselves the same.

Ah. Conduct.

Yeah. There are some basic human driven rules which 99% of people have imprinted on their attitudes & beliefs that affect their behavior & conduct, but, beyond that, the way you play the game can be dictated by who you are, where you live, who you are playing against and a variety of emotional <and Maslow> triggers.

Now. Today, in discussing conduct, I am not talking about what you say or being ‘political correct’ <which may be the most bastardized discussed concept in this particular point in history> but rather I am speaking of conduct as things like “well, if they chop off heads and we do not doesn’t that give them an edge … so …” … or … “if they are breaking the rules maybe we should relook at the rules <or how we play despite the rules>.”

Those kind of things.

Now. While Trump is a horrible little man ethically <amoral in fact>, he is bringing to the forefront a topic which should be discussed at a national level all the way down to the kitchen table level. This is a discussion about who we are as a country and the identity of America exceptionalism.

I say that because how you play the game matters <especially with regard to character>.

To be clear. Outcomes do matter, but inevitably you get judged or measured on both the outcome AND how you attained that outcome. With Trump blustering about ‘winning’ — maybe we have lost sight of that.

So let’s discuss the ‘how we play’ part. And, yes, this is a discussion because it is not as simple as playing by the rules versus cheating — surprisingly there is a lot of room in-between those lines.

====

“When people cheat in any arena, they diminish themselves – they threaten their own self-esteem and their relationships with others by undermining the trust they have in their ability to succeed and in their ability to be true.”

Cheryl Hughes

===

I will begin in a less than obvious place … truth & lies <and bullshit>.

Yale philosopher Harry Frankfurt outlined in “On Bullsh*t” that there is a difference between BS-ers and liars:

Liars respect the truth, because they must know what it is in order to effectively conceal it. BS-ers are different, in that “truth” is simply not a useful category to them. Any belief is “true” if it serves, if it is convenient. BS-ers have no coherent theory of evidence or of inference, have no need for such things, are contemptuous of reason. In this sense, they are much more corrupting of discourse than liars.

In other words, in order to win, the “truth”, to a bullshitter, will become whatever serves the purpose. I believe this also bleeds into “rules” <which are a version of truths>. I brought that up because I stated upfront almost everyone of us inevitably gets judged by how we got the win, not just the win and of itself. Therefore, I would suggest while outcomes/wins matter we should understand that how you play the game either diminishes you or increases you as a person.

Yes. In today’s world we actually get judged on both aspects … not just one or the other. This leads me to point out that we then get trapped in a personal tug of war — a ‘win at any cost’ attitude is the ultimate reflection of a “respect is about winning” attitude where there is such an emphasis on ‘the win’ we get pulled one way — away from always playing the game “right” and lets the ‘chips fall as they may’.

This is our wretched tug of war.

Winning is absolutely good, but the true essence of sportsmanship is something more than merely getting the most points on the board.

Getting good grades is important but not if it requires cheating.

Getting a promotion is good but not if you do so at the expense of another person.

This is hard stuff. But, if it helps, remember:

How many people do you respect that whine their way to victory?

How many people do you truly respect who has cut corners or ‘won on some technicality’?

I would suggest the notion that ‘winning is the highest value’ runs counter to most usual definitions of heroism, decency and good character. Think about:

Atticus Finch is the hero of To Kill a Mockingbird even though he loses.

Martin Luther King Jr. is a hero but his true victory, while living, was in the attempt.

Ned Stark in Game of Thrones is a hero even though he gets his head chopped off.

Even in business winning isn’t everything. Integrity matters. Integrity matters in business because every sane business leader knows you cannot win every time and your employees need to be able to seize upon ‘something’ to get up and go after the next “what’s next.”

Think about this in a comparison way, while Trump defends his any-means-necessary approach to winning & making as much money as he can <as if that is the only meaningful measure of business greatness>, I could point out many business people who are far richer than Trump who have played the game within the rules with integrity & dignity.

But while I would love to continue to point out the hollowness of The Donald this is, more importantly, about America.

I would argue that in order to have a better America, and a better world, that thinking about ‘how we play the game’ very quickly becomes a metaphorical and reality ethical exercise.

Uhm. As I typed that I made a note to google ethical game theory:

——————

An ethical game is usually not the kind of game that lets us replay a dichotomy of good and evil and, in worst case, denies us to judge between right and wrong. An ethical game design takes the player seriously as an individual with an ethical reasoning developed appropriate to their age, leaving it up to them to make a decision.

For this reason, an ethical game is also in no way a game that treats its players as »moral infants«. It presents the player with ethical challenges just as it poses motoric, exploratory, strategic or logical challenges. Purely abstract game mechanics can’t create an ethical aspect. Ethical challenges can only be generated through portraying them in the game world (and particularly through the story) – and through the medial interaction of the player with it.

Conversely, however, an ethical challenge can create game mechanics, which are never abstract, but result from the conflict in the player’s mind as a very specific challenge in the game world.

————————

Well. When I read that I immediately thought it paralleled what I believe is what we everyday schmucks do, and face, every frickin’ day. The game of life, and business, constantly adjusts to the skill of the players involved. And as reality adjusts those playing get better and better. And, yet, the constant adjusting also demands the players to improve their skills. That demands work. I say that because, uh oh, that is where “rules” truly get challenged.

Work. Yikes. Rather than put in the work to improve the skills to win … uhm … some players ‘do whatever it takes’ or use ‘whatever serves the purpose’ to win. In other words they ‘park’ ethical reasoning somewhere and focus solely on ‘the win.’

This is America in a nutshell. While Life is lived and challenges are met some players’ ethics get nurtured while other players shelve ethical growth so as not … well … not lose. It is here that I would point out this is exactly what Trump is advocating: not losing’ rather than ‘winning.’

Think about it.

Not losing, as an objective, basically makes winning a morally empty principle. The win itself is the glory … and we spend little focus on how you played the game <because the glory resides in the outcome>.

Let me be clear. This can be an attractive thought to most of us everyday schmucks.

Anyone in today’s world, in the daily & weekly grind focusing on all the challenges facing us and mentally taking each obstacle & challenge and, in addition, permitting each to take on a life of its own … could quite easily begin to think everything was going in the wrong direction … in other words … we were losing <and the wins are difficult to see>.

And that mental ‘loser’ hole gets a little deeper if you believe you have been working hard and ‘playing the game hard’ and doing all the right things the right way. And in that moment … in that hole … in that moment in which you are tired of working so hard and not seeing any clear cut victories, you start edging in to “so what will it take for me/us to finally win” <and get out of his loser hole>.

Uh oh. The slippery slope of ‘how you play the game matters’ looms in front of you.

Let me be absolutely clear on this. It is hard, even for the most principled person, to not think about stepping on this slope. Especially when you have someone like Trump shining a spotlight on your thoughts with regard to the ‘loser hole’ and offering a “let’s start winning” again message <with no rules on how to go about getting the win>.

Anyway. Here is what I think.

Trump has seized a moment and offered a ride on a fairly attractive slippery slope. For years, in our culture, America <society> has been in conflict with regard to winning.

Winning is everything versus everyone is a winner.

Conflict 1: Winners get demonized by their win at any cost attitude <and celebrated to the same time>.

Conflict 2: Participants get demonized by their inability to win <and yet celebrated by the victory in the attempt>.

You cannot, well, win.

This conflict is exacerbated by generational conflict. Conceptually the former <winning is everything> is owned by the older generations and the latter <everyone who participates in the game wins> is owned by the younger generations.

The old see their version of winning being marginalized and at exactly the same time they see overall larger country and economic results lagging <or in their eyes … “the country is going the way of the loser shithole”>. Therefore, to those people, anyone who dares reject the rules of their game, especially if they do not win, are double losers because they were not smart enough to “do anything it takes to win because winning is everything” we need to get out of this frickin’ loser shithole we are in.

This is where someone like Trump can look attractive to some people. It is like hiring a new coach who looks like he is someone prepared to defy conventions – this creates some exhilaration in the fan base.

“fuck yeah … it’s about time.”

It signals the arrival of a maverick outsider who is not just going to shake things up, but is prepared to destroy to create.

That sounds good.

Well. It is good as long as it is within the rules of the game and by ‘rules’ I mean the true construct of playing the game <Geneva Convention offers specific rules and, of course, there is something called the Constitution and things called ‘laws’ and every sport organization has codes, rules and penalties> as well as the integrity of playing the game.

I admit. I am a ‘play by the rules guy.’And, I admit, Trump’s attitude irks me as a business guy. Here is what I know from a business guy perspective <and I believe it is relevant to America in general>.

Give me the construct, give me the box to play within, and I can be creative enough WITHIN the box to beat anyone. I wrote this in 2015:

I would suggest that the highest quality freedom <in and of anything>, the most satisfying freedom, is not found without fences but within fences.

This may sound odd <especially to someone like Trump> but true creativity, innovation and disruption is found within the box and not out of the box. Out of the box is most often impractical, not realistic long term and ultimately pales when placed next to ethical principles.

I would also note that winning within the box is maybe the most satisfying feeling in the world.

In the end.

How you win matters. And changing the rules simply to ‘win’ loses sight of what is really important – not the win itself but the principled effort you took to gain the win.

And if that doesn’t convince you, remember, rules represent:

“a fundamental moral and tactical construct that serves as a foundation for the law of conflict, because all conflict comes to an end. <and you have to live with yourself and what you have done>“