=========
“The world is too big and too intricate to conform to our ideas of what it should be like.
Just because we invent myths and theories to explain away the chaos we’re still going to live in a world that’s older and more complicated than we’ll ever understand.”
Moby
===========
“The World is a very complex system.
It is easy to have too simple a view of it, and it is easy to do harm and to make things worse under the impulse to do good and make things better.”
Kenneth Boulding
==========
Well. Today, while reading some trite business fortune cookie wisdom pulled from some gazzillion selling business book, I thought of the day I said “I worry we are killing the next generation of business thinkers with simplistic tripe” to a famous 
internationally renowned business book author. I did it at while on a panel at some convention in the early 2000’s. I said it <after holding my thoughts for too long> as I listened to simplistic soundbite advice being shared under the guise of “sage wisdom to enhance everyone’s success.”
I followed my statement with:
“Business is messy. Business is complex. It seems to me that those of us who have navigated the messiness have a responsibility to not undersell the messiness & complexity nor oversell simplicity.”
Needless to say it wasn’t one of my more popular moments.
Needless to say it was one of my better professional moments.
Ok. Business is made up of a mixture of skills, personalities and attitudes. Success is most often dictated by alignment of skills, personalities and attitudes, or, some special mix of all. It is that mix, or blend, of all those things which is well, frankly, an absolute bitch to make happen. That said. Let me point out three reasons why business is such a difficult complex unwieldy thing and trite soundbite wisdom rarely helps:
-
Building a successful business is rarely about some wide open “white space” awaiting your arrival.
-
People. You need people. You almost always have to incorporate people into your evil plan for success <and those who most desperately desire to help most often have their own evil plans for success>
-
Dealing with what you have is significantly different than creating what you want <and how the initial recipe is different than the ongoing recipe>
Let me explain each.
-
The white space myth:
Business success, generally speaking, comes down to one of two things (a) am I going to build a market for my idea, or (b) am I going to steal some of the existing market for my idea. Needless to say neither of those sits in some dormant white space awaiting your presence.
You either create white space by elbowing some asshats out of your way or simply walk through the front door of the homes of others and steal all their shit <that was a metaphor … you do not really do that>. This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try and be different or offer some unique aspects <if you can> but more often than not it is all about being sure you are distinct, be relentlessly persistent in communicating your distinctness and offer something that delivers value after it is purchased.
Uhm. No trite soundbites there and I have pretty much told you everything you need to know. Ponder.
-
People who want to help <but you shouldn’t let them>:
Help is always available. And self proclaimed ‘disruptive/innovative’ help almost even more so. Pick a topic and go online. I can almost guarantee you will get over a million results <you actually get 31.8 million in .59 seconds> of people discussing “disruptive” ideas to facilitate progress. Many of those people are for hire. The majority are smart, articulate and have boundless energy, uhm, for their version of progress.
Finding people who assist in forwarding the progress of your idea is, frankly, not easy <although it seems like it should be>. Even more difficult is incorporating change agents or what we far too often call disrupters. It is challenging … tempting for sure … but challenging.
Soundbite experts will throw out a gazillion people management thoughts on ‘center everyone on the purpose’ and a shitload of ‘horizon direction focus’ thinking, but I gotta tell ya, I can put the biggest fucking beautiful target up on the wall to aim for but if the people I got cannot, and will not, shoot arrows at it — the target is a beautiful piece of art on the wall and nothin’ else. Ponder.
- Deals with reality and creation:
Soundbite advisors spend a shitload of their energy on ‘bringing your idea to life.’ Not a whole shitload of them invest a lot of energy discussing “what do I do once it is actually breathing.” In other words: what the hell do I do with this Frankenstein?
Huh? What experts neglect to tell you is that all that fine planning and smart implementation rarely ends up creating exactly what you intended creating in the beginning. You will naturally adapt to some things and course correct the best you can as you navigate survival <and that dynamic marketplace which doesn’t have any static white space – see my 1st point>.
At its most basic creating is about making some deals, and dealing with, reality as it gets thrown in your face and at your feet <this means you can trip over a shitload of things>. Some people call this “adapting”, I do not, I call it deal making with the world. Maybe think of creating business like striking a nuclear arms-control agreement. Simplistically the deal is the means, not the end itself, and success simply means everyone keeps their nukes they just don’t use them. But the real point is that business is rarely developed with “dealing” central to success. It is more often the idea <which motivates the energy and company/business>. Deals are simply the way you protect the business idea. What soundbite is there for how to navigate the typical business idea of “mutually beneficial transactions?”
There is none.
You deal with dealing one by one the best you can all the while trying to not lose sight of the desired objective <which can be covered in a deep fog on occasion>. Ponder that one a bit longer than the first 2.
Anyway.
The next generation of business leaders deserve experienced people who attempt to explain complexity rather than serve up trite simplistic soundbites which over time simply amount to a steaming pile of bullshit. While I have a bunch of concerns with regard to what we are, and are not, teaching the next generation of business thinkers the one I am mostly concerned with resides in the simplistic shit shared by multimillion dollar business authors and the hundreds of books you can buy which all offer “simplistic advice for business success.”
There is absolutely nothing simple about business. Misrepresenting reality, the business truth, should be called out and chastised even if it is some high falutin’ author of famous business books. We owe it to the next generation of thinkers to teach the complex and not some trite soundbites. That is, as I mentioned earlier, the deal we need to make with the reality of the business future. All that said. I worry we are killing the next generation of business thinkers.
To be clear. Other people who think winning is all that matters will think he was full of shit and I am full of shit. It doesn’t really matter because, well, that’s my point.
result” or “it’s not the journey it is the destination” or “winning is everything.” It is empty because the person runs a very large risk that how you actually got to the win is ignored and everything gets measured <in their personal character measurement> on a scorecard.
way that your competition can just look afterwards and say … “wow … that was smart.” Heck. It doesn’t even have to be innovative. It could simply be effective navigation of a complex system and dynamic situation. This is as good as a physical <ability> win, but unfortunately many people do not evaluate it that way.
Do I give Sugar Ray credit for figuring out how to win by avoiding the Hands of Stone? Sure.
How many times have we sat back and said “I can do that job”?
business repercussions. Not only may you be out of your depth, but you may actually start making some poor hires who are also out of their depth and that kind of shit gathers negative momentum <down the slippery slope of less-than-competent results>.
You know where this belief has always existed? The corner of the neighborhood bar. I am sure we have all experienced it. Sitting around with friends, maybe at the corner of the bar, bitching about the world and talking about what we would do to fix it. At that table … and at that time, well, we can solve everything that the experts, the leaders, the grand decision makers seem to struggle solving.
That said. Realistically the last time everyone possessed the same skills in a society to participate within a leadership role at 100% equal was maybe several million years ago when all of us humans ran around as hunter/gatherers. Once we evolved into larger social groupings, and inevitably created cities and population clusters where some people had to make decisions for the greater good of the whole some people naturally evolved into governors and governing <leadership> and the expertise needed to assume those responsibilities. And while we can bitch & moan about the ineptness of leadership, in general, leaders lead and others follow. Yet, we everyday schmucks get confused and believe we would be smarter, if not as smart, as people in the positions of leadership.
It is a complex task.
When you go through shit as we all do we all also have the choice how that ‘hand you were dealt’ is played … and inevitably you will do what you believe is best.
us.
====
Human-ness: what it meant to be human and how to intentionally be human. It didn’t start with technology, but then again it did. Technology has introduced all the distractions necessary to forget we are human. To be clear. This is different than a ‘different than when I was growing up’ discussion (past), this is a discussion about our future and our intentions with regard to being human – individually, societally and in business. The debate, the discussion, should ignore the definitions of technology and focus on the definitions of humans – not generational mumbo jumbo – because there is no contrast between generations (in any meaningful way), the contrast resides in the liminal space we currently stand in –
Technology is first and foremost used for educational purposes. Now. We can debate the definition of education (beyond the institutional aspects), but for the most part people interact with technology to learn and do. [ponder. This makes technology a transformation tool, but to what? There is certainly a role for undirected education/learning but inevitably if we seek to have a better system, the system should have an identified strategic objective. Far too often we make technology benefit into some simplistic ‘convenience’ tool. Why shouldn’t we expect technology to enable a learning revolution? This will demand a different type of leadership – one that is not passive but rather one that leads a revolution into the future. Since the preservation of the status quo tends to be equated with either protecting traditional values or principles, most leaders have learned (from experience) that ensuring a transformation unfolds slowly permits them the luxury of maintaining positions of power longer. A learning revolution demands a new type of leadership one that is active, enlightened and engaged. Any revolution is part push and part pull but technology offers a new dynamic environment in which opportunities can be exploited, in pursuit of a grander vision or strategic objective, if one is willing to actively engage with them. I have said this before but this new type of leadership is not about charisma, but rather about framing and thinking conceptually. The revolution only occurs if someone can frame the issues in terms that are directly relevant to the communities. The concepts are framed in a way that are easily articulated, understood and assimilated into individual (and collective) objectives. This is a bit grander than alignment (although alignment is certainly a key aspects) but rather it is about finding the coherence necessary for energy gravity grabs hold to increase progress.
Design carefully.
Within these intentions the people IN the organization have a variety of paths they can choose to walk on – and clearly see where paths do not lie. I hesitate to call these principles because, well, they seem simply like intentions. With intentions understood a business can have a community of people interested in working coherently (some people may call this culture) and pursue quests to fulfill those intentions. Intentions put some boundaries on the unevenness while actually encouraging unevenness which increases velocity toward some vision. Intentions put some boundaries on technology.
Intentions matter. What I mean by that is if we do not embrace a human centric world, intentionally, technology will be increasingly less likely to (a) be optimally effective and (b) optimally useful to the betterment of humans. Establishing the future is not about technology. It is about humans, society, culture and institutional tradition. The decisions for our future are both top down and bottom up, simultaneously, in which vision and pragmatism are aligned (and resources are equitably dispersed).
I know of one for sure .. probably a couple.
I imagine I owe an apology to these few gifted people for what I wrote in my original giving yourself away post.
———-
Consistency of character.
cannot be “all change.”