——

Portuguese:

saudade

… a longing for something so indefinite as to be indefinable.   Love affairs, miseries of life, the way things were, people already dead, those who left and the ocean that tossed them on the shores of a different land – all things born of the soul that can only be felt. 

==

Anthony De Sa

———–

“He marveled at the indifference of the world, the way it kept on, despite everything.”

==

Anthony Doerr

————-

Ok. I am fairly sure everyone desires the greater intangible things in life: the things, or thing, you just cannot put words to but you know is out there and you will “know it when you see it or feel it”. Unfortunately, well, the intangible also tends to be elusive.

It is also very very difficult to clearly define or put words to it <hence many people choose to focus on some specific milestone or objective>. I would suggest the intangible is elusive because the world is indifferent to our desires. What do I mean? The world is relatively uninterested in offering the intangible in tangible form. The world simply tends to fork over tangible crap to us and it is up to us to peel it all back and bask in the intangible good stuff found within.

But that takes time and is more difficult.

Therefore. We tend to seek tangibles.

And more tangibles.

And then more tangibles.

This means that we are almost destined, despite that in our soul we deeply long for something indefinable, to settle for tangible proof that we are showing some progress.

I do not really care what the proof is … just that we settle for it.

What Is Elusive? The definition of “elusive” is:

elusive: evasive, slippery, difficult to find, catch or achieve

Speaking of desiring proof – that is why we often create deadlines. Deadlines are powerful things as we face our longing for the indefinite <and the definite>. More often than not we use the deadline to insure we do not waste too much time on something we are not sure can be easily defined. But think about what a deadline really is.

Today the term is now used, mostly, to refer to “the time by which something must be completed.” In the historical sense a deadline refers to the boundary around a prison which, if prisoners crossed it, they’d be shot by the guards. Wow. Okay. So while deadlines are everywhere in the business world and we no longer get shot it does seem like we just get shit when we cross a deadline.

Now. Psychologists have done a boatload of research on the effect of deadlines on people. Invariably the majority of people actually improve performance as a deadline nears. They explain this by something called “the Yerkes-Dodson law.” This law suggests performance increases as arousal <excitement, stress, tension, nervousness> increases. Well. At least up to a point from which performance declines as the person, and senses, are overwhelmed.

Basically this suggests we become more aware of consequences of failing to complete what we want to do as time slips away and act upon that awareness <with some focus because the consequences of not meeting the deadline while may not include being shot certainly includes a load of shit>.

In addition. Deadlines tend to eliminate procrastination mostly because we dislike the unpleasant feeling of consequences of not meeting a deadline.

Note: Stick with me because this all has to do with our longing for something indefinite.

Ok. Now comes the next horrible thing that happens as we pursue what we truly long for. We have a deadline in our heads and we encounter something called the planning fallacy. We suck, extraordinarily so, at estimating how much time to allocate for things because our brains, in general, are quite overly optimistic with regard to our own capabilities. Therefore we underestimate time. In addition we do this because our brains have a nasty habit of looking back on past poor time allocation and failed deadlines and blame external causes <and yet the next time the thought will be that this time we will be unencumbered therefore meet our deadline successfully>.

All of this circles back to that ‘arousal’ consequence, which we hate, as it rears its ugly head one more time as our optimistic assumptions crash into the actual reality of the situation. I bring it back to ‘arousal’ because all that painful consequence stuff occurs WHEN YOU ARE PURSUING A TANGIBLE GOAL.

The waters get even murkier if you are setting some deadline on how much time you want to spend on pursuing this elusive indefinite thing. But. We are truly optimistic folk. Well. At least some of us are. What one person thinks of as elusive and indefinite another sees hope and opportunity. And depending on where you are in Life your feeling can change. The one consistent steady thing is that at all times there is a longing for something more, some longing for something so indefinite as to be undefinable.

So what can we do? We have to take responsibility for our lives and choices and this indefinite thing. We cannot subvert the longing and suffocate it with the tangible.

To be clear <part 1>. The longing should not dictate our lives and behavior, but it also should not play a role in our lives and actions.

To be clear <part 2>. That isn’t easy. Life can throw a bunch of curve balls and … well … some high hard fastballs. The biggest fastball Life throws at you is what I call “Life comparison shopping.” You shop your life against other lives.

In the good ole days it was called “keeping up with the Joneses” <using one’s neighbors as a standard of comparison for the consumption of material goods>. This sounds silly, but we are human, and it is hard not to notice when your neighbor buys something. But they are not the only standard of comparison. Television shows, magazines, websites, and pretty much anywhere you consume information inundates us with stories about what other people have, wear and do.

Yes. While we know we shouldn’t care mostly because, while we may not articulate it this way, we know conspicuous consumption is ubiquitous.

But.

Tangible proof is, well, tangible proof.

The tendency to compare yourself to to other people is fundamental and is going to occur whether or not we intend it. And, yes, in some cases, social comparison is useful. In the absence of objective standards of success, social comparison  helps us to evaluate and improve ourselves. And yet, at the same time,  sometimes social comparison suggests you are inferior in some aspect <wealth, intelligence, appearance, etc.> which can create some feelings of envy or ‘lesser than.’ Okay. This is where the tangible proof path absolutely frickin’ kills us on this pursuit of something undefinable.

“Lesser than” feelings erode the belief you can ever attain what you long for <I mean your head says “c’mon … if you cannot even be good enough to do that how can you be good enough to attain something you cannot even define .. all you can do is just discuss as something you ‘long for’?”>.

Then we remain on the middle path too long. We start missing out on the dreams. We shelve the longing and inevitably that which is undefinable remains undefined and that which we long for simply becomes an immature pursuit for only those who are dreamers. You justify this decision, and personal behavior, as you walk the middle path by always thinking that eventually you will get around to pursuing this longing … and eventually reach this undefinable thing that will makes you happy.

And then time is gone. And the longing, which is easily dismissed as “shit, I couldn’t even define it anyway”, is still there but the opportunity is gone.

Look. Pursuing something so indefinite as to be indefinable is tough. It is not for the faint of heart. To do so you need to accept that while some results are very tangible others are less so. The secret is to get your head straight from the outset on how ‘performance’ is to be measured then build in the means for measuring activity. I say that because I think the measurement is much more important than setting a deadline.

I mean, well, how can you set a deadline on something you cannot even define? <someone smarter than I would have to figure that out>.

In the end I use this quote:

====

“A rat race is for rats. We’re not rats. We’re human beings. Reject the insidious pressures in society that would blunt your critical faculties to all that is happening around you, that would caution silence in the face of injustice lest you jeopardise your chances of promotion and self-advancement. This is how it starts, and, before you know where you are, you’re a fully paid-up member of the rat pack. The price is too high.”

Jimmy Reid

=====

Part of being a human being is this inherent longing for “something.” Maybe it is captured in that one word:  saudade.

“all things born of the soul that can only be felt.”

I am not suggesting we shouldn’t do the day to day stuff that needs to be done nor am I suggesting that deadlines aren’t quite useful for some day to day shit, but I am suggesting that stuff shouldn’t be done at the sacrifice of our longing for “all things born of the soul that can only be felt.”

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

“Show not what has been done, but what can be. How beautiful the world would be if there were a procedure for moving through labyrinths.”
―

Umberto Eco

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

“You are not going nowhere just because you haven’t gotten where you want to go yet.”

—-

Taylor Swift

====

So. Direction is one of the most stressful discussion in Life & in business. Where are you going? How are you planning on getting there? And, of course, are you sure that is the right direction?

Well.

I never thought I would ever use a Taylor Swift quote let alone use it to make a point. Her quote made me think that “not getting to where you want to be” and “nowhere” can look awfully similar.

But it is not.

Not even close.

The idea of “getting somewhere”, whether in your career, in Life, in personal change, in a relationship, in anything, sometimes seems to dominate our Life. This destination, this ‘thing’ we have envisioned in our mind, becomes sort of a measurement with regard to how we are effectively, or ineffectively, living our life. And in doing so if we are somewhere other than ‘there’ <which may mean we simply just haven’t got there yet>, a lot of people will suggest that means you are nowhere.

That is wrong. Very very <very> wrong.

We spends gobs of time and money trying to answer these questions. If you think about it while it may not sound completely absurd (defining direction insures you are at least not going somewhere completely useless) it can actually look like an incredibly poor investment with a dubious ROI <or what I often call “ROC”: return on choice>.

It can be a stress on your everyday life.

It can be a burden.

It can create an absurdly long list of plans and things to do.

It can also translate into a lot of wasted time (because often where you decide to go isn’t exactly where you end up simply because Life’s terrain dictated a slightly better destination).

I sometimes think this is a reflection of what is wrong in today’s society – this belief if you haven’t achieved something you have achieved nothing.

Most of Life is a reflection of a shitload of journeys and paths and, well, a lot of walking, running, tripping and crawling. Because of that a shitload of people would suggest that most of your life you have been running in place <which sounds silly as I type it> or ‘wandering aimlessly <which also sounds silly as I type it because most times most people are wanting to get to where they want to be> and basically they are suggesting that, uhm, you have expended energy — and got nowhere.

99% of the time those people are just assholes.

Assholes who focus on destinations and not journeys. They only take satisfaction in highlighting specific milestones, objectives and outcomes achieved. They struggle to see the satisfaction in exploration, wandering and the journeys taken to the outcomes.

Look. I am not going to suggest achieving something, specifically, getting to where you want to be is not an admirable and useful objective. Because it is. Getting to where you want to be is aspirational and it implies you want to be better than what you are today. Being better and becoming better is something all of us should embrace.

But I will suggest that simply because you have not got there yet that you have gone nowhere.

In fact, I could argue that simply deciding where you want to be is somewhere.

Yeah. Sometimes just knowing what you want has value in & of itself.

Yeah. In fact, doing something, even something small, is better than nothing and is something other than nowhere.

Anyway. You know what? it’s all exploration even if you don’t care about where you want to go. Why?  You end up somewhere.

Here is the bottom line.

I would guess 90% of us are somewhere other than where we want to be. We may see glimpses of it and we may actually have touched it briefly, but most of us are still in the midst of getting there.

<to complete that equation I envision 5% don’t even try having given up and 5% believe they are there>

90% of us are certainly not ‘nowhere.’ We are simply works in progress trying to get somewhere better than who and what we are today. That means suggesting just because you haven’t got to where you wanted to be is ‘nowhere’ would mean that 90% of us are milling about in some wretched space of nothingness … and that is silly. Most of us are pretty happy and fairly content and typically thinking about being better.

There is a lesson here.

While I imagine Ms. Swift doesn’t philosophize on this thought like Umberto Eco, she has certainly embraced her responsibility & empowerment to communicate the right things to hordes of young people. And for that I applaud her. I do so not only because she is impacting young people’s minds in a good smart way, but because there are a boatload of older people who have been gobsmacked into believing if you haven’t got to where you want to be that you are nowhere <and they do not hesitate to tell a shitload of people that>.

Embracing an ‘outcome is the most important’ Life philosophy is a slippery slope.

I would much rather we embrace a “just because you have not got to where you want to be does not necessarily mean you are nowhere” Life philosophy. You can embrace both but if you begin with the latter you are more likely to not only encourage the right behavior in people you will most likely encourage a more positive view of your own Life.

Lastly.

Okay. All this may sound rudderless. But 99% of the time while this discussion sounds, well, directionless, void of objective & absent of any ‘milestones’, it is none of those things. 99% of the time we have a sense of some destination, we just can’t really articulate it. Now. In a world that has an unhealthy relationship with measurement, achievement & “if it is intangible, can you make it tangible”, that ‘not able to articulate’ is a sonuvabitch to try and embrace.

I sometimes think at end of the end of this type of ‘going somewhere, just not sure where’ journey the people who didn’t try to cram all the plans into the time and simply kept walking knowing they would get somewhere will absolutely find themselves some place better than where they started from and most likely end up somewhere good.

I will say Life can truly be a ‘wonderland’ if you don’t over think it. Sometimes the journey is an exploration and as long as you keep exploring the “somewhere” you get to is richer and, in the case of a business or an individual, maybe a stronger place. Maybe Life, and even business to some extent, is a time to wander.

To explore. To just see what you will see. And see what you will find.

Maybe this is time to remember Calvin & Hobbes: “Any road followed precisely to its end leads precisely nowhere.”

Maybe Alice in Wonderland, Umberto Eco & Taylor Swift and Calvin & Hobbes have the right idea. Nowhere may be a good destination objective.

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

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

(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.

====

“Everyone needs a place. It shouldn’t be inside of someone else. “

—

Richard Siken

==

“It’s the one thing we never quite get over: that we contain our own future.”

—

Barbara Kingsolver

====

Far too often we seek definition from the outside — the outside world and people. Metaphorically, it means we far too often find our ‘place’ inside the outside.

It makes you wonder a little why we think someone else can build this space better than ourselves.

I mean … c’mon … who can build it BUT yourself?

<sigh … and yet we let others build it again and again>

We are born to build our own place because, frankly, there is nobody who can know you more than you. You should not be molded by the eyes or thoughts of others. You should build a place in which “you” is safe <I imagine the corollary thought is ‘do you really trust someone, anyone other than you, to build a place that will withstand the worst storms of Life?’>.

And, while this may seem philosophical, pragmatically nobody else CAN build it for you because, well, it is and always will be who you were and who you will be.

You are not only the architect of your fate but the architect of your space. I am fairly sure you would not choose to build a home inside another home.

Why would you do so with yourself?

Sadly this conversation of ‘building your own space’ seems to almost always focus on what kind of person one is in relation to other people or societal norms/expectations.

I am not going to suggest your relationship with other people or the outside world is irrelevant just that you shouldn’t permit it to define your space.

I think it is important to define oneself as an individual and avoid comparisons as much as possible, or, at least with minimal comparisons.

We certainly have the power, the intellect & the knowledge to define ourselves. Some people call his ‘find your own voice’. I kind of think it is find your own space. You find your own home within you in which you sleep, eat, think, invite, kick out, party, cry and live.

==

“When they opened the cadaver, they found a house.

A couple argued inside.

There was a rhythm to their words, like the beating of a heart.”

Barry Napier

==

By the way. While this thought sounds sensible and practical and … well… good … it is really hard.

Essentially this means the only promise you are making is to yourself and not to anyone else. You are not a metaphor, nor an excuse nor an example to others. But this also means you have to create on your own and many people don’t think they are creative enough to build something strong or ‘right’ or beautiful <using traditional sense as the judge>. It is difficult because you are judged first & foremost by yourself and then you can decide whether you want to see if you meet the ‘promise’ that others & society feel like you should have made to them.

All my bullshit philosophical ramblings aside, I love the thought that no one should build their space inside someone else.

I love the thought this makes most people uncomfortable. It makes people feel uncomfortable because they know they are part of something bigger … and that ‘bigger’ MUST be smarter than … well … me. I mean c’mon … wouldn’t they know better than I whether I was good enough or fulfilling the promise of who and what I should be?

I also think it makes people feel uncomfortable because pretty much everyone <at least anyone I have ever met> has a storm inside them. A storm of who and what they will be. The lightning inside us scares us. The electricity energizes us at the same time. And we don’t know whether we are good enough, big enough, strong enough, for the storm inside us.

—

“We just have too much lightning crammed into our hearts.

Just want someone to put her ear to our chest and tell us how far away the storm is.”

Lauren Zuniga

————

Aw shit … I don’t know. Lightning & storms are alternatively scary and exciting. All I really know is that it is my storm and I want my space for it to rage.

—-

“It is an ancient political vehicle, held together by soft soap and hunger and with front-seat drivers and back-seat drivers contradicting each other in a bedlam of voices, shouting “go right” and “go left” at the same time.”

==

Adlai E. Stevenson

———————

Ok. I never knew the origin of the word ‘bedlam’ which is The Hospital of St. Mary of Bethlehem <”bedlam”> in London in the mid late 1800’s. It was an asylum for the insane whose name shrunk in local dialect to Bedlam and eventually entered everyday language to describe chaos and confusion.

Now. I have never been in an asylum, but I sometimes believe a business can be like being in one.

To be clear. Most businesses are not in bedlam. There may be moments of chaos or feeling of bedlam, but they are usually capsules in time within an overall structured environment. The only exceptions may be start ups or young companies which can feel a little like barely corralled bedlam.

But individuals in business? Yes. There are certainly some who carry bedlam with them.

These are the people who hop into the vehicle as a front seat driver and, in a worst case business scenario, find similar back seat drivers and everyone starts espousing business bullshit in a bedlam of voices.

These are the people who actually lead us to actual bedlam.

To be sure, far too often business bedlam is created only because there is one or two people, in positions that matter, that always seem to have a blob of chaos that follows wherever they go.

Interestingly, they very often do so under the guise of simplicity.

Yup. Simplicity creating bedlam <did anyone ever imagine anyone ever writing that?>.

Business Truth 1.

Simple solutions do not, or rarely, exist in business organizations <which tend to be complex>.

Business Truth 2.

Doing one thing, usually stated under the guise of simplicity, does not, or rarely, create the necessary outcome within a complex system.

This simplicity style of management is maddening because successful complex systems tend to locate themselves at the edge of chaos, not in chaos, but on the edge. Therefore this bedlam manager steps in … stands close to the edge … “brings about simplicity” <which they state is needed to resolve whatever it is that is happening> and under the guise of simplicity, well, chaos & bedlam actually occurs. The successful complex organizational system has moved from the edge ultimately shifting directly within chaos. All because of some unrealistic direction of “lets break it down and make it simple for everyone.”

Everything then comes to a crashing grinding halt <albeit it looks like everything is still in movement>. It is just a stagnant blob of unproductive chaotic energy.

Which is too bad because successful systems are NOT simple, they are a complex combination of the semi-chaos, which generates innovation & fresh thinking to keep the system vibrant, dynamic and core structural stability that prevents dropping the organization into pure chaos & anarchy.

I say ‘beware.’

Beware the bastards who create business bedlam. These bastards can often be recognized because they are the ones who seem to state “this is simple” or worse “let’s simplify this to the most important thing to do” when stepping in to an organization’s natural healthy bedlam feel. They wield ‘simple’ or simplicity as an appealing looking ‘fix it tool.’ And because simple, when on the edge of bedlam, looks so frickin’ appealing people start lining up and grabbing it by the handful as if it will salve all pains.

Great businesses are rarely simple, great business systems are rarely simple … and doing ‘one important thing’ is rarely enough.

I know I read somewhere that within complex systems theory, turbulence is caused by the spontaneous interactions between parts of the system and the changing environment.

Turbulence is not chaos, but it still can create the random interruptions that businesses struggle with almost every day. And within that turbulence, if a business is not careful, it can begin to look an awful like chaos <although it is definitely not>. But I guarantee some snake oil salesman asshole in the organization will label it ‘sheer bedlam!’… ‘chaos!’ and say “bedlam is bad” … we need to fix it <and bring out all the ‘simplicity tools’>.

Regardless.

The snake oil simplicity salesman will fail.

The organization will suffer.

True bedlam will rear its ugly head.

Here is another business truth. Harmony in a great business organization almost always has hues of conflict and an uneasy ‘edge-of-chaos’ bedlam feel. Kind of like a strong energy that makes you feel like if you don’t hold on a little tighter you may go flying off into the distance, but at the same time it is productive and adaptive and energetic.

Complex systems theory suggests three aspects to a dynamic organization:

• Control – the ability to have some structure to the extent that the systems can efficiently maintain status quo success and yet respond to new circumstances

• Flexibility – the ability to respond to new circumstances

• Change – the ability to exploit successful patterns

Well. That seems to summarize a shitload of response & change. Uhm. That implies a relatively consistent flow of ‘transitional organization moments.’

Realistically <or maybe hypothetically?> bedlam should only occur in transition moments. And even then it may only have the appearance of bedlam because in reality it is simple functional organizational adaptation in real time speed to accommodate change <note: I have argued in the past successful business leadership & thinking is about successfully navigating liminal moments>.

Now. That doesn’t mean it looks pretty nor does it feel ‘efficient’ or even feel comfortable.

In fact, it can look an awful like organizational chaos. But you have to look very very closely at your business to be really sure if it is true bedlam or not — true bedlam occurs within true chaos versus bedlam feeling occurs in an organized chaos.

True bedlam is shifting priorities, unclear direction, inconsistent processes, unhappy or disengaged employees and an out-of-whack energy invested to outcome proposition. Once again, to be clear, most businesses have their shit together and don’t experience this.

Despite saying that — bedlam people are strewn within organizations. They see themselves as problem solvers and their role as ‘business as usual necessities.’ If an organization is not careful they begin, sadly, to see bedlam simply as a way of life and bedlam managers as necessary herders.

Anyway.

Actual bedlam is never a good thing for an organization. While there needs to be adaptability & flexibility it is no excuse for ambiguity and bedlam inside organizations. Solid construct is essential for a healthy energetic business which taps into that ‘bedlam feel’ but needs managers who don’t create the bedlam … they simply funnel the bedlam feel into a positive working environment.

Aspects of a bedlam feeling IS a good thing for an organization.

What do I mean?

I am not a huge proponent of ‘planned innovation’ or ‘collaborative ideation for the future.’ I tend to believe they create muted mediocre thinking & ideas. Creative innovation tends to be externally driven and therefore creates this bedlam like feeling <because it is not planned but has a sense of reactiveness to it>. This bedlam feel stimulates innovation, reduces employee complacency, and elevates attitudes & thinking & people to achieve new heights.

This type of bedlam is unavoidable within a dynamic organization and in swallowable doses is desirable <it creates a sense of effective ‘doing’>.

Lastly. Where bedlam people truly thrive <and create the most damage>.

All transformational moments <including when organization is adapting> but most especially within complex, large-scale transformational change. This is where the stakes are the highest, the bedlam the mostest <I made that word up> and with tremendous potential for ROI and cost failure.

Research consistently shows that most business transformations fail to return their desired ROI. The ones, the few that actually do succeed, inevitably have excellent change leadership skills at a variety of management levels <not just at the top>.

And this is where bedlam people thrive — in times of transformation. Any transformation is messy, often chaotic, and has serious impact on employees’ mental state <not just tasks>. In transformation, what you are attempting to create is typically very different than your current state of operation and often outcomes are unclear when you begin. This all means that numerous course corrections are required as you discover where you need to go and how to get there.

This process is nonlinear and full of surprises and requires a lot of flexibility and adaptability. It requires a shift of mindset, behavior, and culture to implement the new direction.

Uh oh.

Bedlam people, tapping into the angst of employees and people, seek to offer simplicity platitudes to ‘cross the transformational chasm.’ And instead, because transformations are complex and naturally chaotic, it simply increases the bedlam and inefficiency and while short term there appears some ease in overall organization angst <because people grasp the simplicity platitudes as ‘doable’ , sigh, and relax> long term it fails the complexity of the system and transformation itself.

Bedlam increases.

But even then bedlam managers succeed.

Bedlam people point to the point in time <in the past> that everyone relaxed and did stuff as ‘I know my shit.’

The net result? Bedlam people become more empowered <while actually having increased overall bedlam>.

Now. To be clear. There is a huge difference between taking a complex situation and in a simple way articulate what needs to be done and looking at a complex situation and articulating what needs to be done is simple.

The first is a skill.

The second is a lie.

Ok. I am done ranting. And all of this because I found the source of the word ‘bedlam.’

I honestly do not believe an organization is like a mental asylum. Most organizations are well thought out with well-intended managers or leaders. And most people in organizations do the best they can with best intentions.

My point is that most dynamic organizations, the really good ones, do have an underlying ‘bedlam feel’ that they can tap into. It verges on bedlam but very very rarely slips into actual bedlam.

And therein lies the danger from people who walk around with gobs of chaos. They have the ability to inadvertently guide an organization, or even a department or group, into real bedlam.

They are the ones who shout go ‘right, go right’ <or ’left, go left’ if they said right the last time>from the back seat while the leader in the front seat is mapping out a multiple path plan of progress <at different speeds for different departments>.

Not all decisions are simple.

In fact … most good decisions are defined by visionary complexity — the ability to envision paths yet to be taken or even sometimes yet to be built.

In fact … most decisions are defined by a complex intertwining of simultaneous tasks.

Bedlam managers suck at those type of decisions and therefore create more bedlam under the guise of simplicity. And while my rant may seem, well, simplistic … it is an important discussion to be had.

Recently some guy at the Yale School of Management found that the average lifespan of an S&P company dropped from 67 years in the 1920s to 15 years today. He also found that on average an S&P company is now being replaced every two weeks as well estimates that 75% of the S&P 500 firms will be replaced by new firms by 2027.

FYI. Santa Fe Institute researchers note that these findings are different from what you would see in Europe and Japan <their business lifespan is much longer>. And while many of these ‘deaths’ are because of mergers or acquisitions the majority represent real death.

Businesses fail or implode.

This suggests someone, a person, is at fault.

This also suggests in a business world where adjustment and transformation, in some degree, is almost essential to be successful & maintain a lifespan … bedlam managers can have dire consequences.

All I ask is that maybe you just think about this topic.

And store away this bedlam thought:

Simplicity creates bedlam in business organizations.

That thought alone will create bedlam.

==========

Originally published April 2015