================ 

“If I cannot deflect the will of Heaven, I will raise Hell.”

“flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.”

——-

Virgil

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

“Don’t try to behave as though you were essentially sane and naturally good. We’re all demented sinners in the same cosmic boat — and the boat is perpetually sinking.”

—-

Aldous Huxley

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

Ok.

This is about doing shit and doing the shit you really want to do … in business.

This is not about ‘finding your passion’ or ‘maximizing your potential’ … this is simply about something you actually decide you want to do … maybe something that is decided you should do … and are going to do.

Now.

I am sure I am going to completely bastardize the true meaning of this quote but I think about it with business in mind. This thought piece is a derivative of my “how far would you go to solve a problem” business thought.

In that piece I discussed saving your business. In this piece I am discussing saving your business objective or goal.

So.

Far too often businesses ‘hedge their bets’ against specific stretch goals & objectives. They sit in fancy conference rooms eating fancy snacks reviewing annual sales goals and business objectives and talk about ‘reaching high’ and then … well … blink. They start thinking, what they call, pragmatically … or practically.

Yeah.

They start ‘hedging.’ And when that happens not meeting the objective becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

What do I mean?

It is a tough, but reachable, objective and, yet, they don’t take the necessary complete steps to attain it. I am not suggesting this is easy.

Leading a business, particularly a larger one with some overarching politics and ‘management assessment mumbo jumbo’, is fraught with peril.

If you do what it takes to reach an objective and fall short … falling short looks … well … shorter. You invested and the investment REALLY did not pay off.

If you do what it takes to reach an objective and reach it … well … sometimes reaching it comes with a cost and your ROI don’t look as good as it could <by the way … this is a wacky version of “you did good … just not good enough”>.

Reality suggests to anyone with half a business brain that reaching true, not fake, stretch goals or aggressive objectives come at a cost. And that is where this Virgil quote comes into play. The Virgil quote is literally translated as “If I cannot deflect the will of superior powers, then I shall move the River Acheron” but more commonly translated as “If I cannot deflect the will of heaven, then I shall move hell.”

This is a version of “do what it takes to get where you want.”

I say that because I did a little research <mostly because I am not intellectual enough to actually read Virgil and like it>. Apparently in the Aeneid it is the goddess Juno who says this quote in a state of rage and defiance. She admits she doesn’t believe she can win but defiantly takes action anyway. Even better <to me> she is standing up against her peers … defending her right to do what she believes should be done, her own way, whether any of her peers approve.

And you know what?

If they do not approve, she will ignore them and “move the ancient river in her favor” … or … in my words … it becomes time to try and defy gravity.

She refuses to sit idle while others do nothing.

Look.

I will never <ever> suggest sacrificing values & ethics to win or reach an objective. My point is that to reach some objectives and aggressive goals you have to be defiant. You have to rebel against ‘hedging’ and sometimes you gotta step up and do what it takes. I do believe you can raise hell if heaven isn’t getting you where you need to be … without sacrificing ethics and values. And I do believe most managers in business need someone to rebel against their ‘fear of risk, failure, looking bad’ asses.

Anyway.

When I speak with businesses about the only thing I can tell them for sure … is that the future is uncertain. But I can also tell the with certainty that if history is a guide then we who are defiant, are determined, and do whatever it takes are the ones who push through the seemingly impossible and make it possible.

If you are a maker, a builder, an architect of fate … you do not hedge your bets nor do you let resources sit idle in inaction and, frankly, sit in inability to do shit that may assist in … well … doing shit.

========= 

“I shall find a way or make one.”

—

Robert Peary

=====

At some point in business you are forced to pick a side, pick a battle and pick a moment.

At some point in business you are forced to steer … or be steered.

At some point in business you are an architect of your own fate or fate will build you.

At some point in business you are forced to face adversity or be suffocated by that which stands in your way.

That said.

I could argue that the real difference in business remains one simple distinction. Those people who do something and those people who do nothing.

Ok.

Maybe the real difference in business is those people who do something when an aggressive goal is placed in front of them and those who people who do … well … less than it takes. And that is where determination steps into this discussion.

Because ‘less than’, in business, is clever. It can cleverly disguise itself in little line items and subtle decisions to hold back little things in reserve.

=====

“You give up the world line by line.

Stoically.

And then one day you realize that your courage is farcical.

It doesn’t mean anything. You’ve become an accomplice in your own annihilation and there is nothing you can do about it. Everything you do closes a door somewhere ahead of you.

And finally there is only one door left.”

Cormac McCarthy

======

Without really intending to subvert your effort to attain some sales goal you ultimately give up your objective line by line. In other words … you’ve become an accomplice in your own annihilation.

What is maybe worse than that?

As you hedge your bets you actually close door after door that maybe could have led you to your goal. Without steadfast determination, and maybe a little defiance to safe business protocol, you will inevitably find yourself standing at the only door left available for you … not reaching the goal and having excuses as to why you didn’t reach an aggressive goal.

Your main excuse? You were less aggressive than you needed to be to reach the aggressive goal.

I will conclude with the obvious.

Writing about this is easy. Doing what needs to be done is hard.

All I can suggest is that you tie your values and ethics on tight … and then go raise hell if heaven ain’t helping you make the objective.

All I can suggest is if you are in a position to actually do something just make sure you look in the mirror and make sure you are not an accomplice to your own annihilation.

All I can suggest is that if you want something, really want to DO something, more often than not … in most businesses which tend to be either lethargic or less than  efficient … you got to aggressively create your own path.

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

“A single dream is more powerful than a thousand realities.”

——

J.R.R. Tolkien

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

Well.

This is part 2 of the outcome generation … and that means I plan on discussing what we have wrought by focusing so much on outcome in business. I would suggest there is actually a slightly unexpected outcome of having become an outcome focused generation.

What do I mean?

Surprise, surprise, surprise … the young people come in every day to work thinking it is all about outcome.

Results, baby, results.

Fun?

Say what!

Passion?

WTF.

Outcome?

You bet.

In fact … business says “give me results when you come in … or get out.”

Some research.

Just to make everyone feel better … there is a real reason young people do this <actually all of us have this mental feature>.

Now.

To be clear … this mental feature is no excuse … and outcome gets driven by an out of whack business barometer of what is important <kind of> … but there is a reason.

It is called ‘adaptive ignorance.’

This adaptive ignorance is there for a reason — we celebrate it as “concentration” and welcome its way of easing our cognitive overload by allowing us to conserve our precious mental resources only for the stimuli of immediate and vital importance, and to dismiss or entirely miss all else.

“Attention is an intentional, unapologetic discriminator. It asks what is relevant right now, and gears us up to notice only that.”

But while this might make us more efficient in our goal-oriented day-to-day, it also makes us inhabit a largely unlived — and unremembered — life, day in and day out.

This adaptive ignorance is a mental tool we adopt to concentrate, and avoid extraneous overload stimuli, so we can pay attention to … well … results.

Outcome.

This adaptive ignorance also suggests a generation more and more constrained by a couple of things:

–          Productivity/outcome <just getting shit done or out of the way or solved>

–          The ways we learn to see the world.

In addition … as we adapt our thinking to concentrate on what we believe is most important <at the exclusion of other things> we create something researchers call ‘search images.’ These are things all of us employ when we need to narrow our attention in a goal-oriented task. Unfortunately … this is only helpful or even possible if we know what to look for. In business this comes to life in bar graphs that get higher & higher as they move to the right or highlighted milestones written on big boards and crap like that. They narrow our attention <at the exclusion of other things>.

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

“More is missed by not looking than not knowing.”

Thomas Mccrae

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

Regardless.

This version of adaptive ignorance within the younger generation, this thing we older folk have created, has had an additional unexpected outcome. We seem to have a higher dissatisfaction, or even lack of respect, of the younger generation than even past generations have had.

In fact … I would argue this is so because we self absorbed older generation spend so much time thinking how worthless the younger generation is we don’t stop and think about why this may be so.

Well.

Think about this:

–          Why is it that so many of us older folk are stepping back and thinking about doing something that we call ‘matters’ now?

–          Why do we have bank accounts, houses, good educations, nice cars and cool clothes … and still seem to want more?

Well.

I call it the burden of the “empty outcome” syndrome. That is the disease of the older generation work force.

What do I mean?

We have spent years and years in business everyday cranking out results.

Numbers … numbers … numbers.

More … more … more.

If you didn’t?

You weren’t successful.

What did we teach our kids?

Results, results, results.

Win <at any cost>.

Get good grades <not what did you learn>.

They watched us come in and out of the house … working gobs of hours … noticing that we were not really sure we liked what we were doing but always seeking to accumulate results <things, outcomes, etc.>.

 ====================

“There are two ways to get enough. One is to continue to accumulate more and more. The other is to desire less.”

G.K. Chesterton

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

But.

Here is the deal. The real truth.

What I believe many of us older folk are just understanding … it really ain’t about outcome <as we have defined it to date>.

There is more to life than ‘outcome.’

And, well, we feel empty now that we know this after having worked for years and gobs of hours solely focused on outcome <hence the ‘empty outcome syndrome’>.

What is the empty part?

In 1949, Harry F Harlow, Professor of Psychology at the University of Wisconsin, outlined something called “intrinsic motivation” … or the joy of the task itself. Research reflects that for most complex tasks intrinsic motivation is a much more powerful drive than any external motivator.

And a key part of this motivator is purpose.

Daniel Pink has stated … “The most highly motivated people, not to mention those who are most productive and satisfied, hitch their drives to a cause larger than themselves.”

Research bears this out. In other words, outcome … or even economic incentives alone … do not cause individuals to perform complex tasks better <but intrinsic motivation will>.

In the end.

While an older generation rue careers of outcome … staring in our business  mirrors seeing only careers of empty outcome … we are at the same time extremely uncomfortable with a younger generation who doesn’t think but rather is results-oriented <and, yes, they can be very different and siloed>.

We have wrought this.

We can undo this.

Now that is an outcome I can embrace.

Let’s destroy the obsessive focus on outcomes & create a business world focused on substantive intrinsic motivations.

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

“When you make a choice, you change the future.”

―

Deepak Chopra

===========

“Oh, yes. Choosing… it has always hurt. And always will. I know.”

―

George R.R. Martin

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

Ok.

This is about Intelligence … and making choices.

Why do I put both of these together? Well. Do you know the origin of the word ‘intelligence’?

<because I did not>

Intelligence is derived from the latin verb intelligere … which actually means “to choose among.’

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm … so that means an intelligent person isn’t a smart <high IQ> person or one who has reams and reams of knowledge and factoids stored away in their pea-like brains <although I envision it could increase the likelihood of actually being intelligere>.

It actually suggests that the ‘intelligent’ are those who can discriminate fact from fiction, truth from lies, which half of a half-truth is the important half … and I imagine those who can discriminate … even if only between the bad and the worse.

Oh.

And, of course, that means intelligere is founded upon the concept of choice. And not jut the ability to discern the choice but also the character, and fortitude, and smarts … to actually make choices.

In addition … intelligere demands one have the curiosity to have at hand that which is needed to actually create, and have, ‘the among’ available.

Uhm.

The ability to ‘choose among.’

Once again … we seem to face the uncomfortable truth that things are rarely black & white, choices are inherently unclear and a simple “if this then it must be that” linear choice is almost never at hand.

Intelligere is … well … not easy.

Look.

I don’t know that I really have a point to make here today.

I simply found this interesting. It made me think about what I perceive as ‘intelligence’ in people.

I know I had always simply thought people who were smart were intelligent. And, frankly, I didn’t think much beyond that.

But.

Assessing intelligence not just as being smart but rather what you do with those smarts?

Whew.

I like that.

===

“Believe those who are seeking the truth.

 

Doubt those who find it.”

 

————

Andre Gide

=====

Well.

If I could earn a salary being a truth seeker I would sign up today. In fact. I believe we need a job like this.

I think we need a job like this because … well … Truth is significantly more elusive than I tend to think we believe. Truth is rarely simple … certainly not as simple as we would like it to be and even more rarely tied to what could be misconstrued as “common sense.” Truth is often complex, nuanced & tinged with contradictions.

And because I believe what I just wrote … I am always wary of those who come out blazing by speaking “the truth.”

Why? Things are rarely black & white. I also imagine I say this because my truth attitude is tempered by the fact I have been called optimistically cynical.

While my incessant curiosity always has me pursuing new & better & different knowledge <which inevitably create unlearning> I guess I question everything upfront. This means I filter thru everything I hear & rarely accept it as “it is what it is,” I imagine this is my cynicism part <or maybe one would hope as I have become older I can judge what to question and what to accept upfront>.

My optimistic side?  I always believe great things come of the cynicism filter <rather than use cynicism to drag things down>. Maybe this style of mine insures I feel more confident in what I know versus what I don’t know as well as draws my thoughts & thinking a little more away from opinion & more towards truth, fact & real knowledge.

By the way. I would like to believe more people <and society … and business … in general> would benefit from a filter like that.

Regardless.

I would like to believe I am one of those people who is constantly seeking truth. I may not be, but, it is certainly a good objective to try to attain. And I would welcome anyone on to my truth seeking team <as long as they truly were open to “unlearning to learn”>.

I do know that I believe as long as you are ‘seeking’ … you are being persistently curious … and … well … there are worse things to be.

I do know that I believe we need more persistently curious truth seekers in today’s world.

Anyway.

Truth seeker.

Well.

That is certainly a title I would like to put on a business card. Tough job but, whew, I would do take this job in a second.

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

“We should place confidence in our employee.

Confidence is the foundation of friendship.

If we give it, we will receive it.

Any person in a managerial position, from supervisor to president, who feels that his employee is basically not as good as he is and who suspects his employee is always trying to put something over on him, lacks the necessary qualities for human leadership – to say nothing of human friendship.”

—–

Harry Humphreys

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

“The conventional definition of management is getting work done through people, but real management is developing people through work.”

—-

Agha Abedi

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

Well.

Leading and managing people is possibly one of the most rewarding things you can do in a business career.

Firing people is possibly one of the most unrewarding things you can do in a business career.

Unfortunately these two things are inextricably linked.

I could argue that once you assume responsibility for firing someone … you learn more about yourself, and I imagine others learn about you, than from almost any other responsibility you assume as a leader.

No one likes firing people. Well. No one who is any good at business leadership. I don’t care if you absolutely hate the person you are firing, if the person has actually committed a fireable offense and you are in the right to fire them, or even if you fire someone for good reason … suffice it to say … it never feels good to fire someone.

And because of that … a good business leader never delegates the tough termination. And they never send someone to terminate a direct report.

Generally speaking … you fire anyone who is a direct report, or you were directly responsive for hiring, face to face.

Yeah.

This may not be, logistically, the easiest thing to do but it is part of the burden of responsibility. It is the mantle you wear and it is what you are obligated to offer the person being terminated – dignity & respect.

Anything less than that and you are shirking your responsibility.  Anything less than that is … well … chicken shit. And you are a chickenshit business leader if you do not do these things.

Sure.

What I just shared is a hard lesson but one business people learn in young management.

I will never forget the first person I ever fired. Paul.

An absolute great guy in absolutely the wrong position and possibly career. But that doesn’t mean it was easy to terminate him. While I was 99% sure it was the right thing to do <and my boss and her bosses agreed> there was an extraordinarily loud 1% in my head that kept me awake that night.

Inevitably he chose a different career and went on to become an SVP of sales.

And he was kind enough to drop me a couple of notes to tell me it all worked out for the best.

But I will never forget firing him. I can honestly say I never forget anyone I have fired <and that is a semi-long list after years of management>.

However.

I would like to think my leadership career is measured more by the people I did not fire.

Not firing, in a larger organization, can be harder than you think.

I think I spent more time explaining to the most senior people why I would not fire some of the people I managed than I did ever discussing almost anything else about employees with them.

Well. That is … it felt that way.

The crap that floats upwards into senior leadership about individual employees is amazing. The littlest mistakes and quirks seem to take on exponential size when it arrives at the most senior people — and they do not hesitate to share their disproportional views.

Regardless. All of those views cut into the ‘trust belief’ … are they respected within the organization, do they have the trust of the organization and can they be trusted with their responsibility.

And that is when you earn your stripes as a manager. You do not cave in to the ‘easy thing to do’ but rather stand up for your people and let the chips fall as they may. Oh. And you learn it is totally worth it to not take the easy way out.

Let me be clear.

No one is perfect. I was not a perfect employee nor was a perfect manager. And, yet, when judging employees there sometimes is the ‘perfect measure’ of which becomes the absurd standard.

Yes.

We should judge senior people more critically but we should judge them fairly.

Anyway.

I didn’t fire a lot of people. And I can think of at least 4 who made me incredibly proud that I didn’t … despite some pressure from others to do so.

All 4 of these have sent me notes at different points, not thanking me for not firing them but rather for simply giving them a chance, believing in them and seeing something in them that they knew <because all employees know when they are under ‘the human resources microscope’>  many others didn’t.

All 4 of them have been professionally successful and, more importantly, are solid good human beings. Neither of those are because I didn’t fire them but rather vindicate the non-firing decision.

All that said.

Firing someone, despite the pain of actually doing it, is often the easy way out and is certainly a way to avoid looking at your own flaws.

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

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

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

It is an unfortunate truth that:

• Talent is talent.
• Smarts are smarts.
• And expertise is almost always relative.

At any given point in Life and your career you can look around you and, if you are self aware, you will note you are rarely the most talented, rarely the smartest one in the room and rarely the only expert.

Even on your best day you may not actually be the best.

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

But I also imagine if you do wrap your head around it evaluating employees and how you fire them is affected.

I always watch how someone terminates an employee.

You can learn a lot about people in that situation … and you can learn a shitload about how someone feels about dignity, respect and responsibility in how they terminate an employee.

===========

Postscript 1: under the general heading of “chickenshit” from a business perspective I will comment on a Trump firing:

There are hundreds of different viable reasons to fire someone and if you have the responsibility to hire & fire and it is ‘at will’ you can do what you want. But HOW Trump fired James Comey was chickenshit.

It wasn’t face to face with a direct report <or even face to face with anyone … just a letter delivered by a non-government employee>.

While there appeared to be no sense of urgency to terminate the action was taken with an absurd sense of senseless urgency which permitted Comey the indignity of being blindsided, in the middle of a commitment to the people who reported to him and not even in town.

This was a chicken shit way of terminating an honorable employee. It is indicative of Trump’s lack of character.

Postscript 2: Under the general heading of “this is some crazy shit” from a business perspective:

Firing someone for lack of confidence when the people who you are actually working for have a general lack of confidence in you is slightly surreal.

This may actually be the ironic point of this little postscript rant.

The stated “Donald J Trump fired his FBI Director because of ‘lack of confidence’ is … well … crazy shit.

Well. If that is a true criteria and I were to look at some national polling data I could argue Trump could be fired on the same criteria by the American people.

Most leaders do not defend their firing decision through childish name calling.

“Crying Chuck” .. “Richie” in quotes <instead of Richard>. Calling people diminishing names. Childish crap like that. I have been criticized as a leader for people I have fired, as well as people who I didn’t fire, and when appropriate I responded with some “why I did it” information but I never deflected my choice & decision onto others by suggesting they were not qualified to criticize … and I certainly always treated peers with a modicum of respect.

Tweet response rather than standing up in person

Sniping from the sidelines is not leadership.

Period.

‘nuf said.

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

“Life is a test of endurance, strengths, challenges and patience.”

–

Kim Hoth

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

“We are many, many people and yet we are one. What we do today with our thinking, what we do tomorrow with our thoughts, what we do with our actions and our interactions with people determines the course of the universe itself.

You are not powerless. You are not without power.” 

 –

Little Crow

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

Well. I have written several times about how businesses fear doing what it truly takes to survive <for some good reasons & some bad reasons>. I was reminded of this because I just saw an article that said “GE is broken. Fixing it will be long & difficult.”

My 1^st thought?

They will fail to fix it just like Kodak failed to fix itself and … well … there is a long list of companies faced with ‘broken’ and failed to fix itself.

Oddly enough the reason is simple.

They weren’t willing to make the hard choices and were not willing to do what needed to be done.

== 

“Stop discussing how serious the problem is, and get serious about finding an immediate solution to it.”

Terry Mark

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

This permits me to share my favorite business lesson. One from September 14^th 1812. The beginning of the lesson? On September 14^th 1812, the Russians set fire to Moscow in the face of Napoleon Bonaparte’s troops.

Yup. The governor of Moscow herded out most of the Moscow residents and then burned almost 80% of the city.

Just as a reminder to all non-historians this began the demise of Napoleon’s reign. This action not only permitted Russia to defeat Napoleon by forcing a debilitating retreat back to France, but it also began the demise of the Grand Armee of France. The point of this is, well, how far would you go to solve your business problem?

What happened on this date should make us all think about what we in the business world would sacrifice to win.

Look.

Do you imagine there was consensus in this Moscow discussion & decision? <hell no>

In fact. Can you imagine the first person who stood up and said “hey, I have an idea, how about we purposely burn Moscow so they can’t have it?”

<of course all said in Russian, probably after several liters of vodka, to the Czar and probably a couple of Cossack bodyguards … who have some very sharp swords>

Someone had some guts – lots of guts. I hesitate to believe many people in today’s business world have that type of guts.

The tough decisions are … well … tough. Hard choices are … well … hard. And I can guarantee they seem to get even tougher & harder when your survival is at stake.

—————

So would you be willing to burn your burn your business to win in the face of overwhelming odds?

——————

Far too often we try to keep our options open. Straddle the fence as it were. Keep some of what we value in place and do “radical” shit with other parts. 90% of the time that is simply mental masturbation. 90% of the time that is simply suggesting your Frankenstein strategy will help you survive … when what you actually need is a “6 million Dollar Man” strategy.

Sometimes you have to kill the structure to rebuild something better from the ashes.

I say all this because I believe more businesses, whether they believe their survival is at stake or not, should be sitting down and having the hard discussion … what ARE you willing to do to win?

Heck. Maybe most importantly. When you look at your situation do you even recognize how desperate your situation is?

<remember … someone in Russia recognized, and had the balls to say something about, the fact they were about to get their ass kicked>

I mention that because the business landscape is strewn with the wreckage of businesses that did not envision their own demise.

Next. Think about ‘burning the city’ as a solution.

I believe we can all agree that someone “stepped out of the box” with a solution. Ok. They actually stepped ‘into the box’ and said “let’s destroy the box.’

And let’s be clear. I have to imagine neither of these points, as stated above, were popular, well-received nor accepted as a 100% agreement “so what we will do” type of moment.

Anyway. Survival or not, one of the most difficult things a company can do is address their situation in the market. It is just not a fun discussion <usually lots of fingers get pointed in a variation of a circular firing squad>.

In general I believe most companies and businesses are pretty good at assessing their situation in the marketplace. I, for one, have been in a number of those types of meetings where everyone sits down and honestly assesses the difficult position they are in. In other words, you can see the hole you are in or heading into.

I also have been through too many meetings where that same business just isn’t willing to do what it takes to resolve the situation.

Hey. I am not suggesting this is an easy discussion <but at least we don’t have Cossacks with really sharp swords standing around us while we are discussing what to do>.

So.

Are you willing to put 80% of everything you have up in flames to win? I guess it depends on whether you believe the situation merits it. And that is a toughie for sure because we are certainly a country and group of optimists and in general we always believe there is a positive horizon. All that means is we tend to lean back in our expensive chairs in some expensive board room and think, well, c’mon … if you believe there is some positive horizon then burning ‘the city’ isn’t necessary.

But. What if it is necessary? Would you recognize it? Would someone in your group recognize it?

Oh. And if someone did would you listen?

Look. I don’t have the answers. And I am clearly a “burning the city” type of person. I am quite fine with destroying to create <not just destroying for the sake of destroying>.

You may not agree with me, but I would point out burning Moscow sure as shit helped guarantee the survival of Russia.

In the end?

Keep your eyes open. And keep your mind open to solutions. Most of the time we see the danger but, in our optimism, seek creative ways to navigate the danger all the while ignoring the fact danger has no finesse and is a sledgehammer. Ponder. Sometimes the extreme solution, while scary, is the right solution.

========

“The most successful businessman is the man who holds onto the old just as long as it is good, and grabs the new just as soon as it is better.”

—

Lee Iacocca

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

“I have found that hollow, which even I had relied on for solid.”

—–

Henry David Thoreau

==========

Ok.

Let’s get the harsh truth out upfront. I am a 50something and I believe the older generation, mostly old white men, hollowed out business to the shithole point we face today.

That said.

Let me spend a minute on old white men <and I have the right to do so … because I am one> to explain why I believe this.

While a generalization, because there are exceptions, old white men have hollowed out the business world in their quest for “winning at any cost” and “maximize win-to-cash <making $>” ratio. These men have guided business to a level of so-called “greatness” through a variety of ‘great’ business acumen thoughts & business culture attitudes which were hollow attitudes and, ultimately, created fantastic looking hollow achievements.

In doing so they successfully hollowed out business.

Now.

The other aggravating thing I am doing today is, while I could write this without making this point, everyone should note that Trump is the poster child of this hollowness <and I will aggravatingly point it out over and over again>.

He has been the guiding light into this dark world of money grubbers with questionable moral compasses. You want some specifics? Here you go. This is how they have hollowed out business:

Capitalism

Capitalism is not inherently bad. In fact … it is an incredible engine for growth, innovation and increased wealth & standard of living for any and all.

But old white men hollowed capitalism. They took out all the good and added all the greed. I could partially defend old white men and suggest that they were simply participants in the arc of business history … but I will not. Peter Drucker pointed out the beginning of the arc in 1989 <as I noted in Salvation by Society> and we old white men could have eyed the arc and … well … stopped it. Instead old white men viewed the arc as an opportunity to not be burdened by morality & soul rather an opportunity to build personal wealth.

That is Trump in a nutshell.

Branding

Brands are fabulous creatures and not inherently bad. They offer us every day schmucks a nice heuristic way to make decisions and isolate differentiation in which we can make true choices.

But old white men hollowed brands. The easiest way to point this out is that we stopped talking about brands and started talking about branding. Old white men started looking at brands as vehicles of wealth and not vehicles of differentiation. Brands should evolve and not be constructed or built like some building of cold steel and cheap Styrofoam ceiling tiles. The whole concept of ‘building a brand’ is one of the most insidious concepts to infiltrate good and meaningful marketing and communications.

That is Trump in a nutshell.

Profit.

Profit is not inherently bad. Used wisely it contributes not only to personal, or individual wealth, but spurs on business growth in terms of innovation and employee development AND social involvement. But old white men hollowed the soul out of each dollar as they squeezed every cent of profit it of it. Profit is good only if it is not tainted by <a> greed and <b> at the expense of giving back <in terms of true societal salvation type things>. Businesses represent an important weave in the fabric of society and the moment a business ignores that weave and focuses solely on the profits of the entity itself … well … the opportunity arises to let the soul of each dollar made bleed out into the ether. And, yes, dollars can have a soul. Making money shouldn’t feed stock holders it should feed society.

That is Trump in a nutshell.

Wealth dispersion

Making money and creating wealth is inherently a double positive: proof of the value for your efforts and increased standard of living <not just in materialistic comforts but in real living>.

Old white men hollowed out the middle. This is more a byproduct of their business acumen more than anything else because I cannot really point out any specific behavior they consciously took to do this … but … suffice it to say that more went to the old white men and less to the ones who actually made the money for them.

That is Trump in a nutshell.

Communication.

Effective communication has been, and always will be, complex and complicated. But effective communication inevitably feeds into the minds and enlightenment of the listeners. If you dumb down communication inevitably you dumb down the listeners.

Old white men hollowed out communication. I imagine as they hollowed out everything else they found it inherently more productive to gain their objectives by hollowing out communication. Everything became soundbites, powerpoint bullet points and ‘elevator speeches.’ Effectively communicating complexity took on less importance than puncturing the mind with a quick sharp stab <and then walking away>. Old white men mastered the art of emptying communication to a point where businesses end up walking on the slippery surface of irrelevance <cloaked in a beautiful robe called “what is important for you to know.”>

That is Trump in a nutshell.

ROI.

ROI <return on investment> is a fabulous tool. It offers us every day unimaginative pragmatic schmucks an almost heuristic way to judge some fairly complex and complicated things in business.

But old white men hollowed ROI of anything intangible and along the way scraped away some of the most meaningful things associated with investment in their desire for simplistic “this led to that.” Certainly some investments have linear outcomes and results. But not all. And these hollow men in their black & white pursuit of profit, efficiency and outcomes became color blind.  Old white men started looking at people as equal to numbers & dollars and not organic organisms of less than linear productivity <in terms of Life actualization as well as business actualization>. These hollow men fell in love with numbers and began diminishing the value of humanity.

That is Trump in a nutshell.

Racism

Racism in the workplace is a stealthy virus invading the organism in ways that can create an unhealthy organism which sometimes seems to never attain its full potential despite producing results.

Old white men enable this virus to exist by hollowing out the meaning in any racism discussion, and real substantive actions, in business.

These old white men rose through the ranks of business surrounded by other white people, & few minorities, simply believing it was so because it was a reflection of those “who deserved to be here” (assuming everyone COULD be here if they worked hard enough). When in leadership positions & told about racism issues they didn’t really believe it, reluctantly doing things they were told they should do all the while thinking “it’s just political correctness”. The times old white men got trapped in diversity meetings & told 5 things they did & said that were racist in their heads they said “they can’t handle truth, they are too sensitive.” What this all led to was hollow efforts at addressing racism. They grudgingly implemented some initiatives, while publically espousing their enlightenment, but privately thinking it was a waste of time, energy & monies. All the while they believed white people never got any more breaks than anyone else or that there was never any inherent ‘privileges’ bestowed upon white skinned people.

What the business world ended up with was a generation of old white men who are the worst of racists – racists convinced they are not racist. Ultimately, any substantive efforts to address racism in business were hollowed out by old white men who didn’t really believe in them.

That is Trump in a nutshell.

Lastly.

Behavior.

I hesitated to call this “the hollowing out of morality” mostly because that sounded a little harsh and I tend to believe the reality within this particular hollowness is more pragmatic. That said … it doesn’t make it any better just that I didn’t really want to get into a morality & ethical finger pointing game.

Behavior

Leadership is a complex mix of personal, professional and pragmatic. When wielded well it is a beautiful tapestry of effectiveness, however, beauty is often in the eyes of the beholder when actual effectiveness becomes

the measuring stick. As a reminder, old white men leadership grew up in a business of dictatorship leadership behavior or, at its best, benevolent dictatorship.

Old white men grew up in the hallowed halls of hollowed leadership management. This means that their ‘management twitch muscles’ inevitably provide reflexive business decision making based on this.

The easiest way to point this out is that businesses have developed a myriad of cultural initiatives and, yet, old white men leadership tends to simply treat them as “feel good politically correct” initiatives. They view them as “society dictated” thinking and not “business dictated” thinking. Therefore, a hollowness was inherent in the organization between how the old white men leaders attitudinally approached the business, how they viewed behavior and how the organization actually behaved.

Old white men began talking longingly of straight talk, when people knew their place in business and ‘carrot & sticks.’  Old white men started looking at businesses in disdain as vehicles of political correctness and not stark effectiveness. The truth is that many of the old white men simply didn’t buy in to a better way of doing business and, therefore, when put in a corner & challenged revert back to the hollow management style of “do what I tell you to do and shut up.”

To be fair, old white men did not create this hollowness … they simply propagated it.

That is Trump in a nutshell.

All that said.

These old white men, in their heart of hearts, inherently do not care about a ‘better America’ from a soul perspective nor do they care about any aspect of ‘being a better person’ but solely attach ‘better’ with wealth, importance and wins.

I get angry.

I get angry because I do not believe ‘hollowness’ is the path to greatness. It certainly has not helped us reach greatness up to this point.

And I am angry because I have believed this, and known this, for decades.

And I am even angrier because we are now led by a hollow someone with a hollow platform, hollow plans, hollow skills, hollow dignity, hollow composure and no soul <that I can see>.

Look.

This can be solved. And it can be solved by … well … old guys like me.

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

“At any other time it’s better.

You can do the things you feel you should; you’re an expert at going through the motions. Your handshakes with strangers are firm and your gaze never wavers; you think of steel and diamonds when you stare. In monotone you repeat the legendary words of long-dead lovers to those you claim to love; you take them into bed with you, and you mimic the rhythmic motions you’ve read of in manuals. When protocol demands it you dutifully drop to your knees and pray to a god who no longer exists. But in this hour you must admit to yourself that this is not enough, that you are not good enough. And when you knock your fist against your chest you hear a hollow ringing echo, and all your thoughts are accompanied by the ticks of clockwork spinning behind your eyes, and everything you eat and drink has the aftertaste of rust.”

―

Dexter Palmer

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

Old white men created the problems and … well … as so well said in the movie The Return of the Pink Panther … “you set a thief to catch a thief.”

Older people can reverse the problem in one fell swoop.

I could do it with a small merry band of contrarian older people (women & men) who have chafed in this hollow existence could bring some good healthy substance back into this wretched hollowness.

This is a unique time in history in which business, country and politics have intersected.

This is a unique time for older business people to right the wrongs of all they have wrought up to this point.

I certainly hope this happens, as an old white man myself, simply for the sake of redemption for all of us old white men.

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

“You are talking crazy-person talk. Put your words in word places please.”

―

Buffy the Vampire Slayer

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

So.

I have relentlessly outlined Trump’s shortcomings from a business leadership standpoint.

I have relentlessly outlined Trump’s dubious relationship with the truth.

But today I turn to … well … not even his words … but how he talks.

I mean … well … who the hell talks like this?

“You know, I’m, like, a smart person.”

Uh huh.

Yeah.

Right.

I can honestly say that after having sat in thousands of business meetings, hundreds of conference rooms, dozens of boardrooms and currently trade personal emails with a wide range of business executives … the only person I have ever heard talk like this in a corporate business environment was eventually fired, monitored as he packed up his office, and escorted out of the office by security people.

He was a whack job.

And he talked like this.

All of this makes me begin to think Trump may actually … sigh … not telling us the truth when he says, “you know, I’m like a smart person.”

<note: “like” falls into the same speech pattern as the valley girl “whatever”>

The evidence continues to mount just from the shit he says that he is … well … just not smart.

I know dozens of business executives.

I know some incredibly smart people … maybe even some brilliant people.

I know some Ivy League graduates. Heck. I even know a Wharton person <Stanford people tend to be smarter & I have never met a non-smart Yale grad>.

And what I know is that none of these people talk like this.

I am no psychologist but I imagine the people who talk like this, and the ones who talk in first person <Ricky Henderson most likely being the most famous first person speaker — he called San Diego GM Kevin Towers and left the following message: “This is Rickey calling on behalf of Rickey. Rickey wants to play baseball.” > are people who are actually trying to persuade themselves that they are smart, have a good brain and know good words.

I admit when I hear Trump talk, well, I teeter between repeating Rex Tillerson’s reported thought on Trump — “fucking moron” – and simply shaking my head and saying “who the hell talks like this?”

All I know is that it seems more cartoon-like than President-like:

———————-

“I went to an Ivy League college. I was a nice student. I did very well. I’m a very intelligent person.”

‘I’m, like, a really smart person’

“I am also honored to have the greatest temperament that anybody has.”

“I would say basically we talked condolence.”

“I have one of the great memories of all time.”

“Nobody has more respect than I do. Nobody.”

“Well, I think the press makes me more uncivil than I am. You know – people don’t understand – I went to an Ivy League college. I was a nice student. I did very well. I’m a very intelligent person. You know, the fact is, I think, I really believe, I think the press creates a different image of Donald Trump than the real person.”

“… my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, okay, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart

“My generals and my military, they have decision-making ability,”

“The response and recovery effort probably has never been seen for something like this. This is an island, surrounded by water. Big water. Ocean water.”

After arriving in Israel from Saudi Arabia, Trump told his hosts: “We just got back from the Middle East.”

And, of course,

Trump to hurricane victims in Puerto Rico: “Have a good time”

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

I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer but, c’mon, no reasonable business person with any reasonable experience talks like this.

And we know that.

We do.

For some we knew this is not normal behavior earlier and for others it has been a grudging realization.

That said.

While we know no one should talk like this we have two problems in finally admitting it & dealing with it:

• The Slippery slope of excuses.

I have written several times about the “slippery slope of ‘just this once’.”

Just once becomes … well … okay just one more time … and then … oops … and you are well on your way on the slippery slope.

Suffice it to say a shitload of people are on the slippery slope with regard to making excuses for Trump.

And they know it.

And while those of us not on the slope can stand there and be righteous … I think it would behoove us to recognize that any slippery slope is a sonuvabitch to get off of.

We would be foolish to utter some simplistic tripe like “just do it” … just get off it.

We would be foolish because it is difficult — for everyone <if you have ever been on a slippery slope … despair, small lies, depression, etc. … you understand>.

Give someone a hand.

Help them.

Quit moralizing. Quit being righteous. Quit being holier than thou. Just fucking help them get off the slippery slope.

• Holding him accountable and our own accountability.

Oh … shit. Accountability is a two way street. No matter how heinous Trump may be on occasion if you hold him accountable … you will also be held accountable. What that means is it inevitably becomes a comparison of ‘failings.’

Well.

That sucked to type.

This means failings of character.

This means failings in judgement.

All of your own failings enter into the accountability fray <and I can guarantee he will bring them into the fray>.

If you make him accountable for his, you need to be accountable for yours <and do not be defensive in doing so>.

And this means dealing with a ‘counterpuncher’ who cannot discern the false equivalence between character failings and judgement and simply hammers away in his simplistic grade school rhetoric in a “if this, then that” pushback.

That sounds … well … horrible. But here’s what you have on your side.

Remember … who the hell talks like that?

Yeah. That’s his weak spot. Accountability does not need intellectualism so you can leave the high falutin’ words at home. Accountability of character & judgement is easy to articulate. It is easy because people really do know right from wrong and that how you win matters more than just winning … they just need to be reminded. And when they are reminded … people will hold him accountable.

Look.

No truly experienced normal business person talks like how Trump talks. They would get kicked out of any office in any viable business in America.

Trump has had 71 years, access to some of the finest America has to offer in education and the opportunity to learn more through experiences than most of us could ever dream for.

He has squandered them all.

Other than being able to bully his way through real estate transactions and make gobs of money off of licensing deals <which is simply being a grifter> he is hollow … hollow of even the most basic information a United States high school senior possesses.

If we cannot win against someone who talks like this, who is hollow … well … WTF … we don’t deserve to win.

Me? I would take him on anywhere at any time. He is hollow, I have seen hollow in business, and I know hollow cannot win.

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

“The first draft is for the writer.

The second draft is for the editor.

The last draft is for the reader.”

——–

Unknown

<something I had scribbled down on a scrap of paper>

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

“I would go on writing even if I know I would not be published.”

—-

John Le Carre

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

Ok.

I write a lot.

Probably too much.

In my personal writing I can honestly say I have never posted something unedited.

Even the easiest things I have written get tightened up, edited and revised as I reread. Sometimes not much … but everything gets tweaked – some a little … some a lot.

Even then … typos remain.

Now.

In my professional life I use outlines, drafts and finals.

I do this because my mind is always at work.

I hear things, read things & see things and all the while my mind is juggling all of this stimulus rethinking, rewriting and recreating.

By the way … this acknowledges that I could, on occasion, run into some aspects of unintended plagiarism.

But because I am an ‘editor of things’ this means I am comfortable rearranging things. In fact … I never get tired of rearranging let alone thinking. I would do it 24/7 if I didn’t have to sleep.

However.

Doing all of this without any purpose or objective is simply mental masturbation.

That’s why the three draft rule is a good one.

The first draft is all about you, what you think and how you want to say things.

The second draft smooths out the edges and insures the personal “you” is getting in the way of clear communication and truth.

The third draft insures whatever YOU want to say connects with what THEY need to hear, want to hear and should hear.

It is a mistake to reverse this order. Reversing the order strips the presenter of any passion and creativity … it becomes more of an “order taker” type presentation or document.

Anyway.

The other thing people say about drafts is that each one eliminates so that the last one is the ‘brevity’ version.

I don’t agree <in general>.

The three draft method is actually more like an hour glass.

The first draft is almost always too long and … well … too.

The second draft tends to peel shit off of what you have.

The third draft more often puts some meat back on the bones tied to the reader/audience.

A lot of people, simplistically, balk at this. They don’t see the meat as useful and abhor adding things at this stage.

Once again, I disagree.

I disagree because I  typically think of Claude Hopkins, a man who pioneered the concept of advertising as we know it, in 1923 <“Scientific Advertising” is a worthwhile read with worthwhile advice applicable even in today’s world>.

If Hopkins was known for one thing it would be “persuasion.” Everything centered on that. Not brevity or pictures versus words or any of that bullshit we waste time pontificating over these days … just persuasion and doing whatever is necessary to persuade.

For example.

With a prospect standing before a salesperson, would you confine him to any certain number of words? That would be an unthinkable handicap.

Successful writing almost always depends on maintaining perspective – keep in mind no one really reads what you write for amusement <but that doesn’t mean you cannot amuse on occasion>.

Consider them as prospects standing before you, seeking for information.

Give them enough to get action.

Some advocate large type and big headlines. Yet no one likes salespeople who talk only in loud voices.

We should measure everything we do by salespeople standards not by amusement standards. Ads are not written to entertain. When they do, those entertainment seekers are little likely to be the people whom you want. That is one of the greatest advertising faults. Ad writers abandon their parts. You can never forget you are salespeople, not a performer.

Seek a sale, not applause.

Regardless.

All presentations really can get boiled down into 3 important aspects:

• Figure out what you want to sell <persuade people to think or do>

• Figure out what you want to say

• Figure out how you want to say it

All the other mumbo jumbo on ‘tricks to effective presenting’ is irrelevant if you don’t figure out these two things. In fact, I would argue you could throw away all the presentation books if you figure these two things out.

What you want to say sounds simple but it is not. Because inevitably you get caught up in ALL the things you want to say, prioritizing what you want to say and getting what you want to say down on paper <or whatever format you elect to organize the presentation>.

All I can say for sure is that you need to put it in a draft, a document or a script. Without it you cannot edit. And without editing <unless you are Bill Clinton> you are screwed.

Next.

Figuring out how you want to say it.

Okay. Let me tell you a truth, a fact, a ‘something no one really wants to hear.’

99% of the time what you just figured out to say will sound like crap if you just read it as a presentation.

Maybe 99.9% of the time. Writing & speaking are two different skills. They may be derivatives of each other but one typically does not translate directly to the other.

There will always be presenters who are obviously reading their presentation script off a teleprompter <which is a skill in itself by the way> and it sounds obviously stilted and in some cases like it was the first time they had heard these words out loud.

And the issue wasn’t because they were reading a script <another complaint young people throw around when arguing they want to be ‘natural’ when presenting>. It was the script they were reading. They wrote something that sounded good in their head when they read it … but sounded stupid when actually saying it. By the way … that is why rehearsing is important.

Why does this shit happen? Well. Let me give you 3 thoughts <beyond the obvious lack of rehearsing>:

–          Forced rules of behavior

All the things I am going to type drive me crazy, but maybe this one the most.

These are the ‘rules’ like … you cannot stand still, or you have to move, or you can’t have your hands in your pockets, or … well … just go ahead and pick up a ‘how to’ presentation book … they will list all the ‘don’t rules’.

Nuts.

I just say ‘nuts’ to that.

I have stood with hands in my pockets just stepping up to the microphone and delivered. No one cared I wasn’t using my hands.

Why?

Because they were listening to what I had to say. As a generalization … all the ‘how to present’ rules are stupid. If you have something good to say, and you say it in a compelling, believable, likeable way, the rest of the stuff just gets in the way. It’s all about the message. If you know, and like, your message just deliver it in as comfortable a ‘behavior’ style you want.

Nuts to all the book rules.

–          Forced passion

This one drives me nuts too. It’s kind of like speaking with exclamation points hoping the exclamation points travel through the ether between you and your audience and pricks them in the ass to make them stand up and yell “hell yeah!”

Some people shout.

Some people create sentences which they purposefully amplify the end.

Some people shake a fist, or pound a table or make some ‘exclamatory’ gesture just so everyone knows they are passionate about whatever they are talking about.

Sometimes they don’t really want to do this shit but someone suggests “show them you are passionate” and … well … the wheels start to fall of the good presentation wagon.

Why?

It’s all forced.

And it’s a shame because most presenters are actually passionate about something related to their topic <assuming you do the three draft method – me, edit, reader – in that order>. And they don’t need to be overt to communicate it. They just need to share their passion in whatever way they exude it.

I have been extremely passionate on a topic … and all I did was talk. I said how she felt and what I believed. And you know what? People believed me. they may not have been persuaded … but they believed what I had to say.

Here is the bottom line. If you care, it will show. You need not tell someone you are passionate. In fact … here you go … a rule.

Never say in a presentation, meeting or discussion … “I am passionate about ‘x’.”

Prove it without ever saying it.

–          Forced relevance <or forced theme>

I almost split this into two but they are just two sides of the same coin. In an attempt to make their topic relevant to either the audience or the environment <you can choose either> a presenter can go to some fairly absurd lengths.

They can use a joke which isn’t really relevant until you explain why.

Well, let me say this, 99% of the time if you are using a joke or come up with some forced relevance it means you are working too hard. Go back to the simple first aspect and think about what it is you want to say. If it isn’t compelling or understandable, a joke or forced metaphor or forced semi-topical linkage isn’t going to help.

In fact it can hurt.

How?

Because it is extraneous. And extraneous things and activity tugs the audience away from what you really want them to remember and say. I don’t usually get aggravated over this one instead I just get frustrated that the speaker doesn’t trust the topic is interesting enough, and it can be presented interestingly enough, to simply present it.

Lastly.

If I want to connect with the reader/listener with my last draft I have to put the screws down on the persuasion aspect.

And I would suggest you think about this slightly differently than many people talk about it – think about the fact what you are saying has to meet some price/value equation.

Simplistically … this is about alignment.

And, no, this isn’t about ‘first impressions’ because a presentation is a compilation/summary of impressions.

We all know this <but I will remind you anyway> … we are evaluating things all the time.

And even if we recognize that we are evaluating <like in viewing a presentation> we still don’t even recognize much of the evaluation that takes place because much of it is actually usually automatic, subconscious.

There has been a boatload of research done on evaluation which I will not bore you with … but will share a cliff notes summary of key points:

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

This process of evaluation can be broken down into the rising and falling of two perceptions:  Perceived Cost and Perceived Benefit.  To be clear, the cost of something is not just money.  Cost is the receipt of something negative or the release of something positive whereas Benefit is the release of something negative or the receipt of something positive.

Any time a value presentation is made, be it a candy bar in the checkout rack at a grocery store, a pair of earrings online, or a proposal to marry, there is an initial phase when you open your mind “file cabinet” and pull the “folder” associated with whatever value is being presented.  As you open this folder, certain things will jump out at you, influencing your initial perceived cost and benefit of the value presented.  What is in that folder, what items you pull first, and how much each item affects you depends on two things:

1. Your history with the value presented

2. How it is initially presented

It’s also important to note here that the point at which a visitor makes a commitment to the transaction is not the same point at which they complete the transaction.  The time between the commitment and the transaction should be as short and simple as possible.  The more complex and time-consuming it is, the more chance the frustration of the transaction process or the “cold feet” effect could keep it from happening.

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

Look.

Like it or not … even our presentations are being evaluated through this wacky thing called heuristics.

Pricing/value cues abound within presentations … believability cues abound within presentations … persuasion cues abound within a presentation … and you have to be aware that they will scream at the top of their lungs even if you aren’t looking at them.

Why do I say that?

You can even be silent and be giving a price or value cue.

For example.

Bach was a master of ‘negative space’ … building masterful musical combinations … he also used silences that are as eloquent and thought provoking as notes, tempo and syncopation.

<I used Bach because I tend to believe most of us who have built a presentation kind of feel like a composer>.

By the way.

While you may be thinking I am only discussing big important presentations which have been rehearsed and rehearsed … but this discussion actually pertains to almost any size of any draft or communications.

In the end.

Value is kind of like … well … the world and life

In fact … it reminds me of something I read:

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

“The world is not as simple as we like to make it out to be. The outlines are often vague and it’s the details that count.

Nothing is really truly black or white and bad can be a disguise for good or beauty … and vice versa without one necessarily excluding the other.

Someone can both love and betray the object of its love … without diminishing the reality of the true feelings and value.

Life and business <whether we like to admit it or not> is an uncertain adventure in a diffuse landscape whose borders are constantly shifting where all frontiers are artificial <therefore unique is basically artificial in its inevitable obseletion> where at any moment everything can either end only to begin again … or finish suddenly forever … like an unexpected blow from an axe.

Where the only absolute, coherent, indisputable and definitive reality … is death. We have such little time when you look at Life … a tiny lightning flash between two eternal nights.

Everything has to do with everything else.

Life is a succession of events that link with each other whether we want them to or not.”

——–

Arturo Perez Revarte

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

That all may be too poetic in discussing something like giving presentations, communications, creating drafts and persuasion … but simply put … “everything has to do with everything else.”

Well.

Communicating is part of everything.

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

“The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.”

—

Isaac Asimov

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

“So I don’t want to paint with too broad a brush when I say that you were warned about this man—and you ignored our warnings.

We were right; you were wrong.

The masses, it turns out, sometimes are asses.

Sometimes the people who actually pay close attention to politics know more than the disgruntled populists and nationalists who are willing to gamble on the future of this great republic—and on the reputation of a conservative philosophy that goes from Aristotle to Burke to Buckley—in order to boost a reality show host.

You elected your guy, and look where it got us.”

—

Matt Lewis <Republican Conservative>

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

Ok.

I probably get in more heated debates over Trump voters than almost any other topics discussed these days – with both Trump voters and non-Trump voters.

I even know why it happens … we generalize and we label.

And in generalizing we force a Trump voter to defend other Trump voters, who most likely voted for Trump for some other reason than the one they are defending, and the non Trump voter paints all Trump voters with the worst of the worst attributes <the truly deplorable aspects>.

This is crazy.

No.

This is stupid.

The majority of Americans don’t have a label attached to them other than “get up and go to work and get shit done” people.

People rarely self-identify as a CNN watcher or Fox watcher or MSNBC watcher … or a republican or democrat … or any fringe group when you meet them.

We apply the label on them … we generalize for them.

But most people are labeled by … well … community, family and what they do to earn a living every day.

Sure … elections force most of us to take some stand but most of us embrace that stand with some unease. We would rather be defined by what happens in our day and lives than by whom we elected to vote for.

Most of us have our own imperfections and flaws without having to explain, or be defined, by some imperfections and flaws of someone who we voted for.

Most of all the label stuff is crap.

And maybe what is worst about labels are they suggest most Americans have to be “x” or they are “y.” That is complete and utter bullshit.

I can be tough on immigration and still be compassionate.

I can have government les involved in healthcare and still make sure a safety net is available for all people.

I can increase my military budget without being some “hawk” who wants to drop bombs on everyone.

I guess my real point is that most Americans want it all and chafe when it is suggested they have to choose one thing or another. While TV pundits went out of their way to suggest this last election was a ‘binary choice’ the truth of the matter was that the decision on who to vote for was more likely a complex more-than-binary choice.

Which leads me to the Trump voters.

Up until now I have leaned heavily on the fabulous CBS News Nation Tracker Poll <CFM Strategic Communications panel survey> which outlined that the nation’s view of Donald Trump as President breaks down into four categories – Believers (22%), Conditionals (22%), Curious (21%) and Resisters (35%).

The first category are true believers who think Trump is on the right track. Conditionals generally support Trump, but may not approve of everything he does or says. The Curious are opponents, but could be swayed depending on Trump actions. Resisters see no hope in Trump and oppose him across the board.

But now there is a new piece of research out which breaks Trump voters into 5 groups which I will use to make my point again.

To summarize it I offer these 5 numbers to keep in mind:

American Preservationists (20%): 12 million people

• These are the core ‘always-Trumpers’ … this is also the group who think anti-white discrimination is a much more prevalent problem than is discrimination against any minority group <which is, realistically, false>

Staunch Conservatives (31%): 19 million people

• These are the core Republicans who would most likely vote for any Republican even if it was an alien

Anti-Elites (19%): 11 million people

• These have relatively cooler feelings toward Donald Trump and nearly half had favorable opinions of Clinton in 2012. This group shifted most dramatically, however, against Clinton by November 2016.

Free Marketeers (25%): 15 million people

• Small government fiscal conservatives, free traders, with moderate to liberal positions on immigration and race.

the Disengaged (5%): 3 million people

• This group does not know much about politics, but what they do know is they feel detached from institutions and elites and are skeptical of immigration.

USA population: 326.5 million people

USA adult 18+ population: est. 250 million people

<note: I used 60 million Trump votes to simplify my math and come up with people numbers>

The other thing I always keep in mind is that nowhere along the way, primary & general elections, has Trump ever won the popular vote. In the primaries Republicans voted in significant numbers for anyone but Trump <almost 2/3^rd of primary votes did not vote for Trump>. My point in all these numbers is that Trump voters are not just an American minority/splinter of the whole but a relatively small <but loud> group.

Regardless.

Here is the topline good news … I would estimate we have less than 20 million, my guess is maybe 15 million, truly deplorable people in the USA … say maybe 6% of adults. Here is the bad news … we tend to suggest those 6% are representative of all Trump voters <as well as all that is ignorant, deplorable and bad about USA>.

Anyway.

We screw up numbers in generalizations all the time.

Not all Trump voters voted for the same reason nor do they have similar issues.

It’s just like discussing “the 99%.”

The 99% are a mix of the wretched of the earth, the everyday schmucks who want to do the right thing and a fairly large group of upper middle class <doctors, university teachers, journalists, senior management, politicians>. It is the mixed bag of people who, without them, the 1% would cease to exist.

Lumping them all together in the 99% is almost suggesting that is America’s middle class which then suggests opportunity is equal to all <and the 1% should be everyone’s objective>.

Trump’s voters were a mixed bag of people with some good reasons to pull he lever for Trump and some bad reasons for pulling the lever for Trump.

Anyway.

I purposefully called this piece today “deplorables defined” to make a point. Of course not everyone who voted for Trump is deplorable … and Hillary never suggested such a thing. But … gosh … maybe we should have listened to her a little more closely … and maybe we should have listened to the entire speech … and maybe, just maybe, it is possible she was right:

——————

“I know there are only 60 days left to make our case — and don’t get complacent, don’t see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think, well, he’s done this time. We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.”

“But the other basket — and I know this because I see friends from all over America here — I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.”

—————-

Sigh.

Of course, none of us really did pay attention to it all <even the mainstream media which was supposedly all in her camp> and paid the price of not doing so by missing her statement about empathizing and working for better lives for those Trump supporters who aren’t scum-of-the-earth deplorable dumpster fire pieces of shit.

Would I have used the word “deplorable?”

No. probably not.

She probably should have been more specific and named them out, as the Alt-right, misogynists, white supremacist, KKK, and Nazis. But you know what? We are dancing on the head of a pin. ‘Some’ deplorables voted for Trump, ‘some’ deplorables still support trump and ‘some’ deplorables are irredeemable.

Ok.

Let me spend a moment more on ‘deplorable’.

While I, personally, would have not used the term with regard to some Trump voters I believe the only true mistake Clinton made was apologizing. She should have tripled down with clarifying & defining … and suggesting <in some way> we all have a deplorable ‘voice’ inside us whispering fears and untruths and … well … the bad shit we think about people who do not look like us.  And point out that Trump whispers, in a bombastic way, to our deplorable inside … and we shouldn’t permit him that victory <because Americans are better than that>.

By the way … I do believe that. And while there certainly are some truly deplorable people in the USA I would like to think 99% are redeemable not because they need to be redeemed but rather they need to understand they can ignore that voice inside and still get ahead and ‘win.’

In the end I offer two numbers.

15 and 30.

If you scour some of the more random assessment of the population and their views with regard to Trump you will find these two numbers <or close to them> constantly bubbling up.

15%.

This would be the % of people who would follow Trump like lemmings over the cliff. He could bomb Alabama and they would find a good reason he did it <note: these are not all deplorable people but deplorable people reside within this number>.

30%.

This would be the % of people who wouldn’t follow Trump if you told them you would win the lottery. He could apologize every day until the day he died and they would still find a reason to suggest he pissed on Mother Theresa’s grave.

Anyway.

I don’t know Trump nor do I wish to ever meet the man but if I could whisper these numbers into his head … I would. They reflect the precarious nature of his presidency <or his reelection>.

I am under no illusion that Trump truly has any desire to unite the country but the numbers reflect the fact America is not deplorable by nature and the bigger message opportunity, to inspire people, is to remind them of that.