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

“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.

………… Joel Robison ………..

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

“And so the seasons went rolling on into summer, as one rambles into higher and higher grass.”

——

Henry David Thoreau

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

”Birds, just like the leaves, tend to vanish in the fall heading for something new. The birds will come back to start their new generations while the leaves break down and feed the forest that supports the birds.

The circle of life I suppose.”

–

Joel Robison

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

Fall finally arrived here.

It actually kind of felt like winter but … what the heck … it was our first cold weather so I will call it Fall.

The onset of Fall gave me a chance to us one of my favorite pictures of all time <Joel Robison is the photographer> where he also included his quote <above>.

I love the thought of the cycle of, and in, life.

I love the fact that in one simple piece of photography we are reminded that Life <the bigger Life around us> is never linear … it is circular.

And when reminded of that … why would we ever think our own life <the smaller more personal ‘I’ life> is linear?

We constantly circle upon things we do, don’t do, think & don’t think. Our ideas & thoughts live and die. The winds of time blow above and below and around where things happen to us almost as randomly as leaves blowing in the wind.

I say that to be poetic … but to make a point.

While cycles & circles seem so nice and neat … Life is certainly not nice and neat. It is more like the swirling chaotic leaves in a brisk autumn breeze. I say that because a wind can lift you, buffet you … and drive you down.

Life can be treacherous that way.

Beautifully chaotic.

It pays to remember in the beauty of Fall leaves resides treachery – the treachery of beautiful death. For in our jumping in piles of leaves, the beautiful rich & royal hues and crinkling of leaves underfoot we sometimes forget we are brushing lightly against the hand of death.

Death cloaked in a beautiful crisp robe encouraging us to enjoy relief from the smothering heat of summer. All Death is doing is distracting us from the more dangerous treacherous aspects of the cycle of Life.

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

“In the life of the soul, the emotions, there are these undertows, these treacherous downward forces.”

—————–

Anaïs Nin

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

Yeah.

Sure.

Life returns.

Leaves grow anew.

Lively green replaces the remaining emptiness  of leaves days gone by.

But it is there in which resides the ultimate treachery.

Life suggests to us “accept the beautiful death for it is just a cycle in which Life will return.”

Damn.

It doesn’t always work that way.

Beautiful birds can leave and never come back.

Beautiful leaves can fall and never come back.

Beautiful seasons can … well … stop rolling.

Fall is a tricky time.

first day of fall 2016 google

The birds will come back to start their new generations while the leaves break down and feed the forest that supports the birds.

The circle of life I suppose.

Whew.

That’s what I thought today as I thought about one of my favorite pictures of all time.

Oh. Yeah. Happy Halloween and, remember, it is supposed to be fun.

…………………. Halloween is here ………………………

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

“Of course.”

He picked up the brown bag of candy on the table. “What’s your . . .” He trailed off as he weighed the bag in his hands. “Didn’t I give you three pounds of candy?”

She smiled impishly.

“You ate half the bag!”

“Was I supposed to save it?”

“I would have liked some!”

“You never told me that.”

“Because I didn’t expect you to consume all of it before breakfast!”

She snatched the bag from him and put it on the table. “Well, that just shows poor judgement on your part, doesn’t it?”

——-

Sarah Maas

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

Well.

Near me … a couple of businesses have created one of the best Halloween ideas I have ever seen or heard about.

They are taking over an entire shopping center parking lot, having cars park in it with trunks open — with candy in the trunks — and invite trick or treaters from everywhere to walk around the parking lot.

They invite any and all to visit this safe space … and a space which you need not be from some high falutin’ neighborhood with “the good” candy for trick or treaters.

This is a reminder that not all kids live in great neighborhoods or have access to all the “fun” Halloween has to offer and, in some small <but big> way people can do things which permit the fun of Halloween to ‘come to them’ rather than have some well deserving kids say “I have no place to go” on an evening which all kids should enjoy.

This is an idea I wish I had had.

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

“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.

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

“We miss out on the value of the message itself as a vehicle for driving virality.”

–

Jonah Berger

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

“Say something meaningful in an interesting way.”  

–

Bruce McTague

<author of “the shortest business book ever written”>

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

So.

This is about how we have a simplification crisis.

Ok.

This is actually about how we have an oversimplification crisis.

This crisis is making us … well … stupid.

Ok.

This crisis is actually making us stupider.

Look.

What I mean is that in a world in which we know that everything is complex, and more often than not, more complex than our own pea like brains can handle, we unerringly swerve toward simplistic headline conclusions and oversimplifications and absurd bullet point conclusions. We have hollowed out communication of the truly meaningful parts.

This surface skating intellectualism just makes us stupider.

Now.

We may convince ourselves we do this simply as a mental survival technique but I would argue, and I do, that it actually is the opposite of a survival technique … it is destructive behavior. It is destructive in that it destroys the overall thinking of what is actually a population quite capable of being intelligent, if not intellectual.

Yeah.

It makes us stupider.

I thought about this the other day because I have conversations with some incredibly smart and talented people who know a shitload more about more things than I could ever imagine and this topic came up. I note the smartness of these people to highlight how unusual it is that I can say something that actually can make a group of these people stop, be silent and then go “hmmmmmmmmmm.”

It is a rare thing.

And, yet, it happened the other day.

How did it happen? After some extensive conversation on North Korea, global trade challenges, Trump <of course> & foreign policy we opened the discussion to “what is the biggest challenge facing us …”

I spoke up & my thought drew some <thoughtful> silence.

I said “oversimplification.” <insert group silence afterwards>

To me … oversimplification misleads and creates bad decisions and, worse, creates bad thinking <which leads to bad opinions, attitudes and thoughts>. To me we have created this oversimplification shithole we currently reside in. And I offered a couple reasons why I believe this is happening <I did this because if you can identify the issues you can find solutions>:

We have convinced ourselves we do not have time for complex

Going back to the ‘destructive behavior’ thought I shared earlier …  oversimplification is anything but efficient. It actually demands more time in a variety of ways. The two simplest ways it does so is <1> the time we over invest attempting to isolate the simplest version of what is anything but simple and <2> the amount of time & energy we have to invest explain everything beyond the simplistic tripe initially offered, to thwart misguided behavior & reactions to the oversimplified offering & to redefine the oversimplification into bifurcated parts of the oversimplified whole.

We do this destructive behavior because we have convinced ourselves that we all have shorter, and shortened, attention spans.

We do this destructive behavior because we have convinced ourselves that people best retain “one thing.”

We do this destructive behavior because we have convinced ourselves in our perceived “never enough time” world we have to topline everything <to fit everything in>.

We do this destructive behavior because we have convinced ourselves that in a blizzard of nonstop things constantly vying for our attention the only way to capture someone’s attention is in some pithy soundbite.

Basically we have convinced ourselves that hollowing out an idea and a thought actually benefits not only the idea and the thought … but us! This is fucking nuts. Absolutely crazy.

Unfortunately, and truthfully, some things are just too complex to communicate in a sound bite or in 3 seconds or less. No matter how brief and simple you want to make it … well … it is neither brief nor simple. It is complex and sometimes the opposite of brief.

It isn’t just about telling a story.

Nor is it just about finding influencers to broker the story.

Nor is it just about practical value.

Nor is it just about emotion.

Unfortunately … it is a combination of those things. Yeah. Effective communication is … uhm … complex.

We have convinced ourselves that simple & simplicity is reflective of common sense.

I admit.

I have never been shy about calling bullshit on the simplistic tripe being spewed under the guise of ‘expert advice’ or ‘common sense.’

That said. I will suggest no topic has  been tortured more by common sense than simplicity.

Common sense suggests the simplest thing is the best.

Common sense suggests it is easier for a person to remember one thing and one word.

Common sense suggests in a complex world we humans crave simplicity.

Common sense suggests in a busy world we only have time for simplicity.

Common sense suggests a lot of nonsensical bullshit.

I will not argue that making something as simple as it can be is good but … well … simplistically … oversimplification is misleading and ultimately creates bad less-than-informed decision making AND thinking.

We have used this common sense simplicity bullshit for one simple reason — it serves us well in challenging the most established legitimate rule of Life & things. And that rule is “the world is complex.”

We embrace simplistic solution after simplistic solution, all labeled as ‘common sense ideas’, which are often counter to what an expert would suggest <which is often deemed “too complex”>…  only to find 90% of the time common sense was not only just simply wrong but also made us stupider.

I have written about simplicity and the complexity of finding the simplest way to communicate the complex many times and as I do so today I would remind everyone of what Jonah Berger offered us for a nifty sound bite compilation of sound bites to create a sound bite philosophy:

Here are his STEPPS for making anything go viral:

–          Social Currency: We share things that make us look good (even if that means pictures of our cat).

–          Triggers: Easily memorable information means its top of mind and tip of the tongue.

–          Emotion: When we care, we share.

–          Public: Built to show, built to grow.

–          Practical Value: News people can use.

–          Stories: People are inherent storytellers, and all great brands also learn to tell stories. Information travels under the guise of idle chatter.

And while this Berger thought is about “making things go viral” it is actually about finding the simplest way to communicate complex shit in a way that it is actually retained in a cognitive way.

I would also note that this dos not reflect “one simple thing”, it does reflect the complexity of reality and the mind and it reflects how to … well … help make us less stupider.

Ah.

Cognitive way.

As in “we actually understand what it is we heard, saw or read.” That is an important thing to ponder because over simplification cheats cognitive value as well as the value of whatever it is you have to offer people. Simplicity may be “memorable” but it doesn’t really lodge itself in anyone’s mind & memory in any meaningful way.

In fact.

The less depth you offer in your oversimplification the more you are at the mercy of the mind that decides to remember you. What I mean by that is if you don’t provide the depth the mind will create some perceptions around whatever it lodges in the pea like brain.

Uhm.

This means the pea like brain lodges only what is actually the brain’s perceptions of what to remember and not what you <a> know to be true, <b> think it may be important for that mind to know or <c> want the brain to store away in its mind.

I imagine what I am talking about is some wacky version of awareness versus engagement … but that shit is bullshit too.

It’s all bullshit because we should be turning away from simplification and engagement and connection and simply focus on “say what you need to say to persuade someone to think or do what you want them to think or do.”

All the other bullshit just confuses things.

If I tell someone that ‘being noticed ‘ is the most important thing, than some asshat is gonna come up with some zany oversimplified shit that gets noticed but doesn’t effectively communicate one thing <let alone all the things you may have deemed truly important in the beginning>.

I admit … I balk at a lot of the bullshit offered online about simplification <and the importance thereof> because … well … it is an oversimplification which diminishes the importance of ‘communicating depth’ and increases the importance of ‘being noticed.’

I do not like that equation. Effective communication is not a binary choice.

Effective communication, as with almost everything, is a complex challenge in communicating a complex thing well – because if you can communicate a couple things well it actually increases the perceived value <which then inevitably creates a stronger “memory stamp” … with value attached!>.

Which brings me back to our oversimplification crisis.

I could clearly argue that in today’s fragmented messaging world where information multiplies at light speed and a day still remains 24 hours that we humans are constantly honing our “incoming thoughts” filtering mechanisms.

I could also argue that our filtering system, as it exists today, sucks. We have dumbed down our communication and thinking behavior to such a hollowed out status the majority of time we skate along the superficial irrelevant surface of reality.

If we are lucky, the ice doesn’t crack.

But the truth is that oversimplification only offers the thinnest of ice to skate on and inevitably we fall thru the ice … over and over and over again.

Uhm.

And in the business world falling through the ice is bad. It is, metaphorically, making a bad decision based on shallow thinking and paying for it.

Yeah.

I did say the biggest issue we face is oversimplification.

I said that because if I can solve this, if I can have smarter people communicating complex things more smartly and I can have more everyday schmucks understanding that simple solutions are more often like trying to place a square peg in a round hole … well … I think it unravels a shitload of other problems we face in today’s world.

I imagine I am arguing that if more people are less stupid and more aware of the reality of things the more effective & efficient we will be in addressing the difficulties reality tends to place in front of us.

In the end.

I will go back to where I began … “say something meaningful in an interesting way.”

There are no rules nor boundaries in this statement.

You use as many words, or as few, as you need to say … to say something meaningful in an interesting way with the intent for it to be understood … and, ultimately, persuade someone to think something. I would say that the hollower the communication the less true persuasion engagement occurs and, conversely, the fuller the communication the more true persuasion engagement occurs.

Period.

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

“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.

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

“Are you prattling about an instinct of self-preservation? An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess.

An ‘instinct’ in as unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even man’s desire to live is not automatic: your secret evil today is that that is the desire you do not hold. Your fear of death is not a love of life and will not give you the knowledge needed to keep it.

Man must obtain his knowledge and choose his actions by a process of thinking, which nature will not force him to perform.

Man has the power to act as his own destroyer–and that is the way he has acted through most of history.”

―

Ayn Rand

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

Ok.

Discussing business leadership is … well … interesting.

Its also <slightly> interesting I used an Ayn Rand quote to open a thought on business leadership.

Why?

Almost everything Rand espoused focused on the individual and self-interest … and leadership inherently focuses on the group and ‘making the tide rise higher for all … sometimes at the expense of a higher one.”

In addition … <simplistically> the central thesis of Rand’s philosophy is that unfettered self-interest is good and altruism is destructive.

I am no going invest a lot of time on Rand’s thinking <of which I have mixed feelings about> but because I speak to many business leaders the balance of ‘business democracy, organizational culture, and business autocracy, i.e., someone has to make a decision at some point and organizational consensus is most likely not the most effective way to generate good decisions, I will spend a moment on Rand.

In my eyes, far too often, Americans tie the Rand philosophy of ‘supreme self-reliance devoted to the pursuit of supreme self-interest’ to a simplistic version of core American ideals: individual freedoms & hard work. The whole premise is based on the promise a better world is available if people can simply pursue their own self-interest without regard to the impact of their actions on others. That thought is usually followed by “this works because everyone is simply pursuing their own self-interest as well.”

Unfortunately what this ignores is a successful organization’s ultimate mission: “e pluribus unim” <out of many one>.

Unfortunately what this ignores is successful cultures typically exhibit a ‘twitch muscle’ which automatically makes 95% of people to find greater satisfaction in contributing to ‘the team’ rather than solely finding individual success.

All of this matters when discussing business leadership and leading organizations.

Now.

That said.

I come back to a key line in the opening quote:  an ‘instinct’ in as unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct.

In a world in which we tend to want to oversimplify things far too often “business instincts” get stripped of any context or the rich & royal hues most typically associated with ‘good business instincts.’ We also strip leadership down to its barest and far too often suggest the importance of ‘’good business instincts’ as some superior skill <and instincts are not a skill but an attribute> inherent in good leadership.

I would suggest we would be much better off stripping leadership down to not one thing but rather discussing a backbone which makes leadership stand tall.

Look.

A shitload of people can lead.

An even larger shitload of people think they can lead.

And even smaller shitload of people can actually lead well.

And while there are a shitload of well written and thoughtful piece on business leadership characteristics I would suggest that all business leadership often comes down to your ‘backbone’ of actual skills with regard to three things: developing an effective vision, having a consistent business philosophy <business acumen> & instincts.

Many leaders have some skill in one of these three, some actually are good at two out of the three but the best leaders are good at all three <with some extraordinary skill at either the visionary or instincts>.

I point out the vision and instincts aspects because it is that ‘dance’ which … well … can make a business dance. Some people talk about strategy & tactics but this is a little different. This is kind of a step up from that.

This is kind of like being able to envision the 5 lane highway which leads to a destination you kind of envision and then actually have the instincts which enable you to instinctually shift lanes, shift speeds and avoid everyone else on the highway in the moments that matter.

Suffice it to say … working with someone who understands, and can manage to, vision and someone who has good instincts is fairly rare — and all three even rarer.

By the way, as I have written before … most people who vocally espouse the fact <belief> they have good instincts tend to have shitty instincts. In fact … I could generalize relatively safely by suggesting anyone who verbalizes they have good instincts … most likely, in reality, do not have good instincts <good instinctual leaders & decision makers tend to have the humility to have an innate sense to keep their mouths shut about any instinctual behavior and focus on verbalizing functional abilities to do shit in certain situations>.

Anyway.

Someone can actually be a pretty good leader and not be very good at all these things.

For example … one of my best bosses wasn’t particularly good at the vision aspect but had an incredibly strong sense of ‘right versus wrong’ with regard to business philosophy and excellent instincts which tended to permit a shitload of progress <if not particularly visionary progress>. I would note he was pretty good at hiring some people who were visionary and combined with what he was good at he had a nice ability <albeit sometimes a lite too pragmatic> to tighten some loose vision and … well … get shit done.

For example … one of my best bosses was an incredible visionary with an excellent ability to set everyone’s sights on the ‘horizon’ coupled with a strong business philosophy of “this is the kind of shit we will do and how we will conduct ourselves in doing it” he could get people focused and emotionally connected with what they had to do. However … his instincts were not so hot. I would note he had a nice ability to surround himself with people with good instincts <maybe not enough but some key people> which permitted him to pick out what to do from options resented by good instinctual managers rather than have to depend on his own instincts.

I imagine my point here is twofold <1> leaders who are good at all three of these things are not a dime a dozen and <2> the good leaders who are not good at all three of these things tend to recognize where they are a little weaker and are smart enough, and confident enough, to surround themselves with people who do have those skills.

I imagine the greater leadership philosophical point here is that good business leaders don’t really fight truth.

They see truth. Accept truth. And work within the parameters of truth.

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

 

“Stop opposing the truths.

The truth is truth no matter how you take it. It is not going to be changed for your inconvenience.”

―

Bikash Bhandari

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

I point out truth because, of all things, leadership is reliant on a leader being able to see truth … and not just what they want to see.

I point out truth because, of all things, vision and instincts are driven more by truth, knowledge and ‘learning’, than by any nebulous “I have good instincts.’

I point out truth because, of all things, people actually have a natural inclination to work for the mutual benefit of an organization … they like to cooperate and collaborate … and truth has an incredible ability to bond together the largest most disparate organization as well as offer the initial burst of energy which pushes organizations forward out of trouble and toward something better when a leader actually makes a decision.

Be wary of the verbose ‘I am good at this’ leader because … well … as with anything else in Life & business … leaders have to be ‘good’ at a number of things not just some simplistic self-interest driven accolade.

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

Seth Meyers

—–

Yeah, “fair” is a word we talk about. We talk about “fair” when we talk about “even.” I feel as though “even” can sometimes lead to false equivalents, whereas “fair” is, is this how you’d like to be treated if somebody disagreed with you?

We all have bias, we all have a point of view. I think the best you can do is try to be aware of it and try to make sure that the bias doesn’t make you treat someone else unfairly.

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

Ok.

Today, in this world & in this environment, I could be having a discussion on some topic and make a statement and 99% of the time the other person will say <usually indignantly> “where did you hear that?” … and I could say “well, Albert Einstein said it” … and I can almost guarantee I will get the following question … “when did he say that?” … and if I said “well, he said it on <pick your poison … FoxNews, MSNBC, CNN, NYTimes, Washington Post, etc>” … I can almost guarantee I will get a ‘lean-back-in-chair-moment combined with a sage “oh, he is biased.”

Yeah.

Albert Einstein.

Biased because he decided to say something smart but, unfortunately, on … well … some venue.

Suffice it to say that, lately, it seems like anyone you disagree with or anyone who espouses a different view than you is “biased.”

This is crazy.

And it gets crazier because the same people who are quick to brand some mainstream news venue as biased are the same ones to place blind faith on some random internet website espousing something they agree with.

Let’s be clear.

Professional journalists may slant their work toward their own views but non professionals, and opinion people, are biased.

The vast majority of websites and blogs out there are, for all intents and purposes, biased.

Placing those important nuances aside … everyone should assume a fact is a fact and a fact can be delivered in a variety of ways – slanted, biased, fair, straightforward, misused – but it still remains a fact.

Bias:

Prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.

Most people would suggest that any site that only focuses on one side of an issue without giving the same amount of “unbiased” coverage to the other side is biased.

Fox News. Biased.

MSNBC. Biased.

The Nation. Biased.

Federalist. Biased.

Pravda. Biased.

Yep. All of them.

Biased.

I, personally, do not call them biased <at least their news programming/pieces … not their opinion programming/pieces>.

I would call them intellectually slanted toward a specific view but still factual & truthful journalism. For the most part, if it is not an opinion show, you will receive some facts to sift through.

Yeah.

Some of the stories they publish are great, helpful, and insightful.

Yeah.

Some of them are extremely one-sided.

And while this one-sidedness may be well intended all it really does is drive us into deeper separation and make the ‘bias gap’ seem deep & wide.

Here is where the real trouble begins.

If everything is biased … who offers the truth?

Who you view as biased I view as a purveyor of truth … well … where is there any place for truth between us?

We cannot afford to be in an information gathering world where we “take what resonates and leave the rest.” We cannot because what resonates isn’t always what is reality or truthful. It is actually more likely to simply fit your belief system.

Uh oh.

If it fits than what doesn’t fit is biased.

Once again.

This is crazy.

I tend to believe this is a reflection of a number of things all grounded in the inability to know who to trust <because if I accepted an expert as an expert then I would be able to accept an expert speaking truth I could believe as unbiased>. I tend to believe there is a strong strain of “anti-intellectualism” or maybe it is better called “a gut instinct opinion world” in which facts only confuse the issue <therefore shouldn’t be pursued> and rational thinking is actually ‘common sense.’

Sigh.

We live in a wacky world in which we have no experts, we trust no institutions to not have some nefarious intent and truth is in the eyes of the beholder.

We live in a wacky world in which articles by professional journalists, which are fact-based, are confused with op-eds <opinion & editorials> which is … uhm …  an opinion, a column, meaning it does not have to be unbiased, fair, or balanced.

We live in a wacky world in which the internet is like the wild west of information. There are minimal laws, minimal enforcers of laws and a shitload of people who are willing to have a dubious relationship with any law <and truth or proper use of facts>.

We live in a wacky world in which people have more access to an almost unlimited unfettered amount of information and they also have the freedom to contribute to that unfettered amount of information as they see fit.

We live in a wacky world where even the people who are allegedly so concerned with finding the truth circulate a shitload of bullshit.

Yeah.

It is a wacky world.

That being said, it is not wacky enough to simply discard good smart thoughtful factual information <some would call that “Truth”> under some wacky filter we apply to every mouthpiece which makes that mouthpiece conveniently “biased” so we have an excuse to disregard the information.

I believe we can find fair, even and biased wherever we may choose to look. I can find it on FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, BBC and almost every venue with professional journalism employees. It doesn’t mean they will not slant the information. It doesn’t mean they may conveniently leave a fact or two out.

But in this wacky world I cannot afford to discard everything and I, frankly, have no desire to just discard what doesn’t meet my current views.

I believe that each of us needs to take responsibility for detaching ourselves from what we want to be true, and get off our lazy asses to find out what actually is true … and stop using “biased” as a reason to not consider what was shared.

I will end where I began:

We all have bias, we all have a point of view. I think the best you can do is try to be aware of it and try to make sure that the bias doesn’t make you treat someone else unfairly.

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

“It’s more interesting to ask the question about America itself, not the America of Trump or the America of Obama, but what is today the appetite of the Americans, really, to have an active role in the world affairs?”

———–

French Ambassador Gérard Araud

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

“A person’s a person, no matter how small.”

―

Horton Hears a Who!

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

So.

I almost called this the shrinking of America.

What I mean by that is America is shrinking in the eyes of the world.

That said.

Let me begin by framing this from a business perspective.

Business leaders are responsible for the growth of their business on a number of dimensions not just $’s.

You can only hold on to your position for so long if you are having some economic success but the company brand and image is suffering.

You can also only hold on to your position for so long if you are having some economic success but the board views it as a poor long term strategy.

You can also hold on to your position for so long if you are having some economic success but perceptions of your leadership are not very good.

But that’s business <and we assume anyone who rises to a business leadership position knows this … as they should>.

I say that because a business can grow in a variety of dimensions not just profit & sales … there is also strategy, positioning and leadership. And if people start to doubt your business on any of those dimensions it is kind of like a balloon … they become little pin pricks and your ‘balloon’ starts shrinking.

And that is what is happening to America from a global perspective.

Pinpricks in the American balloon.

The pinpricks are doubts … in leadership, reliability, consistency and … well … civility <note: I could have added intelligence but I will not>.

I am not making this up.

A Pew poll of 37 countries ranging from large to smaller shows attitudes toward the United States have collapsed since Trump took office. At the end of Obama’s presidency, 64% of people in these countries said they were confident in the US president. Today, that has fallen to 22%.

In addition. Opinions of America overall have fallen by 15 points.

This Pew study examined global attitudes toward America since Obama left office and Trump has assumed the leadership role. Suffice it to say … it is really tough reading for any American.

On all attitudes America is shrinking.

The only places in which Trump’s numbers rose versus Obama are … uhm … Russia <which rose a staggering 43 points, 11% to 54% confidence>and Israel.  And, I would note, that despite the common perception Obama was loathed by Israel, Obama’s confidence ratings varied from 49% to 71% during his administration as compared to Trump’s current 58%.

Just to drive a nail into this particular coffin a little deeper … if I were to pull Russia and Israel out of the study … uh oh … confidence in America would drop into the teens <gulp>.

6 months into a Trump presidency and the pace and the depth of the decline driven by Trump’s leadership, or lack thereof, is stunning. Trump’s belligerent style and immature substance is not only affecting his approval scores domestically … but also internationally. He currently wears the mantle of “shrinker in chief.”

Whether one believes in the accuracy of polling or not, and not many sane people doubt PewResearch> the consistency between domestic numbers and international numbers should make anyone and everyone take a moment and pause.

I could even argue the domestic numbers only look better than international numbers because Republicans are stubbornly hanging on to Trump despite having some serious doubts. If I were in the Trump White House I would be eyeing this Pew report and thinking “yikes, this is my floor here in the USA <22% or the teens>.”

We are shrinking.

And it is sad.

Now.

Trump supporters will flippantly suggest they don’t care about what other countries think about Trump & the USA because it just doesn’t matter.

Which leads me to my point <other than expressing some sadness> … a word to the wise <and even a word to the intellectual dwarfs>.

It does matter.

And it really matters if there is a lack of alignment between perception & reality as well as domestic attitudes & perceptions and international attitudes & perceptions.

That matters because alignment is what makes countries, and businesses, effective AND efficient. It eliminates the herky jerky of misunderstanding and the slowing inherent in having to overcome any negative aspects which could be obstacles.

Yes.

Alignment is important.

Any sane business leader knows that sustainable success is not found in some transaction or some event or even being viewed positively by some others <here & there>. They know success inevitably begins and ends in internal alignment.

Instead of promoting American leadership & unity, Trump is leaving a vacuum internally, domestically, by stubbornly gripping onto a minority view with regard to what people want and what is actually best for the country long term.

This gets exacerbated by the fact he is doing so within his own management team as well as within his ‘employees’ <the citizens … all … even the ones who did not vote for him and did not vote>.

In addition.

An “every man for himself” attitude doesn’t really encourage a positive transaction relationship but rather it encourages a sense of chaos … which leaves Trump and the US with fewer friends and less influence.

I have said it before and I will say it again … this is solvable. And it is solvable not through transactions but rather by … well … internal <domestic> alignment. Trump often argues that words don’t matter and behavior is more important.

Oftentimes this is true, however, words can often build the doorway through which skeptics & doubters can walk through to get a little closer to the alignment America needs to progress – economically and mentally.

If Trump were to triple down NOW on building unity domestically, it would go a long way to stopping the shrinking of America <note: but I seriously doubt something like this is within his DNA>.

Finally.

The deal.

Negotiating.

Or the art of the deal as a leader.

It seems his single-minded pursuit of individual challenges or countries does not translate to the complex politics of … well … the EU, China, Russia, the Arab & Muslim world, or anywhere.

As a result, the “best” dealmaker is starting to look like he cannot make a deal.

Sure.

He can complete some transactions <albeit they all seem to be about getting paid to arm the rest of the world with as many weapons as possible> but transactions are not ‘deals.’ NAFTA is a deal. The TPP was a deal. We have trade deals with people. These are not “let’s make a deal for this space” but rather a more complex web of multiple variants in which over time the variants will … well … vary and yet the ultimate outcome overall is positive.

That’s not his kind of deal.

And, frankly, that’s not the kind of ‘deal’ other countries truly desire.

But Trump’s dealing and his character are so intertwined it is almost like a Gordian knot.

That matters as we discuss shrinking.

PewResearch, who makes every attempt to be unemotional and unbiased, said this in their report:

Confidence in President Trump is influenced by reactions to both his policies and his character. With regard to the former, some of his signature policy initiatives are widely opposed around the globe.

Trump’s character is also a factor in how he is viewed abroad. In the eyes of most people surveyed around the world, the White House’s new occupant is arrogant, intolerant and even dangerous. Fewer believe he is charismatic, well-qualified or cares about ordinary people.

Look.

The truth remains that the US economy, just as it was with Obama, has remained mostly healthy and Trump has not to date significantly altered any signs of the health. The end of the Obama economic era and the start of the Trump economic era represent an ongoing good, not great, economy.

This is good.

But as I noted initially … economic success is just one dimension and while a powerful dimension you can only hold on to your position for so long if that is the only ‘positive benefit’ you are offering your organization as a leader.

Trump is a myopic bully and, just as with almost every bully, I worry America will remain large in physical stature but small in everything else.

In the end.

I brought up alignment and shrinking for a reason. Alignment is a double edged sword.

Positive alignment greases progress.

Negative alignment can suffocate and squeeze.

And that is my point on the current shrinking of America.

Poll numbers showcase directional negativity which is difficult to ignore … especially since the numbers reside in both domestic and international framing.

Call it perceptions or call it reality … I don’t care.

As long as it exists America will continue to shrink.

And ignore the most recent PewResearch at your own peril because it sure as shit looks like we are shrinking.

——————–

“I wish I had the courage not to fight and doubt everything… I wish, just once, I could say, ‘This. This is good enough. Just because I choose it.”

―

Chuck Palahniuk

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

So.

Let me very clear upfront … while this piece will be on Russian involvement in the 2016 USA presidential election I am not discussing, nor suggesting, collusion or coordination of efforts between anything I will outline and the Trump campaign. The analysis of that will be done by greater minds than mine.

This piece is about what Russia did and the effect on the 2016 election. Let’s call this an analysis of the Russian marketing campaign to support Donald J Trump.

I have the fortune to exchange ideas, on occasion, with some highly qualified experts and several foreign policy thought leaders and all of them continuously grapple not with what Russia did but more so with how to talk about it. Which leads me to the horrible position that I find myself in <and I imagine any professional communications person with any significant experience is in>.

We know that Russia most likely influenced enough voters to have elected Donald J Trump.

There. I said it. The one sentence which seems to be on the lips of almost any credible thinking individual but never seems to be spoken. This has nothing to do whether I believe he is qualified or not … this is just a conclusion that anyone who knows shit about marketing & advertising has arrived at if they look at the campaign.

<note: this is easily provable … hire MillwardBrown, pay them $100k, give them all the voting information and attitude poll information and they could do a county comparison … they do this for marketing & advertising campaigns all the time to measure effectiveness>

Anyway. It took me a while to get there because the overarching narrative ‘cover’ for the election is, and always has been, “Russia never changed a vote or made someone do anything.” While every reasonable marketing person would debate the seeming lack of understanding in the concept of ‘ability to affect behavior through marketing’, it was easier for people to generally focus on the truth Russia never got into actual voting machines and changed votes.

This means it just took me a lot longer to get to the truth that many of my peers had already arrived at.

…. I did not want to know this ………..

Whew.

The truth. Russia changed votes and voting behavior.

What knowledge to have. What a wretched position to be in … to be a professional communications person and a believer in America democracy … that is the horrible position many of us find ourselves in.

Why?

Well. The majority of us know, if we view it through a professional lens, that the Russians communications <propaganda> effort most likely put Donald J Trump into the presidency … and we don’t know what to do and say about it.

Why?

Think about the outcome of this presentation. The main one would be that many people would believe Donald J was not a legitimate president or legitimately elected. And that would be … well … horrible. Horrible for the country, horrible for democracy and … well … just horrible. I, personally, feel a little less horrible because I still believe … 100% believe … and have written extensively that if the Clinton campaign had done a couple of things and maybe thought thru a couple of things they would have won.

All that said.

I could open this presentation by suggesting the Clinton campaign ran a slightly-less-than-effective-as-it-could-have marketing campaign but I could also showcase how the Trump campaign, in and of itself, did not do enough to win.

——- Clint Watts analysis of Russia Social Media Plan ——-

I would then have to point out that an overlaid Russian marketing campaign <which diminished Clinton to suppress behavior in her favor> made the difference at the finish line. As noted earlier, someone like MillwardBrown could prove/disprove this in ‘two notes or less.’

Anyway … before anyone argues with that premise please remember that with 136 million votes cast, Trump’s victory came down to a razor-thin edge of only 77,744 votes across three states: Pennsylvania (44,292 votes), Wisconsin (22,748 votes), and Michigan (10,704 votes) – all less than .7% difference between the two candidates … a less than full Michigan stadium … and, if reversed, Clinton would be our president.

The 2016 election result is really all about the fact that there was just enough movement in just the right places, with just enough increased turnout from just the right groups, to get Trump the electoral votes he needed to win.

Regardless. While I know from career experience advertising affects attitudes & behavior the rest, block by block, of the truth fell into place. But what make this conclusion truly horrible is … well … what do you do with that knowledge? It does no good to suggest the current president is illegitimate. None. Zero.

Look.

I am not making this up.

While others look at this in some vague “what could they do to make someone vote a certain way” I look at this from a marketing perspective where I have sat in meeting after meeting analyzing marketing campaigns and tactics to watch what levers <tactics & messages>have been pulled to get someone to do something they may not have considered doing before. Given that knowledge here were the 4 blocks which gt me there:

The first ‘block’ was, of course, when the US government warned us that 17 intelligence agencies <or 4 with others tentatively agreeing, or whatever number you want depending on your cynicism but suffice it to say the US Intelligence agencies are aligned in some form or fashion> agreed Russia was fucking within our election. They didn’t go into details but rather just said “they, they are doing this” <and did some behind the scenes stuff to deflect some things they did>.

I would also note that this is where “marketing doesn’t affect my behavior’ attitudes started digging in within the general population’s mindset … “I made my own decision” is what they say <naively I may add>.

The second ‘block’ occurred on November 6^th 2016 in an article called “Trolling for Trump: How Russia Is Trying to Destroy Our Democracy” .

——————-

… in addition to phishing and cracking attacks, these hackers are aided by honeypots, a Cold War term of art referring to an espionage operative who sexually seduced or compromised targets. Today’s honeypots may include a component of sexual appeal or attraction, but they just as often appear to be people who share a target’s political views, obscure personal hobbies, or issues related to family history. Through direct messaging or email conversations, honeypots seek to engage the target in conversations seemingly unrelated to national security or political influence.

These honeypots often appear as friends on social media sites, sending direct messages to their targets to lower their defenses through social engineering. After winning trust, honeypots have been observed taking part in a range of behaviors, including sharing content from white and gray active measures websites

Online hecklers, commonly referred to as trolls, energize Russia’s active measures. Ringleader accounts designed to look like real people push organized harassment — including threats of violence — designed to discredit or silence people who wield influence in targeted realms, such as foreign policy or the Syrian civil war. Once the organized hecklers select a target, a variety of volunteers will join in, often out of simple antisocial tendencies. Sometimes, they join in as a result of the target’s gender, religion, or ethnic background, with anti-Semitic and misogynistic trolling particularly prevalent at the moment. Our family members and colleagues have been targeted and trolled in this manner via Facebook and other social media.

Hecklers and honeypots can also overlap.

—————————–

The experts at WarontheRocks know their shit and I stored away their analysis.

The third ‘block’ occurred when a Bernie Sanders social media coordinator published a report of how he watched online trolls aggressively message against Clinton to Sanders supporters:

He <Mattes> put his expertise in unmasking fraudsters to work. At first, he suspected that the sites were created by the old Clinton haters from the ‘90s ― what Hillary Clinton had dubbed “the vast right-wing conspiracy.”

 But when Mattes started tracking down the sites’ domain registrations, the trail led to Macedonia and Albania. In mid-September, he emailed a few of his private investigator friends with a list of the sites. “Very creepy and i do not think Koch brothers,” he wrote.

Mattes and his friends didn’t know what to make of his findings. He couldn’t get his mind around the possibility that trolls overseas might be trying to sway a bunch of Southern Californians who supported Sanders’ run for president. “I may be a dark cynic and I may have been an investigative reporter for a long time, but this was too dark ― and too unbelievable and most upsetting,” he said. “What was I to do with this?”

By late October, Mattes said he’d traced 40 percent of the domain registrations for the fake news sites he saw popping up on pro-Sanders pages back to Eastern Europe. Others appeared to be based in Panama and the U.S., or were untraceable. He wondered, “Am I the only person that sees all this crap floating through these Bernie pages?”

And the final ‘block’ was an 84 page white paper issued by the cyber security firm, TrendMicro, which outlined how easy it was to implement a ‘fake news’ marketing campaign with costs & efforts taken by Russia to influence people not only in America but globally.

That did it for me.

Let me call my ‘4 blocks’ as the cornerstones of the building of proof. I am a marketing guy and an amateur behavioral studier with decades of experience and I can see a marketing campaign when there is one … and I can see when a good one is being implemented in ‘below-the-line’ tactics pushing & nudging & influencing people to do & think things … and I can see one once I have been presented the cornerstones of proof.

This is that. And this is a horrible thing to recognize.

Oddly enough … our founding fathers worried about this.

In constructing the Constitution the crafters were cognizant, and worried about, how easily people could be led, and led astray. That is why they constructed a three ‘power’ system <executive, judiciary & representative> to insure a President never had access to too much power. In some ways they assumed at some point in history American citizens would not choose wisely.

As a marketing guy I can honestly tell you that I have sat in hundreds of conference rooms viewing behavioral data pondering choice after choice people made that were reflections of “not in my best interest” … information that reflected time after time … people do not choose wisely.

While that is marketing stuff we should all remember what James Madison said … “liberties are more frequently lost by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power.” That is what the worst of worst marketing is about … making some people choose less than wisely through a gradual and silent encroachment into someone’s decision making process.

To be clear.

I think Trump is inept, incompetent and unqualified but this is not about that. This is about how Russia affected enough people’s attitudes to affect their behavior … and many of us quasi-experts, and many real experts, believe Russia conducted a marketing campaign that did just enough to affect people’s voting behavior to effectively put Trump in the oval office.

To be clear.

None of us know what to do with this understanding. This is a horrible position to be in. No one wants to suggest the current president is not legitimate and, yet, the truth is that he most likely gained his position through some shady illegitimate ways.

I almost wish I didn’t know this.