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

“People have forgotten this truth,” the fox said. “But you mustn’t forget it. You become responsible forever for what you’ve tamed.” 

—–

The Little Prince

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

“I cannot play with you,” the fox replies. “I am not tamed.”

“What does that mean – to tame?” 

“It means to establish ties. To me, you are still nothing more than a little boy who is just like a hundred thousand other little boys. And I have no need of you. And you, on your part, have no need of me. To you, I am nothing more than a fox like a hundred thousand other foxes. But if you tame me, then we shall need each other. To me, you will be unique in all the world. To you, I shall be unique in all the world…please, tame me!”

“I want to, very much,” the Little Prince replied, “but I have not much time. I have friends to discover, and a great many things to understand.” 

“One only understands the things that one tames,” the fox said.

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

Ok.

Some people aren’t going to like the way I am going to discuss Leadership. Some people will not like the implication behind the word “tame” with regard to employees. Those some people should read before they dismiss the thought. t may just offer a different way of thinking about the responsibility of leadership.

Leaders have a tough job in that you manage skills, people, personalities & overall organizational purpose.

We call it managing, but in reality it is taming. You tame the independent wildness and tame the ability & potential so you can understand it, and it can understand itself, so that eventually there is a mutual progress to play the game as well as it can be played.

Please note that nowhere in there have I suggested “blind obedience.” Taming, in this view, is reaching true understanding so that real personal growth occurs.

That said … in that metaphorical expression of leadership … you own what you tame.

I say that because far too often we leaders & managers view management as something we do for the benefit of the organization and, hopefully, the benefit of the people … but we ‘own’ no responsibility for the individual in terms of actions or who they become — and certainly not ‘forever.’

Some of us view ourselves as shapers in some form or fashion but lean back against the belief we only dent the surface of who and what the person is and will become. We view what we do as possibly taming but within the purview of just a chapter in their lives … not an entire story.

In some ways we do this simply as an act of self-survival. The truth is that investing too much personally into your business; the organization and the employees can … well … kill you.

Okay.

Maybe not literally kill you … but figuratively it can become a daily strain on your psychological health. Many of us, out of pragmatism, eye our relationship with employees as a story with a finite end – be it positive, sad, joyful, disappointing or ambiguous – but it is, in reality, just the end of a chapter.

The story keeps going. Ours and theirs.

And while we may represent only a chapter in a larger narrative … well … we own what we tame. This is an inclusive way of leading & managing. You include yourself in someone’s Life and … well … you own what part you tame.

Uhm.

Of course … this can also swing to the opposite more dangerous side – an exclusive leadership side. This is ‘ownership’, not owning, of what you tame. You don’t become part of them you simply offer a voice to them – I sometimes call this ‘pack mentality leadership’.

These are the leaders who say “on my team <or in other words “mine”> forever.” It is possessive in a non productive way.

“Leave and my wrath is upon you.”

That eader’s attitude? “Not want to be tamed by me? you are “un” whatever it is I stand for.” And this is where exclusive leadership truly rears its ugly head.

There is little vision, there is a lot of ‘features’ in the offering <more money, more jobs, more titles, more wins, more whatever> and therefore the incentives do the work and not any persuasive direction or vision. The ‘pack attitude’ is a means to an end and a vision in and of itself.

—-

“Managers tend to use compensation as a crutch.  After all, it is far easier to design an incentive system that will do management’s work than it is to articulate a direction persuasively, develop agreement about goals and problems, and confront difficulties when they arise.”

Michael Beer, Harvard professor of business administration

—–

The features, the actions & behavior of those who belong on this team, are how they speak of unity and teamwork, i.e., “everyone should act this way … but we are the ones who do.”

Or how about this?

“The only important thing is the unification of the people – because the other people don’t mean anything.” <Trump used these words once awhile back> In other words … the only people who truly count are the ones who are in this leader’s team.

Even worse? They use the ‘us versus them’ polarization as a means to suggest “team personality & character” all the while these types of leaders actually do it to create their own power structure. They don’t desire to include anyone else nor do they tend to reach out to others <albeit they make some inclusive noises on occasion> they desire to build a construct where people ask to join <because they should, of course, have to ask> and are not asked to join.

“Excluding leader types” love the ‘us versus them’ aspect. They love being derided and they love opposition. All these things do is solidify the team’s belief they are different & better & know more than the others. The team becomes what represents what is real & right and the leader controls what is real & right. The leader’s people are truly the only people that count and the leader hasn’t tamed ability but rather attitude.

And here is where the ownership of what you tamed hits a dangerous spot.

This leader has tamed an attitude but feels little ownership of the people themselves. Therefore should the leader decide to move on or get tired of whatever it is they are doing at the moment they feel no remorse in leaving people behind <who still harbor the attitude he/she tamed>.

The pack remains, the pack mentality still seethes, but the pack leader is no longer there.

Anyway.

Let me close with some thoughts.

I think it is a healthy thought for every manager & leader to ponder ‘you own what you tame.’ Leadership and leading is never easy and I have the scars to show to prove it.

I found it naturally tempting to build a quasi-pack mentality in my groups as a younger leader & manager. I was, and have always been, a more aggressive business person – I am not fond of status quo and not particularly fond of ‘the safe road.’

I can absolutely state that as a manager you can feed off of the ‘pack mentality’ attitude. It is exhilarating and almost like a drug … and maybe more dangerous … it can feed into a self-belief aspect that can edge upon arrogance and obliviousness to the greater good.

I don’t think I ever fell off the cliff on this but I certainly got a glimpse of the edge. As I gained more experience I saw the danger in doing so <to my team members, to my organization & to myself> and sought to find some balance.

Just remember.

You can tame your people’s ability & attitude in an inclusive & “unearthing skill & talent” way and they, and you, will benefit at the time and in the future <whether you are still working together or not>.

Just remember.

You own what you tame.

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

“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.

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

“A single arrow is easily broken, but not ten in a bundle.”

—–

Japanese proverb

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

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed. It is the only thing that ever has.”

—–

Margaret Mead

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

So.

I was listening to a bunch of talking heads on tv speculating on a staff shake up in the Trump white house personnel.

One thing I heard caught my attention … “well, part of the president’s issue is that he has kind of a hodgepodge of personnel.”

And that thought is correct. And it made me think a little bit.

The truth is once you move past managing a group or running a mom & pop sized business every management team you manage will be a hodgepodge of people, skills, personalities and … well … loyalty. Not only is it impossible to hire in ‘your people’ in every slot … most good leaders do not want to do that.

All that said.

To be clear.

Trump is possibly one of the crappiest senior leaders I have ever seen and he appears to have no belief that words matter and has no understanding of the concept of ‘communication alignment’ <let alone any alignment> … however … he is what he is. And because he is what he is … inconsistencies included … the staff he surrounds himself matters a shitload with regard to overall effectiveness.

What do I mean?

Trump forces his staff to adjust in real time as he communicates, and thinks, in real time.

Trump has never worked in a large organization nor has he ever truly had to manage a larger group of people, let alone senior executives.

He has always been the spokesperson and the brand and the final word … surrounded by family who was more than happy to simply double and triple down on whatever dad said <and be loyal to even his craziest tactical maneuvering and craziest words and wordsmithing>.

Real senior executives do not work that way nor is it a particularly effective method outside of a mom & pop structure.

In a real business organization you don’t get to pick & choose everyone in your circle … most times it is a hodgepodge of skills, personalities and experience. And you know what? You learn to manage them effectively because that is what a leader does.

You adapt some of you to accommodate some of them <yeah … sure … envision Trump doing that … uhm … sure … ain’t gonna happen>.

Trump is being forced out of his mom & pop management model into a more traditional larger business management model <and he is going kicking & screaming>.

Most people learn this as soon as they move from group management to department management <you cannot fire everyone and rehire only your people> and absolutely learn this lesson as soon as you move into the C-level positions.

Another aspect is when you get a position you do not treat it as an “I won so you need to …” but rather “I now get to lead and I am going to have to …”

All that said.

You learn some management personnel tricks to help you out.

I always tried to bring one person with me wherever I went as I moved up. Depending on the structure of the organization I always wanted at least one person who could “translate” me to the hodgepodge team. This wasn’t necessarily done to dictate my desires & behaviors onto a team but rather to help them align to how I managed so they could adapt and move faster.

I manage nothing like Trump but let’s assume Trump is moving into the presidency … it almost becomes mandatory for effectiveness that he has a team aligned on “what to do when Trump does his crazy.” He need a management team that doesn’t argue about what to do he needs a management team that absorbs the blow and moves out doing what needs to be done as the true power brokers for getting shit done.

By the way … this is not about loyalty to Trump this is about loyalty to most effectively getting good shit done. I didn’t care if people bitched about me behind my back <I always assumed they did> what I cared about is that they respected the general idea and invested their energy in trying to figure out how to best effectively implement the idea rather than invest energy trying to defend anything they really would have preferred just bitching about behind my back.

I always preferred loyalty to “getting good smart shit done” and always believed I would ultimately earn some respect if I <Me> always remained loyal to the idea of “enabling good smart shit to get done.”

Before I finish this thought I will admit my preference was always to try an bring in two foundational team members in order to kind of create some pillars … but you can get away with one to align a hodgepodge of managers & executives.

Anyway.

In an organization the size of a presidency Trump needs a translator but more importantly he needs an aligned team with regard to what to do with him and his behavior <and not be arguing over it>.

……… a Trump management team ………

Trump’s inclination will be with what he feels most comfortable with — family.

His next inclination will be with what makes him feel the best — the ones who unflinchingly try and power-broke the crazy <he would call them unflinching loyalists>.

Neither of those have anything to do with effective leadership nor do they have anything to do with effective ‘management of getting shit done.’

He has never been in a large organization nor has he managed a large group of people nor has he tried to get a large group of people aligned to agree & do some shit.

He naturally gravitates toward employees who don’t deliver bad news and those who deliver flattery.

They may feel good to have around but they are the absolute worst people to have on your management team. You only build a team like that if you have no interest in improving, no interest in any intellectual conflict <which is what actually sparks better ideas> and/or you are so insecure or arrogant <yes, you can be both> you don’t want any ideas other than your own.

Most often it is the senior leadership who challenges you that prompt new insights and help propel the group to success.

 

 

“You need people who have different points of view and aren’t afraid to argue. They are the kind of people who stop the organization from doing stupid things.”

Harvard Business Review

 

Look.

All leaders assume responsibility for a hodgepodge of senior managers. That’s what we do.

And we learn to set what expectations are and align on vision and encourage some flexibility & adapting and get going.

And we learn that some of what we do and what we think works a little better in one place than anther and that some people are better than we think at first blush and some people we really liked when we met them are worse than we thought.

And we learn that you don’t demand respect but rather earn it and loyalty is gained through respect.

I would imagine that engendering loyalty to Trump is hard in that up to this point loyalty most likely centered on fame & fortune.  And most of us who have led in larger organizations understand that strong foundational loyalty is less about the tangible fame & fortune but rather respect.  He is gonna have some problems with that.

I would imagine that effectiveness to Trump is blind support for him and what he says. And most of us who have led in larger organizations understand that effectiveness is less about support for what the leader says … but rather in structured response to a leader’s guidance & thoughts. I never wanted people to do what I said … I wanted people to do what needed to be done.  He is gonna have some problems with that.

I would imagine that alignment to Trump is familial. And most of us who have led in a larger organization want the exact same thing … but we know we have a hodgepodge team who is ‘the family’ and we deal with it.

Would I shake up the Trump administration? Yeah. I surely would.

And I would do it almost exactly opposite of how I envision he is likely to do it.

He doesn’t understand there is a campaign team and now he needs an effective doing team. He bludgeoned us with his dull insights on the campaign trail and now he needs to focus more on action.

What would I do with his cadre of white men?

I, personally, would make Kushner my chief of staff. He has no fucking clue how to do the job but he knows the Trumpster better than anyone in the world.

Give him some deputies who have a shitload of government experience. Send Ivanka off to write a real book. And build a staff of Republican zealots who know how to get shit done. Trust the Kushner kid to translate what the Donald J crazy means to everyone.

Bannon can stay but he just needs to focus on feeding the Trump crazy and let Kushner kid deal with the crazy output.

Others <just off the top of my head>. I love Wilbur Ross. Mnuchin almost seems overwhelmed-giddy by being in the spotlight. I would find a sane version of Mulvaney to take his job. I would tell Tillerson to start hiring like a mad man and tell him he can fire whoever he doesn’t need once he actually has some staff to do some shit. Just get out of Mattis, McMaster and Kelly’s way. I can’t get rid of Sessions even though I think he is crazy <I think he thinks he lives in the 1950’s> but because he actually translates Trump crazy better than anyone other than maybe that little pit bull Lewandowski.  I would wake up Carson, Perry, and all the other Cabinet members we haven’t heard a peep out of and ask them if they would like to participate in this circus.

I imagine my real point is that to be an effective leader of a hodgepodge group it is more important that THEY can work together than YOU like them.

Because if they can work together well than there is a better chance that the organization will not do stupid shit even if you make a stupid decision, your crazy will come to life as not-so-crazy pragmatism and knee-jerk spontaneous crazy asshat tweets simply get absorbed into seamless actions which make the tweets look a little less spontaneous, a little less knee jerk, a little less crazy … but still asshat because that is who you are.

And that is the value of a non-arguing hodgepodge group. They tend to mute the mistakes and crazy and amplify the actual good ideas and thoughts you may actually have.

A non-aligned hodgepodge managerial team simply exacerbates the problem — your crazy looks crazier, your spontaneous looks more spontaneous <see: unhinged> and your asshatedness looks more asshatted.

If I were a management consultant for Trump <I would shoot myself> I would look at him as a lost cause … he is what he is. He is a flower <with thorns> and I would turn my attention to the environment the flower is growing in.

If I were a management consultant for Trump <I would shoot myself> I would find a team that maybe wasn’t on the “Trump train” but rather find competent people who can do shit that I want done <and let the chief of staff … who is on the Trump Train … get them doing Trump train shit>.

If I were a management consultant for Trump <I would shoot myself> I would turn to the Kushner kid and say “you wanted in … you are in. You are the Trump whisperer. Make shit happen.”

Let me be clear.

Trump will shake up his staff and maybe cabinet members and he will fuck it up. He has no idea how to manage a business organization other than in a mom & pop style and he has no innate leadership skills and his management instincts suck.

And he has no clue how to build an effective team <someone should tell him there is not enough room up his ass for all the people he actually needs to run a country let alone a viably larger sized organization>.

Oh. And he is a narcissistic asshat who believes no one knows better than he does.

In the end.

As I stated in my Trump 100 day piece … he did nothing in his first 100 days that would suggest the next 100 days <and foreseeable 100 day increments> would be any smoother, efficient or effective. I am 99% confident he will shake up his staff and management team and I cannot envision it proceeding smoothly, efficiently or effectively. Why? Because he has no clue what he is doing.

=======

“I’m not a marketing person. I don’t ask myself questions.

I go by instinct.”

—-

Karl Lagerfeld

==========

“Marketing and press kicks up dust. It gets in your eye, and then you’re not focusing on the product.“

—-

Jan Koum

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

So.

Within the 1^st 5 posts ever written on enlightened conflict I wrote about the absurdity of rebranding … Nigeria: The risks in branding (a lesson from Nigeria).

In that post I pointed out that simply telling someone something doesn’t mean that <a> it suddenly makes it true, <b> makes it believable to everyone, and <c> it changes everything that everyone currently believes.

Today, over 1800 posts later, I return to the absurd topic by discussing another country … Czechoslovakia … or Czech Republic … or Czechia.

Yeah.

For a reason only truly obvious to them the Czech Republic’s leaders have chosen “Czechia” as the one-word alternative name of their country to “make it easier for companies, politicians and sportsmen to use on products, name tags and sporting jerseys.”

The choice, made by the president, prime minister, heads of parliament and foreign and defense ministers, meant that they could file the “new name” with the United Nations which under the rules of this absurd branding initiative would officially change the country’s name.

This is crazy.

Fucking nuts.

Here is what I envision happened <having been in the marketing world>.

I assume the bunch of country leaders were brainstorming ideas about how to “improve the Czech Republic’s position in the world” and someone <after possibly drinking one too many of their fine beers> said “hey, our name is too long … we would double our business if we shortened it.”

<note: because “Republic” is so difficult for everyone>

What would happen if we get rid of Republic?!? … someone shouts.

<people think>

Someone says … “Well, that’s shorter … but then we are just “Czech” … that isn’t good.”

hmmmmmmmmm ………

<that is the sound of the room pondering this brilliance>

Someone says … lets add “ia” which make its sound … well … okay … it doesn’t sound anything but it is different than Czech.

Yeah, that’s it!

<consensus among drunken political hacks sitting around fine mahogany table>

— after a minute or two pondering their brilliance … —

“Okay.

But we need a marketing expert … why don’t we call Pavel?”

<one of the most popular names in the Czech Republic and good friend of Jan — who is one of the ministers jumping on this rebranding bandwagon>.

Pavel immediately runs over to the minister gathering … listens for a minute or two … pensively looks around the room … takes a deep breath <everyone leans forward …> … he jumps up  and says “brilliant !!! … this is marketing genius !!!”

Okay.

This is the stupidest fucking marketing idea.

It is not even close to being common sense.

While there has been no standardized one-word English name for the Czech Republic, unlike, say, France <the shortened version of the French Republic> since the official breakup of Czechoslovakia in the 90’s I scratch my head over why it even matters.

The Czech Republic is made up of Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia.

Uhm.

Who cares? That is kind of irrelevant <but fun factoid to share>.

What matters is that I assume some marketing expert … maybe even some high falutin’ branding company was involved and they let this incredibly stupid idea happen.

It is crap like this that gives marketing a bad name.

It is crap like this that encourages me to think that “branding”, in general, is stupid <and I have been part of dozens of ‘branding’ campaigns>.

Yeah.

A name is kind of like a label for your brand … but … it is not your brand. The label represents all the stuff <think of sausage> that makes up what could be construed as a brand.

And just like sausage … it can be stuffed with crap or t can be stuffed with high quality ingredients.

While the Czech Republic could give a shit what I think I would have sat them down <demanding some of their fine beer in payment> and said …

“look, let’s figure out what we want the Czech Republic to stand for <if you are worried about business and sporting impressions>.  Because I have to be honest with you … people will wear “uehdmajndgygeemudby” on their shirt <that was just some random letters I typed on my keyboard> and buy a shitload of those shirts … and even bring their businesses closer to where that name on that shirt is … if they think it is cool, if they think it represents who they are <and how they think>, if it means they could make some money being associated with that name.

The name, in and of itself, is … well … less than relevant. Let’s focus on the sausage ingredients.”

But, hey, that’s me.

Christallmighty … how does shit like this really happen?

I buy the fact that people who have no reason making decisions like this make decisions like this. I see it all the time. there are a shitload of business people, heck, any people as a matter of fact … who believe they are smart enough to pretty much make any decisions whether they are an expert or not.

But.

Most of the time most reasonably larger business entities <countries included> will bring in someone who actually is supposed to know their shit.

And that is where shit like his is supposed to die.

Someone like me is supposed to come in and represent some sanity.

Someone like me is supposed to come in and offer some common sense.

Someone … well … someone smarter than me is supposed to come in and say this is stupid.

Someone is supposed to come in and state the obvious … people are used to the name Czech Republic by now, most people are fine with it, almost all people do not think it is a barrier to anything meaningful, pretty much all people don’t think it is ‘too complicated’ and needs to be ‘simpler’ … and I would say we should stick with it.

Arguing that the Czech Republic tag is too long to attract attention on the global stage and “woo” foreign investment and that “Czechia” would simplify things and be more recognizable is … well … just stupid.

This is the kind of shit that makes real branding efforts more difficult and this is the kind of shit that makes talking about marketing, in general, more difficult.

I am about to make a blanket statement using a percentage I have no research to prove.

90% of so called “rebranding” projects and initiatives are a waste of time. They are misguided initiatives in which nothing needs to be rebranded but rather the brand itself just needs to reassert itself.

I am 90% confident I am right on this.

As for the Czech Republic rebranding?

Just another stupid marketing example that makes everyone in marketing look stupid.

=========== 

We were the kings and queens of promise. We were the victims of ourselves.

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

30 Seconds from Mars

<Kings & Queens>

———————–

“I exist in the depths of solitude

pondering my true goal.

Trying 2 find peace of mind

and still preserve my soul.

CONSTANTLY yearning 2 be accepted

and from all receive respect.

Never compromising but sometimes risky

and that is my only regret.

A young heart with an old soul

how can there be peace.

How can I be in the depths of solitude

when there R 2 inside of me.

This Duo within me causes

the perfect opportunity

2 learn and live twice as fast

as those who accept simplicity.”

–

poem by Tupac Shakur

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

Ok.

I recently discussed the Penalty of Leadership thought with a number of businesses and at exactly the same time I have had several great discussions with some young employees.

It occurred to me that there is also a penalty of youth.

And when I thought about this it made me rethink something I wrote back in September 2012 about ‘the voices of a generation.’ In it I suggested that each generation will always have a ‘few’ to stand up and give voice to generation. For most generations that may be true … but in this younger generation I believe I am wrong. I believe everyone in this younger generation will have to face the penalty of youth.

The penalty is that, well, there are so many absurd perceptions with regard to the younger generation that they have to address it. If they do not, they will then they pay a penalty in that perceptions drive older people’s behaviors toward them.

Do I believe every young generation has faced his penalty? Yes.

But I will suggest. and I believe, that this generation faces a stronger misperception battle from older people <the Last Generation> mostly because the older generations are facing so much uncertainty of their own they shift some of their angst over all the change to the future generations.

Now.

The biggest misperception absurdity is the proclaimed characteristics of “selfishness and entitlement.” Shit. We called the baby boomer generation the “Me Generation” and in 2013 Time magazine called the millennials the “Me Me Me Generation.” From that point on Life has been a sonuvabitch to young people with regard to attitudes & perceptions … and words we say about them.

Look.

Words matter. I have said that again and again and again. And of all the words we flippantly throw around with regard to the young, “me” creates an insipid implication of a lack of depth and character tied to this “me-ness” which they now seem to own as a generation.

This is crazy. Just nuts.

I could point out that we <I am a 50osomething> were bashed for our ‘me-ness’ … hands were wringing over our character challenges as well as our laziness. But I will not.

Because today’s youth are not achievement-oriented robots, not single-mindedly focused on themselves … and not lazy, entitled, anti-capitalist morons simply pursuing passion and not hard work.

They are not immoral, selfish, cruel or even overly materialistic.

They are probably less bigoted, racist, and sexist than prior generations <which is far too often mischaracterized as ‘politically correct’>.

They are, research shows, in general, a nice combination of achievement desires, worldly aspirations with a strong desire to do good.

That said.

I, personally, have found most young people to be thoughtful, interesting, and stimulating.

=====

“Generation X.” Instead of being “slackers,” “judgmental,” and “anti-corporate,” he said, Millennials are “leaning forward,” “engaged,” “inclusive,” and “tolerant,” and they believe that “commerce” can be “lubricated by conscience.”

marketing expert Scott Hess

=====

All I wish is that, well, they paid the penalty of their youth.  The penalty being they will have to be more articulate and outspoken in defending themselves against the tripe we older folk throw at them. Yeah, here is the deal, while I will go anywhere at any time and expound upon the virtues of our future – the young – they have to step up and speak out. That is inevitably their penalty … the one they have to pay.

They just can’t ignore it.

They just can’t say it is all stupid.

They can’t just say “they” don’t understand.

And they just can’t say it is ignorance <and suggest it is beneath you>.

Ultimately, the penalty of youth is … well … proof.

Well.

That sucks. Who the hell wants to invest all that energy simply trying to debunk some stupid misperceptions?

<I will admit … certainly not me … and certainly not me when I was young>

But, whether embraced or not, it is the penalty of youth. What I mean by that is … it is a penalty of responsibility … or penalty that costs you if you do not assume the responsibility.

Bottom line?

There is a penalty whether you accept it or not. That said. I would point out, just as with the Penalty of Leadership, that this penalty reaps rewards. If you pay the penalty you control your destiny, you maintain your sense of self at the forefront and you dicatte reality <rather than be buffeted by the winds of perceptions>.

Now. Many people <older ones> suggest our education system is at the root of young people not being able to stand their ground intelligently <if not intellectually>.

I do not. Research actually shows it is not our education system but rather more what we older folk teach them growing up. Yeah. It seems that defending ourselves is not in our natural DNA. In fact … from our youngest age most of us are taught to … well … not defend ourselves.

Think about it. As we grow up mostly we are taught to either:

• Walk away <leave the situation>
• Tell an adult

The challenge with both of these is that both of these are dependent upon an adult being available immediately to assess the situation and be the jury & judge.  As a result most of us learn to be dependent upon an external authority to defend. This also means we are not trained from day one to use words to deescalate & defend.

This ultimately can also translate into a weird ying & yang affect where bullies become masters of holding their own <through physical and nonphysical means> while others struggle to shed everything they learned about external authority to deal with bullies.

=====

“Obstacles, of course, are developmentally necessary: they teach kids strategy, patience, critical thinking, resilience and resourcefulness. “

Naomi Wolf

=======

That said. Suffice it to say we don’t really embed a good set of tools and sense of ‘how to’ stand up and speak out.

So while we ask for a generation which definitely has a backbone, has dedication and has tenacity … we adults don’t necessarily give them the tools with which to defend and articulate their backbone, dedication and tenacity. And without those tools they just look stubborn, purposeless and unwilling to listen. I am not sure what we adults do to create this following research factoid but research from Girl Scouts of America says kids say their confidence in speaking up and leading others dwindles by the fifth grade. Kids also tell us they gain that confidence is by entering into activities, clubs, teambuilding, etc. and the earlier the better.

And while I could lazily suggest we just need to make sure the young have opportunities to be a member of a team, take charge of a project or lead others … I imagine what I wish is that we could teach, and encourage, a sense of … well … ‘grit.’ This is a little different than resiliency.

Grit is more about the blue collar aspects of living Life … the working, the keep pushing, the keep failing, and the learning to get back up again … all the while defending what you are doing.

We need to encourage the young to stand up for their views even if they may not be unpopular.

We need to encourage the young to know that even though they might feel uncomfortable they should always feel it’s best to stand up for your rights or the rights of others … and what is right.

We need to encourage them to be a model of assertive articulation in a respectful way.

I tend to believe when young people know their opinions count they are more likely to speak out and not only feel comfortable speaking up for themselves they learn thru trial & error how to best find their ‘voice.’ The more we ask them what they believe … and probe on why they believe it … the better they will be as people and the better they will be at articulating what their generation is going to offer us <that we older folk have clearly been unable to offer the world>. 

We want the young to know that they should “look” confident, not angry or frustrated, in order to be taken seriously.

We want the young to know that holding on to ideals is good … but letting go of old ideas is the penalty of … well … growing up.

==========

Giving up something that no longer serves a purpose, or protects you, or helps you, isn’t giving up at all, it’s growing up.

Laurell K. Hamilton

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

While it is trite to say the young are our future … the numbers actually bear it out this time. The sheer population of the young is quickly overreaching the population numbers of the old.

The youth actually owns the now & the next. They ARE the dominant voice … and minds … of now and the next.

That said.

The penalty of youth is to use that voice … and use it wisely. They need to embrace … well … exactly what 30 Seconds said upfront:

…. the kings and queens of promise and, yet, the victims of ourselves

Embrace and understand that promise is achieved by not permitting themselves to be victims of themselves.

Oh.

And the responsibility of the older generation is to listen to that voice … and treat it wisely.