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

“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.

One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless yet be determined to make them otherwise.”

F. Scott Fitzgerald

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

Contradictions. My favorite topic (certainly in business). Now. This is a tricky conversation in business because most business people like one-dimensional thinking & ideas. Yeah. That sounds harsh but at its core is the argument of “stand for one thing” combined with “simple is success”. Both of which ignore the fact most people find contradictions interesting (therefore cognitively retain the imprint better) and simple doesn’t necessarily mean ‘one thing’ but rather ‘understandable.’ I would also argue contradictions, or multidiemensional is more relatable. My main example of this is in discussing Brand Personality where the whole idea of ‘one thing’ is absurd.

Regardless. I personally love the idea of ‘owning a contradiction’ because it is a descriptive phrase that invokes people to hold two opposing concepts concurrently.

And more importantly? It is a smart idea. And I don’t care who you are, you like smart ideas <everyone does>.

Everyone likes ideas that make you think. A contradiction, or an idea capturing a contradiction, is an idea that makes you think.

Patient quickness.

Make haste slowly.

Big and fast.

Small but powerful.

Less is more.

That kind of stuff. Literally, I imagine we are simply discussing oxymorons.

But. I will get back to that (because I am curious and looked up all that stuff). Owning a Contradiction is excellent for when you are talking about brand positioning and company’s value propositions and what people think about an organization (or product or service).

A contradiction offers something that may seem counter intuitive and make people cock their heads a little bit and think “how do they do that?”.

From an organization value proposition standpoint (what is it we do best – with a skew toward functional) owning a contradiction is kind of the holy grail.

In particular you love to zero in on some aspect of more for less.

(Think of that as the holy grail value proposition sweet spot)

What do I mean?

That’s like …

More happiness-satisfaction less worry.

Get more Services at less cost.

More nutrition in least (smallest) portion.

Do more with less (plus/minus relationship).

Do most with least amount of money/budget.

Large global resources attention to small details.

“who say you can’t be big and nimble?”

Stuff like that.

If you can build an organizational culture and innovations and attitudinal structure with something like that at the core you are golden. Now and for the future.

Anyway. Whenever I bring up owning a contradiction, at first blush, everyone loves the idea. The challenge is when people want to “understand it.”

So. Inevitably you get the smart(ass) question … ‘are you talking about an oxymoron or a paradox’?

(yikes. Here is where I need to search dictionaries for help)

Oxymoron or Paradox. Here are the two definitions.

An oxymoron as “a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in ‘cruel kindness’ or ‘to make haste slowly’.”

(c’mon … who uses ‘locution’ in a sentence … jerks)

A paradox is defined as “a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth”.

Uh oh. That didn’t help me. Is one a figure of a speech and one a sentence? Geez. ‘Self contradictory but in reality expresses a possible truth.’

Now. That sounds good. Unfortunately if I research oxymoron I get more of what I am talking about with owning a contradiction despite the fact the explanation for a paradox seems … well … righter.

The Oxymoron is a figure of speech that deliberately uses two contradictory ideas. This contradiction creates a paradoxical image (okay. They just used oxymoron and paradox together ???) in the reader or listener’s mind that generates a new concept or meaning for the whole.

Some typical oxymorons are:

–          a living death

–          sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind

–          a deafening silence

–          bitter sweet

–          The Sounds of Silence (song title)

–          make haste slowly

–          conspicuous by his absence

Ok. It gets worse (trying to understand what it is supposed to be) when you look at these.

The following seem more like paradoxes to me, but they all are from a book called “Oxymoronica” by Dr. Mardy Grothe.

—

I can resist everything but temptation.

Oscar Wilde

=

Don’t be too clever for an audience. Make it obvious. Make the subtleties obvious also.

Billy Wilder

=

Just be truthful – If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.

Barbara Stanwyck

=

Please all, and you will please none.

Aesop – 6th century BC

=

Nothing is permanent, except change.

Heraclitus – 4th century BC

=

Okay. Regardless. Owning a contradiction (to me) is not only smart but it articulates something in a way that it actually becomes a figure of Speech (which also has a literal definition by the way)

Uh oh. Another definition. Figure of speech? A figure is worth a thousand words (A picture is worth a thousand words)

—

Figurative language:

One meaning of “figure” is drawing” or “image” or “picture”. Figurative language creates figures (pictures) in the mind of the reader or listener.  These pictures help convey the meaning faster and more vividly than words alone.

We use figures of speech in “figurative language” to add color and interest, and to awaken the imagination. Figurative language is everywhere, from classical works like Shakespeare or the Bible, to everyday speech, pop music and television commercials. It makes the reader or listener use their imagination and understand much more than the plain words.

Anyway. I come back to “expresses a possible truth.” Owning a contradiction (when you aren’t making it up and it is something of value) is figurative, a paradox and most importantly is communicating the possibility of a truth.

Something meaningful but contradictory all to the benefit of whoever you are communicating to.

In a way it is quite possible I like contradictions because they aggressively and interestingly attack people’s ignorance. They make you think of things that may not seem possible, but become an interesting ‘truth’ (and we learn something). To me that is the cognitive power of a contradiction.

Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance.

Confucius – 6th century BC

I will admit. Contradictions are personal to me. Lunch bucket intellectual is my contradiction. Bring a blue collar work ethic day in and day out but relentless intellectual curiosity to seek insights and ‘truth.’ I guess I am also a generalist specialist.

All that said.  Bottom line? Any time you can own a contradiction you are more interesting ... as a product, as a business or even as a person.

So.

This is about marketing and communications and plain packaging versus branding … as well as truth and deceit.

— 

“In theory, everybody buys the best and cheapest commodities offered him on the market.

In practice, if everyone went around pricing, and chemically testing before purchasing, the dozens of soaps or fabrics or brands of bread which are for sale, economic life would become hopelessly jammed.

To avoid such confusion, society consents to have its choice narrowed to ideas and objects brought to its attention through propaganda of all kinds. There is consequently a vast and continuous effort going on to capture our minds in the interest of some policy or commodity or idea.”

=

Edward Bernays

—-

“All of us who professionally use the mass media are the shapers of society.

We can vulgarize that society. We can brutalize it.

Or we can help lift it to a higher level.”

=

Bill Bernbach

———————–

I wrote about this for two reasons:

1. Awhile back the Guardian had a small editorial on plain packaging <because Great Britain is thinking about having plain packaging for cigarettes>. Within the short thought piece it poses the question of “what if there were only plain packaging … for everything?”
2. I have been thinking about the moral responsibility of people in advertising & marketing communications

Well.

Both topics are relevant to anyone in the professional communications industry not just from a true business perspective but rather a philosophical ‘what do I really do for a living’ type perspective.

Why? One of the hot topics among young people when I speak to them is “the moral depravity of capitalism” and its flag bearer “the morally corrupt advertising.”

Regardless. A discussion about plain packaging for everything spans capitalism, brands & branding and people themselves <how much they can actually be influenced to do something they don’t really desire doing>.

I remain steadfast in this discussion.

Capitalism, in and of itself, is not morally corrupt. Only people can be moral or immoral.

Advertising, in and of itself, is not morally corrupt. Only people can be moral or immoral.

Regardless of my steadfastness, plain packaging for everything sparks an interesting discussion about not only the morality of marketing & advertising but the role, and importance, of brands in people’s lives.

I will begin with the Guardian editorial:

—————-

== The Guardian == 

Unthinkable? Plain packets for everything.

Brands allow us to choose, but they also sometimes stop us choosing wisely – perhaps everything should carry a warning

—

Could the plain wrappers, which the government has said it will introduce for cigarettes, be usefully extended, to other potentially harmful products?

Alcopop could be divested of its deceiving glamour, fatty food could be labelled as just that, sugar could be generically dispensed. Whisky would just be a brown liquid in a bottle without pictures of terriers or a chap striding along.  Marmalade would just be a brown substance in a jar (after all, when you buy oranges they often put them in a plain brown paper bag).  Ice cream would no longer carry names reminding you of heavy handguns or novels by Mark Twain. Except, of course, in very tiny letters at the bottom of the pack. High heeled shoes could be stripped of their fashion names and carry a warning about muscle strain and bunions to come.

Fast cars could have their badges pruned.

The more we extend the list the sillier it becomes.

Yet we know how many designs for marijuana packets were patented in the hope that it would be legalised: the magic wand of branding could then be waved over them to bring big profits to these far-sighted entrepreneurs.

Brands allow us to choose, but they also sometimes stop us choosing wisely.

Perhaps the problem could be tackled more directly by simply attaching a label to everything saying that branding should be taken with a pinch of salt. Naturally a label like that on an actual packet of salt could cause confusion, so that one might have to say in that case that branding could be a snare and a delusion.

————–

I imagine beginning the discussion you have to use the end of the editorial – branding could be a snare and a delusion. Those words give this conversation a lot to grapple with.

Brand <and branding>.

Exchange Value.

Deceit.

Caveat emptor.

Influencing.

Information and disinformation.

Now. The issue of morality & responsibility has been discussed for decades.

The most famous public discussion may have occurred sometime in the 1950’s. Printer’s Ink <a magazine I believe> published an editorial Toynbee Vs. Bernbach on Advertising <oddly, in this day & age where you can find almost everything online … I can’t find a copy of it … therefore I am dependent upon a sole bad hard copy I made years ago>.

The summary?

—–

Arnold Toynbee:

Advertising is moral mis-education.

Advertising is an instrument of moral, as well as intellectual, mis – education. Insofar as it succeeds in influencing people’s minds, it conditions them not to think for themselves and not to choose for themselves.

It is intentionally hypnotic in its effect it makes people suggestible and docile. In fact, it prepares them for submitting to a totalitarian regime.

Bill Bernbach:

Only people are moral or immoral.

Advertising, like so many technologies available to man, is neither moral nor immoral. Is eloquence immoral because it persuades? Is music immoral because it awakens emotions? Is the gift of writing immoral because it can arouse people to action?

No.

Yet eloquence, music and writing have been used for evil purpose.

No, advertising is not moral or immoral.

Only people are.

—–

When I discuss capitalism & advertising I place both of these thoughts on screen and suggest people have to make a choice.

Are people sheep … or smart enough to make decisions on their own?

Are all people who do marketing & advertising immoral?

Well. After all those questions you realize that plain packaging isn’t the issue and that the topic is complex.

Suffice it to say, selling shit <marketing or manufacturing>, is always about balancing sales & ethics & values. The moment you lose sight of that is the moment your moral compass, or business, goes off the tracks. And you have to pay attention to your moral compass if you are in the communications business because there is gobs of research showing that the degree of brand loyalty increases sharply from the age of ten, and peaks around the age of 30. There is gobs of research showing that the degree of emotional involvement a person invests with a brand increases their irrationality.

Why the hell did I include those factoids? Because that means if you are in the communications business <this includes packaging by the way> you have a responsibility. That responsibility is being ethical & being truthful and not being deceitful.

Basically people know and love brands.

People know the names of brands, remember what they see and hear about them and form opinions of them.

And people actually do NOT like plain packaging — they like all the wrappings around the shit they buy. And, I would note, the trappings are important because brand value <which creates a version of a relationship> don’t form in a vacuum. To create real brand value you have to create strong attitudinal foundations. Some suggest an attitudinal foundation is a ‘bond’ <I do not but it makes the point>.

I cannot remember who built this “brand loyalty pyramid” but , in general, it says pretty much the same thing as every ‘loyalty pyramid’ you will see when you walk thru the door of any credible communications company:

—

• Presence: does the consumer know anything about the product or service?

• Relevance: does it cater for their needs?

• Performance: does it deliver?

• Advantage: is it better than others in some way?

• Bonding: nothing else can beat it.

—

All consumers, whether kids or adults, form brand relationships in this way.On a side note, interestingly, research shows that among kids, around half of all brands change their typology every two years, highlighting an extremely rapid ‘migration’ of attitudes. But, in general, Millward Brown research shows that brand allegiance changes very little across the generations. In two out of three categories, adults and kids are bonded to the same brands. Many brands manage to tap into needs and desires that transcend the age of the consumer, and many do this through careful product segmentation.

I included a lot of this stuff because we use the word ‘brand’ often in a very simplistic way and it is a very non simplistic concept. It has to do with perceptions, attitude and expectations which inevitably lead to specific behaviors.

All this gets me back to plain packaging and, conversely, discussing ‘brand.’ Plain packaging suggests everything is equal. Toynbee would like that. Everything equally good and equally bad. Unfortunately for Toynbee, whether you believe it or not, the shit we buy varies in quality.

Could we exist, or subsist, on the lowest quality? I am fairly sure we could.

But our everyday existence is made up of more than simply existing. What I mean is … how dull would life be if that is all there was?

To be clear, even within the lowest income purchasers, those who have a heightened sense of survival, there remains hope for something better and the occasional indulgence of something better. Non-plain packaging permits a manufacturer to showcase ‘better’ or ‘different’ so we, the people, can make choices.

Ah. Making choices. People make choices. Non-plain packaging helps them make choices.

Professional communicators also make choices. This leads me to something called … “Do this or die.”

Do this or Die is a manifesto written by Bill Bernbach <one of the founders of the advertising agency Doyle, Dane & Bernbach – DDB> and it is written to those who CREATE advertising and messaging — the professional communicators in the world. It is a directive ‘the creators of messaging’ to create inspiring truthful meaningful messaging. He suggests in his manifesto to the ‘creators’, those who should bear the burden of ‘non deceitful messaging,’ that the people are not a nation, or world, of stupid people.

People are smart. And maybe ‘the people’ can be tricked once, but very very rarely twice.

“DO THIS OR DIE” is a warning, a promise, a call-out to the lazier advertising and marketing and communications professionals.

A warning to the ones who accept and produce mediocrity.

A warning to the ones who don’t understand the power of truth and the ones who compromise ‘truth’ in the interest of sale or ‘false differentiation.’

Do this or Die. What we professionals communicate must be truth:

==

“… the messages we put on those pages and on those television screens must be the truth. For if we play tricks with the truth, we die.

Now. The other side of the coin. Telling the truth about a product demands a product that’s worth telling the truth about. Sadly, so many products aren’t. So many products don’t do anything better. Or anything different. So many don’t work quite right.

Or don’t last.

Or simply don’t matter.

If we also play this trick, we also die.”

==

This means, to me, discussing plain packaging is discussing the symptom of a larger problem. It becomes not a discussion of marketing or communications or even capitalism; it becomes a discussion about people and doing what is right versus what is wrong and choices.

I love this discussion with young people.

It is a hard discussion in which they may approach it with some naiveté but they also approach it with truth in hand. Truth that while there are moral and immoral people in the world and that even moral people will slide down the slippery slope of mediocre ethical behavior under the guise of either <a> not knowledgeable enough to do anything better, or <b> everyone else is doing it.

In the end.

Let me say I despise what Arnold Toynbee suggests with regard to people.

I refuse to believe people aren’t smart enough to make knowledgeable decisions.

I refuse to believe people can be influenced to such an extent they desire things they shouldn’t desire.

I refuse to believe people can be manipulated to do wrong things <but certainly can be inspired to take positive actions>.

I do believe communications can influence attitudes.

I do believe communications, done well, can affect behavior.

But I don’t believe communications can make someone do something they don’t want to do … nor convince them in any consistent way to do wrong things.

Just as you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink, communications can lead someone somewhere <immorally or morally>, but inevitably a person makes the moral or immoral choice.

Now. Here is something I am emphatic with when talking with young people <and as often as I can with older people>.

I do believe professional communicators have a higher responsibility than other folks.

I do believe … all of us who professionally use the mass media are the shapers of society.

We can vulgarize that society.

We can brutalize it.

Or we can help lift it to a higher level.

Plain packaging? Why am I against it?

Well. I would lose an opportunity to help lift society to a higher level.

That’s what I tell people.

And that is what I believe.

===

This old post is not about communicators … but business responsibility to shaping society.

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

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

”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 (the photographer)

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

So. It is Fall Equinox and I get to use one of my favorite images.

I loved the digitally enhanced photography.

I loved how the photographer described what he envisioned when he did the photography (I like it when a photographer has something in mind).

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

The equinox represents equal night & day. The moment in the year in which night and day are equal. Light and dark are balanced. The circle, and cycle, is perfectly balanced. It is possibly the one time you can actually draw a straight line in Life.

That said. 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. Things come, and go, and come back again.

Just ponder that.

Ponder and maybe wonder why would we ever think our own life <the smaller more personal ‘I’ life> is linear? Why just because something goes it will never return and, conversely, why something will stay simply because it came?

The circle of Life, I suppose.

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

“Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it.

—

Dwight D. Eisenhower

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

Whew. In business, getting out of the way, if you are even mediocrely qualified or actually good at what you do … this may be one of the most difficult things to do.

What am I talking about?

Get out of the way of someone who knows what they are doing.

Now. This isn’t about ‘planting your own ideas in someone else’s head” <which you see a number of articles on if you try and google this topic, by the way, interestingly I couldn’t find one article out of the gazillions on my topic today>.

This is simply getting out of the way of someone who actually knows what the hell they are doing. This topic actually came up from a young person who actually asked ‘why don’t stupid people get out of the way of the people who actually know what they are doing.” My immediate response was relatively flippant: “because most stupid people don’t recognize they are stupid … about something.”

Okay.No one panic.

I followed that quickly with “listen … most people truly aren’t stupid … they are just blind to what they may actually not be as good at versus someone else.”

But. So, often, out of the mouths of babes comes truth. We often sit in our office, or in a meeting with a group of people, and if someone could read the thought bubble over our heads they would stare <mouth agape probably> when they read “why the f%$& won’t these stupid people get out of the way so someone who knows what they are doing can get this done?”

C’mon. Admit it.

We have all done it.

We have all thought it.

But here is the other side of that coin. It is really really difficult to admit you are one of the ‘stupid people’ and should be getting out of the way.

<by the way … I am simply using stupid as a harsher place holder for ‘less qualified’ or ‘not as good as’>

First. Reminder.

Most people are not stupid <even in business> and the odds are you aren’t stupid … it is simply a way of expressing your frustration and it isn’t literal.

Second. Well.

It is difficult to get out of the way for a number of reasons but let’s pick two:

<1> Yourself and … <2> someone else.

Huh?

–          Yourself.

This is ego. As well as society <a little> I imagine. But let’s discuss ego first. Getting out of the way implies you are not good enough or qualified enough … and you will not only feel like shit … you will look bad to everyone else.

You kind of have to discipline yourself a little to be able to get out of the way. This type of discipline is not easy.

Society does not support it and the drive to intervene in the process is rooted in how we were brought up, what we have seen around us and reinforced in our culture … as in … accepted behavior of those who are successful.

It is a difficult challenge to overcome the slightly narcissistic impulse to show off ‘your game’ and instead step out of the way and accept you can simply be there … without everything depending on you.

It is difficult for someone to not only know there are better circumstances you can be in but also that there’s a better way to do something.

It is difficult to think that if you actually step out of the way you may learn something and become better <mostly because you feel if you pass on this opportunity you will never get the opportunity again>.

It is difficult to decide in the moment, from a self interest perspective of actually wanting to better yourself <and do what’s right> that, technically, you are actually getting out of your own way.

None of this is easy because these types of decisions boil down to how you see yourself and how much value yourself. Maybe I could say instead … how comfortable you are with yourself.

If you think about it, if you can shed all the angst and society and all the ‘here is how you are supposed to act’ type bullshit, your actions reflect what you want for yourself and what you feel you deserve. In the end … as with almost everything it seems … getting out of the way and yourself is mostly about character. Oddly enough … it is difficult to be honest with yourself.

Next.

–          Someone else.

Ok.

This is a version of yourself … this is assessing the ‘someone else’ who wants you to get out of the way. Beyond the fact you may be admitting that someone may be better than you at something else … you are actually evaluating that someone else.

Uh oh. Typically, we suck at that. We suck at that because we typically judge our co-workers on the wrong criteria – the past.

Sure. If they have delivered on what they promised in the past, it does count for something. And their resume of past behavior and performance can count <albeit resumes are dubious things at best>.

But how much should it REALLY count? Because, uh oh <a BIG business truth here> most expertise is situational.

As in discrete. As in mutually exclusive.

Uh oh. What that means is you cannot judge based on anything historical but rather you have to judge within the moment and the situation.

Wow. That sucks. And we suck at doing that.

Ok. Beyond dealing with yourself and someone else.

When we do get out of the way we feel compelled to praise <this is actually a self ego thing>. Frankly, praising someone in the work place is … well … sometimes painful <particularly with a peer>. And if it isn’t painful it is certainly uncomfortable. Most of us are not skilled enough to be diplomatic and sincere without being condescending or, I cannot find the right words, suffice it to say most of us just plain suck at praising effectively in the work place.

And honestly … there are some good reasons why we suck at it. The behavioral reason <not the immature reason> is that we worry <and know from research> that the praised-for-every-achievement employee ends up reflecting a happier, more successful and highly self-esteemed employee, but more likely, the employee will become a ‘pleasing mode’ model employee <one who is driven to success not by personal curiosity but rather by the desire to earn praise by simply living up to expectations>.

Whew. Looking back at what I just wrote … that sure sounds cynical. Or maybe it just sounds shallow in referring to how people think or act. Take solace in the fact that it really isn’t because it is mainly a subconscious thing. We all do it to some degree it is only the people who consciously suck up and seek praise by ‘being a sheep’ that aggravate us.

Now. Living up to expectations isn’t a bad thing in the scheme of things, but it also doesn’t represent the kind of dynamics you want in a growing & expanding employee <or in a business in general>. You prefer to inspire someone to WANT to do something not HAVE to do it <for some personal gain>.

Anyway.

Getting out of the way is more difficult than most people think. For some good reasons and some bad reasons. Regardless of the reason, suffice it to say, we suck at getting out of the way.

==

“When written in Chinese, the word crisis is composed of two characters. One represents danger, and the other represents opportunity.”

–

John F. Kennedy

==

Ok.

I love this quote.  And a boatload of business management people do <dozens of books written using it>.

Uh oh. But it isn’t true.

Good ole JFK got it wrong <but he is in good company>.

The usual explanation is that the Chinese ideogram for “crisis” is made up of two characters signifying “opportunity” and “danger.” To us folk on this side of the planet this is a great example of the ancient East wisdom. And teachers, pontificators, self help specialists, motivational speakers and anyone who likes to tell people to find lemonade when given a basket of lemons have used this explanation.

The key lesson shared?

“A crisis provides an opportunity for change and growth as well as a danger of regression or stagnation.”

<but that is too long and complete to be a soundbite>

Yup. This is pretty frickin’ deep.

The truth?

1. In Chinese, the term for crisis is wei ji.

2. Native Chinese speakers tend to think the crisis = danger/opportunity connection is complete bullshit.

The Chinese word <not really an ideogram by the way> for crisis, when translated, literally means “dangerous, or precarious, moment.” That’s it.  No ‘opportunity.’  No benefiting.  Just danger. Or … maybe I should focus on the part I like … “a precarious moment.”

Not a bad lesson in itself. Crisis CAN be bad … but in reality is just all about having a precarious moment … that needs to be managed.

Just to be sure I cover all my bases as I tear down all that self-help mumbo jumbo people have absorbed and are putting in use day-to-day.

(through some research)

A mandarin expert breaks down the word and definition and wisdom mumbo-jumbo:

A whole industry of pundits and therapists has grown up around this one grossly inaccurate statement. A casual search of the Web turns up more than a million references to this spurious proverb. It appears, often complete with Chinese characters, on the covers of books, on advertisements for seminars, on expensive courses for “thinking outside of the box,” and practically everywhere one turns in the world of quick-buck business, pop psychology, and orientalist hocus-pocus. This catchy expression (Crisis = Danger + Opportunity) has rapidly become nearly as ubiquitous as The Tao of Pooh and Sun Zi’s Art of War for the Board / Bed / Bath / Whichever Room.

The explication of the Chinese word for crisis as made up of two components signifying danger and opportunity is due partly to wishful thinking, but mainly to a fundamental misunderstanding about how terms are formed in Mandarin and other Sinitic languages.

<that was awesome …>

Next.

While it is true that wēijī does indeed mean “crisis” and that the wēi syllable of wēijī does convey the notion of “danger,” the jī syllable of wēijī most definitely does not signify “opportunity.”

The jī of wēijī, in fact, means something like “incipient moment; crucial point (when something begins or changes).” Thus, a wēijī is indeed a genuine crisis, a dangerous moment, a time when things start to go awry. A wēijī indicates a perilous situation when one should be especially wary. It is not a juncture when one goes looking for advantages and benefits.

As the Mandarin language expert says quite succinctly … “In a crisis, one wants above all to save one’s skin and neck!”

As well as …

“Any would-be guru who advocates opportunism in the face of crisis should be run out of town on a rail, for his / her advice will only compound the danger of the crisis.”

I loved this guy.

A little wordy in his explanation but he was passionate about telling everyone how far off base they were on the whole crisis/opportunity thing. Sorry.  No Eastern wisdom here. In this case the east and the west agreed that a crisis is bad, dangerous and to be wary of and that’s it.

Ok.

All that said <mostly said to enlighten everyone and piss off a boatload of publishers and book writers> let’s talk about crisis and the opportunities a crisis does actually create. Most of us quickly see the danger in a crisis… and we should … because it is exactly as translated … a precarious moment.  Like its true Chinese definition a crisis is a crucial moment where things begin to go awry.

It is easy to overlook any opportunity within the crisis because, frankly, we are often just trying to survive <in other words … save our skin, neck & ass>.

And what makes this even more difficult is that the opportunity may be well hidden. The danger is always obvious and the most critical in our eye because the crisis creates potential personal harm. So what makes a crisis truly a “precarious moment” is that assuming you are seeking to find that elusive opportunity within the crisis … well … that with danger lurking its not that we forget to look for the opportunity but rather we seek to avoid the danger and the personal harm.

Lets call this for what it is … self preservation.

And that isn’t bad by the way.  Because if you don’t survive the “opportunity” becomes irrelevant. It is natural to avoid danger during a crisis and make that THE priority.  So, no, I am not going to suggest someone become an “opportunity person” when dealing with a crisis.

I believe people who can discover opportunities in a crisis are people who have already successfully managed the ‘precarious moment’ several times in the past. Maybe call it trial by fire.  Maybe call it trial & error.  But suffice it to say you ain’t gonna be seeking opportunities when dealing with your first true crisis.

Yes. Many people say that it was actually a crisis that caused them to make a much-needed change.

Yes. Living through a hard time challenges people to grow in ways that makes them more mature and opens them to new possibilities.

Where I would argue with people on this is that through surviving the crisis they … well … just found a better way to survive. And that’s not being opportunistic.  That is simply survival instinct <compounded by understanding of what makes oneself happiest>.

Look.

Life constantly gives you opportunities … and gives you crisis also <unfortunately> … regardless … you get opportunities not just to take a chance but also just to improve your current state.

Here is the formula (although in this case I am not sure A + B = C).

(A) A crisis is a forced decision making moment (typically survival based).

(B) Decision making moments represent opportunities.

(C) Opportunities typically translate into some type of change.

And everyone, obviously, wants to capitalize on any change (who would choose to have a negative result from a decision?). If someone wants to claim a crisis represents an opportunity go ahead and do so … but please recognize that it is an indirect extended relationship.  And in doing so you could be doing a disservice to people because it ignores what a crisis is truly about – survival.

Ok.

I do believe dealing with a crisis has a lot to do with attitude <which is possibly where many people get confused with this whole opportunity thing>.

A Pollyanna attitude? Nope.

Someone wrote: “Welcoming personal setbacks as rich opportunities for growth can help you survive them. Does that seem like a twisted point of view? After all, problems make us miserable, right? Scott Peck, author of The Road Less Traveled (Touchstone, 2003), considers them a gift — if you look at them in a deeper, less reactive manner. Indeed, they can give us clear perspective.”

Wow.

That is a bunch of bullhockey <bullshit>.

A crisis is just that.  A crisis.  A dangerous moment. A precarious moment.

Should we be seeking opportunities in the middle of a frickin’ crisis? Nope.

We should be seeking survival.

And that is where attitude comes in. Not “lets find the opportunity” or some baloney like that <or find the lemonade out of the lemons> but an attitude capturing a strength of character <I will be strong and overcome> and resiliency <survive>. Afterwards maybe you can look back and discover the opportunities that were an outcome from the crisis (although this has a slightly masochistic point of view in that from pain comes pleasure that kind of creeps me out) but when in a crisis … just deal with it.

Have a good attitude and explore all the possibilities/opportunities … once you have managed the experience itself.

Dealing with a true crisis takes character.  HOW you deal with a crisis says almost as much as what you do to deal with a crisis.  A crisis is a gauntlet. You have to have strength of character.  And strength in resiliency.  Please don’t measure yourself when dealing with a crisis by what opportunity you discovered from the crisis … measure yourself by how you survived.

A crisis.

It is a ‘precarious moment’ … a ‘crucial moment’ … a ‘dangerous moment.’

<East & West agree on this>

Seek to survive the moment. Don’t seek the opportunity for god’s sake. Just try and be aware should an opportunity arise <as you survive>. Leave the ‘opportunistic crisis management approach’ to people who write books and pontificate<but, please do not buy the books and live your life by all their bullshit>.

Oh.

And don’t misuse the Chinese definition of crisis. Because that is where this whole rant started. I am all for seeking opportunities and I have a shitload, too much, experience dealing with crises. But I will be honest … my first response in any crisis is “survival”. Once I can see, or sense, we will survive hen, yeah, I will most likely scan the horizon for some opportunities. But survival first.

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

“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.

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

“At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst.”

—–

Aristotle

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

“We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker.

It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”

——

Ronald Reagan

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

Well.

If there is one thing the Trump administration does well, really well <great again even> … is to find some scrap of equivalency to suggest what they have done or said is “normal.”

In addition, they gird their normalizing arguments with “because he can” simplistic tripe.

This is the Trump business mantra applied to the presidency … ‘it is technically legal & norms are irrelevant’.

This is the lesson that Trump appears to have ignored, the one where parents teach every child “just because you can doesn’t mean you should.”

Look.

Presidents can pardon whoever they want convicted of a federal crime … not a state crime. Technically Trump was within his ‘technical rights’ to pardon Sherriff Joe Arpaio and, literally, he wins because “the left” and Republicans’ with any sense of norms will go ballistic.

But I would suggest society actually loses on this one <as does the American legal system>.

In a normal world this pardon may appear in the overall scheme of things as small potatoes … but it is not. With this president it edges onto the slippery slope of a new normal <which is not normal nor desired normal>. It edges into an undermining of the justice system.

Hear me out.

2 things make me say this.

How Trump gave the pardon verbally.

He suggested in his words that the Sheriff was just doing his job well. In other words … the laws were either wrong or the law of the land restricts people from doing their jobs. Uhm. And that the president is the judge of whether the laws are right or wrong, constricting or supportive.

The words matter just as much as the pardon itself. The words send a message with regard to how people should view laws and the legal system.

By the way … the words are as much Trump as anything we have ever seen … only he knows what laws are truly worthy and he rules his business that way. In his mind Trump is the sole arbiter of right versus wrong & legal versus ‘useless law.’

How Trump came to the pardon.

He offered the pardon without his Dept. of Justice. In other words … the DOJ and what they thought <or knew> was irrelevant. Process and legal minds are irrelevant … he is the law <a shiver went down my spine as I typed that>. It should be disconcerting to any and all that Trump appears to come to a conclusion about something, particularly what is legal and what isn’t, without seeking the legal process to back it up.

But.

At the root of the issue is that a “law & order” president just pardoned a ‘law & order employee’ who … well … not only flaunted the law but broke the law of rights. The fact is he is not a law abiding sheriff if he’s disobeying a court order <let us remind ourselves that this charming fellow was a convicted sheriff, who ran sweltering, punishing jails where inmates died and was accused of targeting Latino residents … AND … during the litigation that led to his conviction for criminal contempt, he hired a private detective to investigate the wife of a federal judge hearing a case against his office >.

And at the root of the Trump issue <as if there is just one rotten root> is, as USA Today points out, Arpaio didn’t meet the Justice Department guidelines for a pardon. His conviction wasn’t five years old, he hadn’t expressed remorse and he hadn’t even applied to the Office of Pardon Attorney.

The day before, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the president would follow a “thorough and standard process” in considering the pardon.

That process usually requires seven layers of review and an FBI background check.

That did not happen.

Past Bush ethics Chief counsel Richard Painter said:

—————–

Well, I don’t see how this would have made it through any normal process.

This sheriff has been known for lawless acts for many years. I don’t think he would have lasted one week as a sheriff in my home state of Minnesota. We are a law and order state. Many places are. We favor law and order in the United States.

When a judge tells a sheriff to do something, the sheriff does it. That’s what law and order is all about. And if you’re in contempt of court and you’re a law enforcement official, you’re abusing your power. You should not be pardoned by the President of the United States.

And the message here is very clear: the President likes sheriff Joe because he likes going after immigrants. He was going after minorities. And that’s the clear message here. And I think it’s really reprehensible and I wish that something could be done about it. We gotta think seriously about whether Donald Trump is fit to be President of the United States.

I’ve been a Republican for thirty years and we’ve got a lot of great people in the Republican Party. Who can serve honorably in this United States government and can serve this President of the United States.

This is just one more stick in the eye to the minority community and to those victimized by the very few people in law enforcement like sheriff Joe who choose to use their power abusively. And choose to ignore the orders of the judiciary. And that is lawlessness. And that should not be tolerated in the United States.

————————-

Sigh.

The legal system is degraded because it is politicized in the way that it looks like the president wants to do what he wants to do which, in the end, undermines the utility of the legal system overall.

But watch.

All the Trump surrogates will be flocking to the TV shows to start shaking their fists and defiantly spouting out some false equivalence to justify this non-normal presidential behavior.

They will use scraps of truth and facts to weave a story that suggest Trump is normal, thought normally and even acted normally.

This is not normal and there are few fair equivalences.

In the most harsh view … with the pardoning of Joe Arpaio … Trump has established his place in history alongside those who exercised the same executive and dictatorial rights such as Stalin of Russia, Mussolini of Italy and Hitler <as well as Erdogan, Putin and Duterte>. That does not mean he IS them just that he is utilizing some of the same tactics.

To be clear.

While I fear that Trump and Arpaio are bigots and nationalists and authoritarians … that doesn’t make them Nazis <so I wish some people would tone down some of the rhetoric>.

It just makes them bigoted, nationalistic authoritarians. That’s bad enough and I see little value in bringing up Nazis.

That is a false equivalency.

I have said this before and I will say it until I die … the Trump presidency nor the Trump behavior is normal and we need to stop suggesting it is normal. We should be seeking to explain and justify his uniqueness in behavior <and if we cannot then he should be penalized> but no one … and I mean no one … should be using scraps of normalcy to create a false equivalency of a larger whole normalcy to a non-normal president.

This is NOT normal in how we should be viewing our legal system and legal decisions.

Trump is certainly no Reagan but maybe we, all of us, should heed Reagan’s words in the age of Trump … we must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker.

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

“I am free, no matter what rules surround me.

If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”

―

Robert A. Heinlein

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

“Rules are for children.

This is war, and in war the only crime is to lose.”

―

Joe Abercrombie, Last Argument of Kings

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

Ok.

We have a shitload of regulations, laws and rules to abide by every day.

We set out explicit rules and guidelines and sometimes these appear as laws. They are meant to showcase a red line for behavior.

That said, boy oh boy … we sure do bitch about how many laws we have and how many regulations are in place and how many rules we face that curb our success. The government is most likely the main villain in this story.

Most of us act like government sits around coming up with rules and laws and regulations simply to stifle freedom in our lives – personal and business.

It may behoove us to think a little more about why those rules, regulations and laws came about and how we still have some room to navigate which is a playing field called “norms.”

It may behoove us to think a little more about the fact we suck at self-regulation. In fact, when left to regulate ourselves, within a capitalist environment, the arc of behavior bends toward some fairly heinous behavior.

What happens is that some start pushing out beyond what most people would tend to believe is ‘integrity driven behavior’ and with each push what is acceptable becomes broader and broader.

So what we have done in the past is to step in, slap the wrist of those who have bent the arc toward what is not really the best for all and then set up some regulations to insure our self-regulation has some fences to corral us.

That said.

We do have some norms.

Some ‘accepted beliefs’ for some specific roles and responsibilities.

It’s like we assume if you become a CEO of a business that you will not instigate any illegal behavior and you will tell the truth with regard to what you are selling & offering.

Yes there are laws and regulations but, in general, a business sets its own behavioral compass – within which there will be things unwritten but accepted.

It’s like we assume if you decided to accept the responsibility of a public servant you will share your tax returns to show how you have earned your money in the past, you assume that you will cut ties with your business to insure no conflicts of interest and you assume you don’t fire people because you don’t like them.

All of those things may be legal to actually do but norms suggest they are not the right things to do.

Norms, in my pea like brain, reside outside a buffer zone just prior to reaching one of these red lines. They are usually unstated and they are usually simply expected for those who uphold some integrity and they are usually just done by the people who truly matter.

Ah.

But let’s remember … most times norms reside within what is a larger legally acceptable behavior.

Why does that happen?

Because most people who set up rules and regulations and laws desire to give people some freedom to act and make their own decisions.

That said … to be clear … you can do a shitload of legal things in life, business & government which when viewed honestly can look and smell really bad.

I have worked several times with people who have constantly suggested “but it is legal.” And 90% of the time I have felt uneasy about what we were about to do. Not that it was illegal but rather it <a> tested what I would consider a norm and <b> it was clearly in that buffer zone that got too close to the red line.

There will always be people who will dance on the icy brink of the red line and these same people will dance while singing “it is legal.”

It is a hollow song to sing and it always sounds slightly out of tune.

Anyway.

Let’s just say there are two basic types of people:

• Those who see norms, and normative behavior, and see it as guidelines for right or wrong <an subsequently check laws, rules and regulations to be sure all is good & legal>. In other words behavior doesn’t have to be dictated by some rule or law but more often than not “what seem like the right thig to do.”

• Those who see “anything that could be deemed legal”, or, conversely, “if it is not expressly forbidden than it is permissible. These people don’t ever ponder “what seems like the right thing to do” because, to them, if it is legal it is right.

People have a lot of leeway to do non-criminal bad actions.

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

“Look, that’s why there’s rules, understand? So that you think before you break ’em.”

―

Terry Pratchett

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

And I tend to believe most times rules & laws are not rewritten is because people break them <because they have done their job>, It is when people start ignoring norms where rules & laws get rewritten.

As soon as enough people, or prominent people, start doing things that the norm had suggested up to that point was ‘not the right thing to do’ people sit back, shake their heads a little sadly … and say “well, I guess we need to set up some rules.”

I admit.

I am both a norms guy and a law/rules guy.

If you give me the rules & the laws I believe I can win within them. And win even without bending their interpretation.

If norms are established and the norms reflect ‘good’ and not ‘bad behavior’ I tend to place them right beside all the rules/laws you gave me and say exactly the same thing … I believe I can win within them.

But not everyone thinks that way.

Some people don’t care about ‘good behavior’ all they care about is ‘legal behavior’ <what is technically legal>. It is these people who actually create the need for rules, regulations and laws.

So maybe when we start bitching about all the rules, regulations and laws we have that seem to restrict some things we tend think are kind of okay to do … we shouldn’t blame the institutions which created them … we should be blaming the people who forced their creation.

They are the ones who absolutely suck at self-regulation … actually worse than most of the rest of us … and we pay the price for their behavior.