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

“Capitalism is the only engine credible enough to generate mass wealth. I think it’s imperfect, but we’re stuck with it. And thank God we have that in the toolbox. But if you don’t manage it in some way that incorporates all of society, if everybody’s not benefiting on some level and you don’t have a sense of shared purpose, national purpose, then it’s just a pyramid scheme.”

David Simon

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

“It’s not personal. It’s strictly business”

The Godfather

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

I do not get (understand) investing, VC evaluation and startup support in general. Ok. I get it, it just confuses me. And I say that having:

• Been on both the good and the bad side of a VC takeover: buying out a profitable business seeing an opportunity to make it more profitable by running it better & buying out a business to break it apart to make money
• Been in multiple startup incubators (B2B & consumer) and seen a wide range of technology to non-technology startup ideas (good and bad)

All that said. Don’t ask me to explain how startups get funding, how VCs evaluate & invest nor how some ‘successful’ startups continue to get money <although this piece, “What I wish someone had told me about Venture Capitalists‘, does a nice job>. No matter how many times I’ve been involved in the process or been asked to evaluate businesses, I seem to be on the wrong side of the evaluation ‘brain.’ Why? Well. That has an easy answer. I like businesses that make money as in ‘profit’, not revenue, as my main criteria. Doesn’t mean I don’t care about revenue or the bullshit buzzword of the day, ‘scale’ (which is simply another bullshitty way of saying ‘growth’), but I like to stack profit dollars on top of profit dollars rather than cross my finger a business will cross the ‘making lots of unprofitable revenue’ Rubicon to the ‘hey, all this revenue is now profitable’ side.

** note: the exception would be what I call the ‘enabler idea products.’ These are the products which I usually call, in my non-startup pea like brain, the engine part ideas. They see the world as an engine and they develop parts which can replace existing parts or be inserted into the engine to make it run more efficiently or effectively – software ideas often fit this criteria.

What I will say is that the startup industry has become a master pyramid scheme in which the investors hope that one of the pyramid scheme bets pays for all the other bad bets. And you know what? Sometimes they do. And you know what? More often they do not. They have made capitalism a pyramid scheme. They encourage us to view business, all business and the economy, as one big gambler’s bet. And because they do they have reshaped the larger economy (forcing larger businesses to view innovation as a gambler’s bet too – if not their own business).

You may think I may be misguided or even wrong. But play a game. How many well known ‘successful’ technology startup like businesses are making a profit? Amazon? Kind of. Uber? Nope. Wework? Nope. Shit. Go into the best startup incubators, maybe even audit Techstars (who I like and admire). How many are making a profit (but showcase revenue)? Zero (okay … not many). It’s a gambler’s game. American capitalism has become a pyramid scheme. Can big business benefit? Sure. They can look at the gamblers and then buy the winners and absorb them. It limits their innovation ROI risk, but costs them in the purchase.

** note: I would suggest that many larger businesses are actually more well positioned to develop these more successful ideas but they tend to either (a) have a poor new idea evaluation process or (b) do not approach ‘startup idea innovation’ in a way that enables the focus & investment needed to make it successful.

To be clear. Companies like Techstar basically serves as the big business ‘brain’ that a small startup cannot afford.

That said. Even the exceptions I highlighted, the enabler idea products, are a gamblers game.

Here is where this version of pyramid scheme has an even darker underbelly. Conflicting interests. This new model of capitalism is an attempt to get around inefficiencies and costs imposed by larger business, but creates an ambiguous allocation of rights, and ownership as well as an ambiguous business model. Simplistically, everyone is in to get their money (let’s call it at its worst: greed). Even if the founder/owner truly isn’t overcome with a greed muscle and simply is in it for the idea, there is a dilution of control (under the guise of ‘freedom to innovate that engages a market that doesn’t yet exist’). This is nuts. Fringe business malpractice, but, simplistically, nuts. As I have noted most of the most successful businesses, and profitable ones, aren’t particularly disruptive at their onset nor do they ‘think outside the box’, but rather see the box and reconfigure it. And they make money.

I call this lazy capitalism (when I am being generous) and pyramid scheme capitalism (when I am not being generous).

** note: this pyramid scheme has a variety of bloodsuckers. For example, I have sat in on or eavesdropped on dozens of business people looking to pick the pockets of founders – the social media structuralists, the PR scale people, the ‘organic growth’ disruptors, the brand builders, the startup marketing futurists – who slither their way into founder’s (investors) wallets.

Look. I am all for startups with appealing ideas and driven founders getting the expertise they need quickly and the funding necessary to give them some traction that they may otherwise would have no access to. But over 80% of startups fail because, uhm, there is no market for their idea. and, no, this isn’t because they see a future no one else can see (i.e., they are visionaries), but rather because THERE IS NO MARKET FOR THAT IDEA.

** note: I have never seen an angel investor or any investor sit in on those ‘pick pocket presentations’ I mentioned in my last note. If they did, they would not only hear how stupid (nonexistent possible success, i.e., ‘no real market for that idea’) some ideas they have invested in, but would also watch a pick pocket in action.

The flow of money into the startup world is absurd. I look at that money and can only dream about what it could do if invested elsewhere. But it will not stop. Why? Greed. That’s what pyramid schemes work in the first place. Greed. Easy money. All that bullshit.

There has to be a better way – and there is. Startups have a place in the world and investing in them in which dreams turn into viable businesses is actually good for capitalism. It’s a funded Schumpeter Creative Destruction and I love that. Family companies have, and should have, a new lease on life. Public companies SHOULD be challenged as they try and squeeze out more profits through their operations in a variety of misguided ways. Short term mentality, archaic hierarchies, status quo onerous non-digital business models should be gamed out. All that said. A pyramid scheme non profitable lazy capitalism startup investment model is not the way to do it. An insurgent economy should be a hybrid of smart idea, money making, startups and large public company smart non-standardization (I hesitate to call it agile so let’s say adaptable, antifragile) money-making longer-term business sense making.

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

“A job is the ultimate pyramid scheme.”

Ken Poirot

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

I believe we are seeing a shift in the underpinnings of the business world. I may not agree with all the “its about culture” people or the “purpose over profit” people, but I do believe, and have for quite some time, business is transitioning from an outcome only mentality to more of a “business is more than just business” mentality. I do believe technology is playing a role and while not in the ‘digital transformation’ camp I believe augmenting humans and thinking-conceptually-sensemaking is edging its way into the ‘way we do business.’ Someone said awhile back that business is learning that to ‘outbehave’ is the path to better performance. Within that idea is part technology and part people. Within that idea is where the startup world may find its most fruitful investments – ideas that outbehave created by a mindset that seeks to outbehave the status quo (ethically & service). Ponder.

===========

“The advantage of the incomprehensible is that it never loses its freshness.”

Paul Valéry

==========

“The moment you decide an event is impossible and therefore stop directing your attention to it is the moment when it will take place.”

General Petro Grigorenko

========

“This may be the most important proposition revealed by history: ‘At the time, no one knew what was coming.”

Haruki Murakami

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

Well. I have lots of discussions about the future with people and it continuously surprises me on how confident people are with regard to what will, or will not, happen. In fact, I find it slightly incomprehensible until I remember that the incomprehensible, in all its forms, has a certain allure.

The incomprehensible has a certain freshness of inevitable believability that some people are addicted to <and blind to the possibility it will never happen>.

Uh oh.

The incomprehensible has a certain inevitable un-believability that some people are married to (and blind to the possibility it could actually occur>. The incomprehensible appeals to both those convinced it will never happen and to those who are convince it will happen.

Now. That said. We attack the incomprehensible in a variety of ways trying to comprehend it.

Research/experimenting

Innovation methodology: stage gating as an example

Pick your “assessing likelihood of incomprehensible” methodology but, well, 90% of new businesses fail, over 60% of new products fail and The Law of Unintended Consequences guarantees the unforeseen is almost more likely to happen than the foreseen. Yet. Even all that knowledge doesn’t slow us down one bit with our love/hate relationship with the unknown, i.e., the incomprehensible. We love the thought of finding something that seemed incomprehensible. We love that ‘holy shit’ feeling.

Here is the weird thing. Despite our love of the incomprehensible we plan our days to the minute, plan projects and tasks in excruciating detail and ‘plan out’ to eliminate any risk and uncertainty and, well, incomprehensible we can feasibly plan out. I would point out that all this really does is foster the timeless tradition of second guessing and seeking blame as soon as the incomprehensible occurs.

Regardless.

The incomprehensible always remains fresh because, as a Life truth, it consistently confirms to us that at no time no one knew what was coming.

Yup.

You can be pessimistic <and be proven right … or wrong>.

You can be optimistic <and be proven right … or wrong>.

But, in general, before being proven anything, you are guessing. Sure. You can make an educated guess, and the odds may be higher or lower based on what you decide to do, but someone is lying if they say “I knew it was going to end up that way” or “we should have seen that coming.”

That’s bullshit. We do not know. We often guess <sometimes well, sometimes not so well> under the guise of planning. Maybe worse is we often guess under the guise of ‘scrutinizing history.’

Uh oh. A fact.

‘History teaches by analogy, not identity.’

Henry Kissinger

People tend to mistake a study of history, or a historical moment, for proof of what is to come and, in fact, it sure does look like a frickin’ smart thing to do when going backwards in time and connecting dots <even when the connection is tenuous at best>. But, just a reminder about what Hank said: History teaches by analogy, not identity. This means that the lessons of history are never automatic or formulas for the future. The truth is that they can be apprehended only by admitting a range of multidimensional factors <unique context matters>, assessing the significance of each factor <individually and in combinations – I believe that is called “complimentarity”> and that the answers we obtain will never be better than the questions we pose.

————————–

“From this, one can make a deduction which is quite certainly the ultimate truth of jigsaw puzzles: despite appearances, puzzling is not a solitary game: every move the puzzler makes, the puzzlemaker has made before; every piece the puzzler picks up, and picks up again, and studies and strokes, every combination he tries, and tries a second time, every blunder and every insight, each hope and each discouragement have all been designed, calculated, and decided by the other.”

Georges Perec, Life A User’s Manual

=======

Like it or not situations exist in time more than in space. At any given moment a moment is but a collection of individuals and things bringing to bear all their collective experiences and things. Reassembling that multi-dimension of ‘collective’ is next to impossible. What this means is that when viewing the past incomprehensible, trying to make it comprehensible, you will find it is contingent to a unique set of factors.

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

“For the lessons of historical experience, as of personal experience, are contingent.

They teach the consequences of certain actions, but they cannot force recognition of comparable situations.

Henry Kissinger

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

Uhm. Cannot force recognition of comparable situations.  This is why I scratch my head when some people are so sure on the future. If the incomprehensible is contingent upon a unique set of factors than you would have to be able to look into some crystal ball which unravels what will BE unique (that is impossible isn’t it?) to see what the future configuration of contingent factors is.

Well. That’s nuts. No one can do that.

In the end.

I believe all of us would probably like to have a better sense of how to plan for the future and to better understand the best and proper actions to take to maximize the future in some form or fashion.

Therefore we do the best we can, most often that means examining the past to assess actions affecting the future, trying to understand consequences for our decisions yet to be made. The intent is good and true.

However. We should never confuse honest intent with ‘what is right.’

We simply hear the echoes of footsteps but never meet their owners until they actually enter our lives. And, frankly, you cannot control all that ‘are coming by and by into our lives.’ At each point in time no one knew what was coming, therefore, no one can truly know what is coming. I imagine it is helpful for us to remind ourselves on occasion that just when we are absolutely positively 100% sure that something is impossible or incomprehensible — it occurs.

Just remember this about the incomprehensible. We don’t know what we don’t know AND we don’t know half of what we really do know. It is difficult to accept the fact that today, in the moment, in the middle of change, no one … let me repeat … NO ONE has the right answer. We are simply asking the right questions at the moment and doing our best to adapt as we learn.

And therein maybe lies the greatest lesson about the incomprehensible – change is about adapting.

Sure. Having a vision is good and there are multiple ways to reach the ‘end game. But, in the end, change is change and the incomprehensible is the incomprehensible. Plus. If we knew exactly what the change was and what was needed and what was truly incomprehensible and what wasn’t, well, we would be really smart sonuvabitches, wouldn’t we ? Almost incomprehensible to think that though. Ponder.

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

Prouver que j’ai raison serait accorder que je puis avoir tort. -Pierre Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais

“Proving that I am right would be admitting that I could be wrong.”

=======

“We cling to our fairy tales until the price for believing in them becomes too high.”

Ransom Riggs

====

“The best way to expose our ignorance is to hold on to biased ideas and opinions, because we fear giving the upper hand to the other side.”

Charles F. Glassman

====

Business is a tricky combination of adapting and consistency.

Suffice it to say discerning what to keep and build some consistency, and what to change or adapt, is, well, the key to creating a successful business.

Letting go of shit is difficult. We all know that.

But. Knowing when to hold on to something is just as difficult.

Simplistically:

<1> many organizations are burdened with older employees who tend to hold on based on their experience, and

<2> many organizations are burdened with younger employees who tend to let go of existing ideas and opinions based on their lack of experience.

Both sides are stubborn, fearing to give the other the upper hand.

And that is where business really needs to get its shit together. This whole ‘upper hand’ thing.

Because success isn’t about compromise it is more often about good ideas winning no matter where and when and who they come from.

When someone or a generation feels like they have the power, or run the risk of losing power, they do stupid things. Obviously, the business pays the price, not the person doing the stupid things. That is why adapting and selecting what to be consistent about should be about anything but power. It should be about creating a culture & organization in which old & new is debated and ‘the good of the organization & business’ decides what to hold on to and what to let go of.

Far too often the power structure in a business <and this can be one individual wielding an inordinate amount of power or an age group/cohort fighting for their space> holds the ‘fairy tale’ success formula, uhm, until the price for believing them becomes too high.

Sigh.

Unfortunately that moment is often too late to ‘fix’ what has gone wrong.

Regardless. A business’ success, and flaws, is typically driven by a couple attitudinal things  <a> a general feeling that you could be doing better and <b> the virtue of the participants.

Doing better.

There is gobs of pressure put on a business both internally and externally. Internally <be successful or be fired> and externally <the market is brutal on any business which does not show growth>. Even if the business has been steadily improving someone will be hammering away on either how terrible things are or how much better it can, and should, be.

Virtue of participants.

A business, in order to function efficiently and effectively, is dependent upon the virtue of the participants. A lack of virtue engenders wasteful transactions, wasteful actions and breeds an overall monitoring cost which can paralyze an organization from any movement or adaptation.

Both of those things I just shared are power. They both have the power to do good, and bad, for a business. What I mean is that the price for believing, disproportionately, in doing better is virtue-driven – that can make the price too high to meet simple ‘doing better’ objectives.

Power, ultimately, resides in, and will always, identifying what should remain consistent and when & where to adapt. All of that is organizationally driven and not individually driven. And yet … it is the individual who must assess all actions & behavior with the intent to always seek when ‘the price in believing something becomes too high.’

In the end I would simply note that the strongest most powerful thing you can do for a business is to understand that doing better with virtue can work.

This is not a fairy tale.

Just know there are no shortcuts and it isn’t easy — you have to work for it.

You have to find ways <just having it as objective will not work>. You have to somehow do something, sometimes anything on occasion, all the while keeping your head on straight and go do something that saves … well … the business <which is kind of like saving the world>.

 ========

——————

“Christmas Eve was a night of song that wrapped itself about you like a shawl.

But it warmed more than your body. It warmed your heart … filled it, too, with melody that would last forever.”

~

Bess Streeter Aldrich

=======

On Christmas Eve I am reminded of something I heard last week at a business luncheon.

Someone smiled as he tasted his Christmas dessert special and said “it tastes just like Christmas.” Smart ass me jumped in and said “like a fir tree?” and without hesitating he said “no, family anger and disappointment.”

<he later clarified it tasted like fresh peppermint and cool snow>

He was kidding … okay … half kidding.

Many of us harbor mixed feelings as the holidays proceed and Christmas looms. Its kind of like dysfunctional functional aspects of Thanksgiving family gatherings with the added challenge/angst of having to give gifts.

Me? I love Christmas … particularly Christmas Eve. And I do so despite the fact many of my childhood Christmas Eve memories … well … suck. They certainly were not devoid of gifts, but many times devoid of what makes family and Christmas special — that kind of warmth and comfort and anticipation and laughter that pepper dysfunctional functional family moments.

I imagine we were not the most loving family and therefore Christmas sometimes exacerbated that feeling.

But, you know what? In the end it really didn’t matter.

It didn’t matter because all the while I knew Christmas and Christmas Eve were special it was just I, or we, hadn’t figured out how to tap into it.

But I did, I have, and continue to do so now.

And that is why sometimes I feel sad around this time of the year. Not because of sadness borne of loneliness or years gone by or ‘lost moments in the past’, but rather because I see how easy it is to lose sight of the magic that makes up Christmas and the holidays.

And the magic can come from anywhere at any time.

It can be the anticipation.

It can even be found in the pangs of disappointment in a well-intended gift.

It can be found driving down the road where one house & its yard doesn’t have one inch NOT covered with some light or decoration and the next house with one simple candle lit in a front window.

It can be found in the gathering of friends & family and the empty spaces where a friend or family member used to be.

Christmas is joyful, sad, tears of joy … and regret, excitement & disappointments.

And Christmas Eve.

Oh.

Christmas Eve.

People seem to think Christmas morning is “it” … the apex of the holiday season. I tend to believe it is more Christmas Eve; the moment before the moment that matters and is “it.”.

We build to that day and that moment and all that comes after is the fallout for all that came before.

Look.

Everyone is different. Some stumble into the day, some try and ignore the day, some anticipate the disappointment and some … well … some just anticipate and celebrate the bigness of the day.

That said. What I truly love about Christmas is that little things are big.

Little moments are huge around the holidays. Some people, and sometimes I wish I were one, can take little Christmas lights and make a huge bonfire of light suggesting that they are lighting the way for Santa to visit. It is almost like these people fear being overlooked by Santa and therefore go out of their way to show their appreciation for the spirit that makes up Santa and Christmas and the holidays so that their joy is not overlooked.

Awesome.

The world doesn’t have enough of these people.

Next. Christmas really is no different than anything in Life. When you are born or growing up you always wish you could get a manual telling you what you are supposed to do or what everyone does. No manual exists. You are stuck with learning whatever tradition your family may have and maybe some others as you crisscross lives.

Christmas creates some common ground for all of us. We all face the same dilemmas and the same questions and the same issues … one and all. We all stumble and bumble our way thru the holidays and Christmas – mostly with the best of intentions – yet ultimately more often overcome by the sheer amount of ups & downs that come from the rush up to the ‘big day’ and what happens then.

I will say that sometimes in all the anticipation, and anticipointment, we forget what Christmas is all about. That happens because it is a mixture of all we hate & love. Disaster & discomfort and emotional moments & joy.

Which brings me to this 2015 Christmas commercial about disaster, calamity and sharing. Hyperbole at its best: Sainsbury’s: “Mog’s Christmas Calamity”

Sainsbury’s Christmas commercial is a spectacular film featuring the family accident-prone cat Mog. I think we all watch this and laugh … well … a little painfully because disasters almost always seem to befall Christmas. It is kind of like the holiday version of how the printer in the office always breaks down when you need it most. And maybe that is why hyperbole works so well in Christmas commercials … the day itself takes on disproportionately huge dimensions into our lives, heads, hearts and wallets.

Just think about that on this day … this Christmas Eve. For when you strip away all the hyperbole, the gift giving angst, the anticipation … and Christmas and the holidays are laid bare … it is a beautiful simple thing.

We give gifts to each other for god’s sake.

Tiny ones & big ones … thoughts and things … it doesn’t matter.

We give.

What a gift.

The most spectacular gift humanity has given humans. The ability to give & share. Happy Christmas Eve.

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

“Christmas is not a time or a season but a state of mind. To cherish peace and good will, to be plenteous in mercy, is to have the real spirit of Christmas. If we think on these things, there will be born in us a Savior and over us will shine a star sending its gleam of hope to the world.”

~

Calvin Coolidge

—

“The only gift I have to give, is the ability to receive.

If giving is a gift, and it surely is, then my gift to you is to allow you to give to me.”

Jarod Kintz

——–

Ok. It’s getting close to Christmas and gift giving ‘crunch time.’ That said. Let’s talk about giving gifts.

Suffice it to say most of us suck at giving gifts. Sure. On occasion we get lucky and give that one spectacular gift that makes someone’s eyes light up and you know you have knocked it out of the park. But. The harsh truth is that with gift giving most of us schmucks focus on that one dumb luck moment where we got it right and conclude ‘I am a good gift giver.’

No, no, no. No. You are not.

In fact. Research has been done which shows how bad we suck at gift giving. A research study <noted below> states that being extremely thoughtful <see: over thinking> with regard to gift-giving is not a good thing to do when choosing presents that the recipients will actually enjoy.

It is actually called “over individuation.”

<what a bad word … only a researcher could have made it up>

In other words – being thoughtful is bad.

—-

University of Cincinnati researcher Mary Steffel got some pre-Christmas publicity for a study identifying a hazard she called “over-individuation”, i.e., the more we try to tailor a present precisely to a recipient, she and her co-author Robyn LeBeouf concluded, the more we’re at risk of choosing something that person might hate.

—–

Yikes.

So while we strut around proudly stating how thoughtful we were having given  some random seemingly unique thoughtful gift and how much pleasure we gain from giving the recipient joy & happiness … its bullshit.

Yeah. Sorry about that. It’s all about our pleasure <yup … insert Scrooge image next to my name>.

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

“Presents are made for the pleasure of who gives them, not the merits of who receives them.”

Carlos Ruiz Zafón

——

Research also clearly finds that, faced with the job of buying gifts for multiple people, we focus more on thinking of ourselves as good givers <as we exert incredible care & effort into selecting the unique perfect gift for each recipient> than on giving people what they actually want.

Shit. How bad are we? We even screw up giving gift cards. Yup. How? Well, research show that people really prefer cards they can spend on almost anything.

Whew. How could we over think this? Well. Givers prefer giving more specific cards. We get excited and go out and research their favorite hard to find specialty store, drive to it and get ‘that special gift card’ all with good intentions in that we know they love the store.

Uhm. But, remember, Receivers prefer a gift card which gives flexibility <insert ‘shit’ here>. The harsh truth for we schmucks who over think giving gifts is we are focused mainly on feeling like accomplished givers than actually giving people what they want. One last thought on how badly we suck at gift giving before I get to some thoughts on how to choose gifts and how to better understand how we think about gift giving.

An economist named Joel Waldfogel wrote a satire piece called The Deadweight Loss of Christmas which compared how much people spent on Christmas presents with how much the recipients would have paid, with their own money, for those gifts. Sadly he concluded that gifts are worth somewhere between 10% and a third less, on average, to the people who get them than the people who give them.

His solution? Give cash. It is the only gift that you can be certain both parties will feel is worth exactly the same.

Anyway. The real point of that is that we suck at gift giving because we suck at knowing what someone feels/thinks/believes when they receive. We know what we give … well … kind of we do. tangibly we are sure, but intangibly we have created this thoughtful myth in our heads which we invariably <and insanely> attach to the gift.

“I know what I have given you … I do not know what you have received.”

Antonio Porchia

Ok. To be honest. All this research may truly miss the point of Christmas gift giving by focusing solely on the utility of the present itself to the recipient. We Christmas-believers understand the real point of holiday gift-giving is the symbolic value of the exchange.

Well. We have to believe this.

We have to to get into our heads that it doesn’t matter if the perfectly appropriate gift you spent gobs of hours selecting for the recipient ends up giving them pleasure. You have to hope that what matters is you’re demonstrating your feelings for them – something that, with some luck, gives them a different and perhaps higher form of pleasure, even if the horrible sweater or the hand made crooked stool or the black light Elvis painting goes unused.

That said. We need to understand the research suggests one very simple fact … we typically have to make a trade-off when gift giving. With each gift we decide whether we’re going to try to maximize its value as a symbol of our relationship to the recipient or to maximize the pleasure that the gift itself could deliver.

Ok. My head hurts and I want to return every gift I bought.

Now that research has shown we suck at gift giving I will lean on my favorite thinkers, the TopModels guys <Mikael Krogerus & Roman Tschäppeler>, who have clarified gift giving in terms of how to think about it as well as how we think about it.

First. How to think about gift giving … let’s call this section: Gift giving 101.

Gift giving part 1.

The diagram are self explanatory and creates a simple guide to gift giving. TopModels called it The Esquire Gift Model: How much to spend on gifts.

In their words …

—

Gift giving is something of a minefield.

A cheap or impersonal gift can make the recipient feel undervalued and create an awkward situation for both the giver and receiver. This model has two axis:

–        How long have you known the person to whom you are giving the gift?

–       How much money should you spend on the gift?

—

Two Rules of Thumb

Being generous beats being miserly.  In other words … don’t be misled when you hear ‘that really wasn’t necessary.’>

The second?.

Think best. As Oscar Wilde said …”I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the best.”

Regardless.

If you are a visual person.

This diagram helps walk you thru buying a Christmas gift for someone but you are not sure how to judge how much you should spend or if you should buy anything at all.

–

This model is from The Decision Book: 50 Models for Strategic Thinking by Mikael Krogerus & Roman Tschäppeler

—-

Oh. And a bonus guide for you.

             –   Gift giving 101a.

This next diagram is also quite self-explanatory. This is a situational, contextual gift guide. It is based on … uhm … Guilt.

I included this just in case you have screwed up in any way toward a possible gift recipient and you need some help on what to do.

Ok.

Second.

This is about how we actually think about gift giving. Whew. In this one it becomes more complex adding in some dimensional variables. You would think gift giving is a simple ‘cause & effect’ type linear thought process. Nope. You would be wrong. This is actually called ‘The Double Looped Learning model”.

–            Double Loop Learning Model

The Double Loop Learning model is grounded in organizational behavior and psychology.

=

The Single Loop

The first loop involves formulating a strategy, executing it, and then doing the same provided outcomes from the first iteration of the loop.

<note: outcomes might be intended or unintended and can impact the person in the loop or people outside of the loop>

The worst case scenario here is that the same action is repeated over and over and over – producing undesirable outcomes just as many times over.

The Double Loop

The second loop involves a governing variable; a control introduced for observation. The control is then used to adjust the actions and strategies to produce more intended outcomes – or outcomes that match your variable.

======

Relevant Example

Situation: It is Christmas.

Strategies:

Buy a gift

Buy an expensive gift

Buy a cheap gift

Don’t buy a gift

Eat a cookie

Consequences of each strategy:

Happy.

Very happy, but your dog’s hip operation has to wait.

It’s the thought that counts, and the couch is waiting.

Have you met the couch yet?

Happy. The person might not be … but you definitely are.

—–

At this point you’re in a single learning loop. A double learning loop would introduce controls, or variables, or values.

Variables

You love the gift receiver … and hate the couch.

The dog played a major role in last Christmas <in a good way>.

You promised you’d take a trip someplace warm one Christmas.

The gift receiver hates celebrating birthdays because it makes them feel old (er) … and you gave them a huge gift last birthday. <yup … that can factor in ….>

You’ll quickly see that introducing controls and matching them with the consequences will almost indisputably change your actions.

If you see this, you see the double learning loop.

=

<This model is from The Decision Book: 50 Models for Strategic Thinking by Mikael Krogerus & Roman Tschäppeler>

————–

There you go. To summarize.

1. We suck at gift giving

2. This is proof we overthink everything <and overthinking simply makes anything worse>

3. We can’t get out of our own way <thinking>

4. We inevitably choose gifts that make us happy

5. Gift giving is dependent upon multiple variables and is complex <which is a great excuse for sucking at gift giving>

6. Double Loop Learning is at the root of all our shitty gift giving.

7. Don’t overthink and eat a cookie <it is all about your own pleasure & happiness>

=========

Happy shopping and have a Merry Christmas.

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

“The woman who doesn’t require validation from anyone is the most feared individual on the planet.”

Mohadesa Najumi

===========

“Everybody is looking for validation, no matter who you are, and I think that’s a need of the human condition – to look for affection or recognition or validation.”

Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu

====

So. We all need validation.

It would be silly to suggest you don’t.

That said.

If you type in ‘seeking validation’ in google you get about 341,000 results in about .57 seconds and, well, they are almost all about ‘approval seeking behaviors you need to stop. ’

Well.

That sucks.

Basically what this means is that if you went solely by what you could find online you could quite possibly think that you should simply “damn the torpedoes and go full speed ahead without anyone’s approval or validation at any point in the trip.”

Basically this suggests “fuck what other people think … fuck approval.”

That seems slightly out of whack from reality to me.

Look.

I am not going to suggest you should be waiting around for someone to validate your behavior or your existence … but … it kinda seems to make some sense to receive at least some validation ‘nudges’ on occasion.

Why?

Well.

Maybe just to make sure you are still within the guardrails of what makes sense and that you haven’t completely lost any sense of direction.

Maybe just to make sure your head hasn’t got too big … or too small.

Maybe just to make sure you are still … well … doing the right things and making the right decisions.

To be clear. You absolutely should not assess self-worth from solely from external validation. That is not only crazy, but basically means you are chasing Life and not leading Life.

All I am suggesting is that external validation, when viewed as some sign posts in your Life road, ain’t a bad thing.

And, yes, even good external validation can be tricky.

Most people seek validation <for who they are, their behavior, response to a situation> because they worry they cannot be objective or that they might be prejudiced/biased by their own beliefs.

And, yes, that is a fair worry.

We are all influenced  in some degree by our own personal perspective on things.

But here is the big problem looming in front of you if you do not trust yourself because of this self-distrust – you are then assuming the external validators will actually be objective themselves.

Uh oh.

99% of the time that is a really really bad assumption.

Sure. You may assume that they don’t have the same prejudices as you.

Sure. They most likely don’t have the same things at ‘stake’ so are at least one step removed from any natural stress of the situation.

Sure. They will definitely have their own prejudices, perceptions, beliefs and attitudes.

While we all want that occasional validation from someone else because we consciously discount our own feelings, perceptions and opinions, you have to be careful to not make someone an expert even if they aren’t qualified to actually be an expert.

Here is what I know about validation and business leadership.

Decision making Validation.

You will need it on occasion if you are in a constant decision making position.

Even the best decision makers can get slightly overwhelmed. Not overwhelmed in terms of “I cannot make any more decisions”, but rather ‘it is hard to reflectively assess decisions when smothered in decisions’.

** note: this is important because most great decision makers adapt and assess contextual learnings>.

Part of what makes good decision makers good is decisiveness once decision has been made. Occasional validation maintains the decisiveness muscle.

Leadership validation.

You will need it on occasion if you are in a leadership role with responsibility.

This one varies by person.

Some people don’t need this often — kind of like maybe once a quarter you receive some validation that you don’t suck as a leader.

Some people need this a lot — kind of like every day.

Neither is good or bad, it just is.

One last thought on leadership validation.

This validation can be required in a variety of ways:

maybe you want to make sure you aren’t too much of an asshole

maybe you want to make sure you are communicating effectively

maybe you just want a general sense that people think you are doing an okay job as a leader.

The worst business leaders look for shallow validation – better than predecessor, well liked, ‘strong’, etc. they tend to seek a linear ‘cause & effect’ validation which tends to reside in the ‘look who is at the door’ type feedback.

The best business leaders look for deeper validation – the organization is optimistic, vision is embraced, confident of future success. They tend to seek what I call “ripple validation” which tends to reside on the horizon type feedback.

Anyway.

We all need some validation on occasion.

And I get a little concerned when the only advice out there is about ‘how to ditch approval seeking behaviors.’

I kind of wish we had more ‘effective ways to gain some validation to maintain effectiveness’ type advice.

Because we all need some validation on occasion.

—

“Somebody once said we never know what is enough until we know what’s more than enough.”

Billie Holiday

—

Happy Thanksgiving.

Thanksgiving is about turkey, mashed potatoes, cranberry sauce, stuffing and pumpkin pie.

Uhm.

Or how about a Bucket of Balls?

Yup. Turkey testicles.

—–

Have a ball at Timothy O’Toole’s Pub in Chicago.

This casual sports bar has made a tradition of serving up crispy, deep-fried turkey testicles during the holiday season. The meaty nuggets are ordered by the bucket and are accompanied by ranch, barbecue or buffalo dipping sauce. The balls have become so beloved that the bar holds an annual Black Wednesday (that’s the day-before-Thanksgiving) turkey testicle-eating contest where the winner takes home a frozen turkey.

—–

Sigh. Only Americans could create a bucket of balls for a Thanksgiving tradition.

Anyway. The first Thanksgiving was more like five deer and some birds, a shitload of shellfish, twigs, acorns and, well, no pie.

In fact, the feast the Wampanoag Indians and Pilgrims ate in 1621 was, ducks, maybe a swan <gulp>, shellfish <thin clams or mussels>, nuts <anything they could mash>, no sugar <so no stuffing or cranberries or, well, pie>. We know the colonists regularly consumed ducks, geese and swans. And, instead of bread-based stuffing, herbs & onions or nuts might have been added to the birds for extra flavor.

Turkey or no turkey, the first Thanksgiving’s attendees almost certainly got their fill of meat.

Fairly bland, but at least the Pilgrims & Indians weren’t killing each other <like many families do on Thanksgiving, uhm, I note that so noone thinks killing each other around the Thanksgiving table is actually a tradition>.

Anyway. I cook a turducken every thanksgiving. It is this fabulous creation of layered turkey, duck and chicken with a spicy stuffing mix. It is an, admittedly, exorbitant excessive culinary delight.

And as I gaze at it I thought of all the years in the past as I lived a nomad life away from any family, my own or anyone’s, and I think of the solo trips to islands and far off countries and … well … luxuries many people have never had the opportunity to enjoy.

At that time I never thought anything about the ‘luxury’ or any sense of extravagance.

At that time, in my mind, I deserved the break.

I say this gazing at my turducken when I know people in other countries … shit … in cities in my own country … will never know this luxury adorning my dining room table.

Am I altruistic?

Shit no.

I tend to believe I am simply gaining some perspective on what I used to consider, well, I deserved. And it makes me reflect upon people and how they think about ‘what I deserve.’ And as I begin discussing ‘what I deserve’ I will hearken back to the original Thanksgivings and the fact the original pilgrims were not called pilgrims.

—

“Those who were members of the Separatist Church Movement referred to themselves as ‘Saints.’ About 60 others who came over in the Mayflower with them were called ‘Strangers.’ But they all knew how to have fun and enjoy life. They made and drank a lot of beer, hard cider and something like today’s brandy.
Occasionally there was drunkenness and fighting.”

So. The original thanksgiving was a celebration for the harvest. in other words, for work. It was kind of the first Labor Day.

It was not indulgence, it was not extravagance, it was a celebration of real output <not income>.

I would suggest it was an understanding of balance. And an understanding of the Life value proposition – work & what I deserve.

Look.

That is a hard thing to understand.

It seems like it should be easy, but it is not.

—

“The hardest choice in life is usually between what you want, and what you deserve.”

Rashida Rowe

—

Society makes it tough. Particularly today’s society. “Society”, as it was back then, were the Pilgrims as a small tight knit group of people with similar attitudes honed by similar hardships. They had a common interest in success and outcome from hard work. All those things make it easier to not only understand the balance, but share the balance.

Today?

Today it is difficult.

Society makes it difficult.

Society has a nasty tendency to complicate our understanding the ‘deserve’ balance.

Everywhere you turn there is the message screaming at us that we need to give ourselves a break and have a treat:

==

Girlfriend, put your feet up and enjoy a mani-pedi.

You deserve it!

<note: …. always with an exclamation point>

–

Hey mom! Following an afternoon with your crazy kids, you deserve a stop at the mall to treat yourself to new shoes or that designer handbag or, well, whatever you want!

<note: …. always with an exclamation point>

–

Life got you down? Retail therapy! You deserve it.

<note: …. always with an exclamation point>

==

While I focused on women <because there is an inherent underlying capitalism theme that women are being too hard on themselves — juggling the duties of being mothers, wives, professionals — all at once and should spend money to solve that> the fact is that all of us are encouraged, because we demand too much of ourselves, to ‘stop punishing ourselves’ and go out and indulge ourselves in some way as therapy.

Ok.

First.

I am all for breaks.

But in the good ole days Thanksgiving was but one indulgent break from 365 day toil. That is a well deserved break.

In comparison. Today?

Weekly pampering?

Monthly reward for work well done?

Daily indulgence of something to break the day up?

Where is the number?

What is the number?

How much do we truly need and doesn’t more of it actually:

<a> make us expect more (answer: yes), and

<b> create the impression we are sacrificing more in our everyday toil (answer: yes).

Secondly.

Uhm.

Instead of “punishing ourselves” by plowing through life we reward ourselves with making purchases that sit on a credit card <called ‘debt’> or spend money on some intangible indulgence which depletes four wallet size <and savings size> which could be used to actually accumulate something that could actually bring us closer to whatever our vision is.

Look.

Before everyone gets defensive about how many indulgences are required to get you through the week, consider the source of your belief that you need some indulgent break every week.

Were you really raised to believe some continuous indulgence <under the guise of ‘reward’> is a basic part of human life?

Or was the idea planted by some marketing genius promoting therapeutic benefits of whatever indulgent behavior they want to sell you?

Let me caveat this a bit by acknowledging life can be a grind and that the way work is conducted, for the most part, certainly makes us seek something better or some off-ramps on occasion and certainly encourages us to think we desrve better <or something more than what we are getting>.

That said.

We all should use every opportunity to better ourselves. And this includes thinking about what we truly deserve.

But what we deserve is, and should always be, balanced by our understanding of ‘effort.’ And effort should be all about making every minute count.

Let me be clear.

I love the American ambitious ‘you can do anything’ culture <although it has been warped a bit by the “hustle culture”>.

And I dislike it at exactly the same time.

Why?

Because it is a constant struggle.

All of us get tugged by ambition <work hard> and at exactly the same time get tugged by fairness <value for my work as part of everyone else’s work>

No.

I am not suggesting you cannot have and do both.

Yes.

I am suggesting it gets tough to balance.

One is driven by individualism <what I deserve and I want a good happy Life>.

One is driven by collectivism or some version of pluralism <I would like everyone around me to live a good happy Life>.

It is natural to focus and put a heavier emphasis on the “I” portion, especially at first because you typically have nothing <or little> and you believe you need ‘something’ before you start worrying about fairness or general Life happiness of others.

So. The true struggle occurs once you … well … have.

You have invested the effort, you have worked and focused and did and all of a sudden you have entered into the “I deserve” mentality <zone>.

That is actually a byproduct of ambition. Ambition, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. Unfortunately it brings some baggage along with it. It’s almost like you go on this ambition trip without any bags and when you get off the train you have a bag you carry off. The bag is a metaphor for tangible shit you have accumulated <which reflects your effort in your eyes as well as the eyes of those who look>, but it also contains mental shit. Self value, self-actualization and self-esteem. And it is the mental aspect which builds up the ‘deserve equation.’

We almost consider it as an aspect of winning … as in ‘winning in Life.’

I played the game.

I put in the effort.

I deserve the trophy.

And maybe that is where we get it wrong <sometimes>.

Playing the game versus winning.

Life, in general, is not measured by how many wins you have <or awards you get> it is about how you play the game. It really shouldn’t be about “winning in Life” it really should be “Life played well.”

Unfortunately, that is not part of the USA DNA.

We are an ambitious group of people who like to have, and measure, progress.

We are a group of people where ambition is not a negative word, it is indicative of a positive spirit. It is indicative of an underlying competitiveness which resides in the souls of 99% of Americans. I am not suggesting it is the only characteristic within us .just that it is always there and always suggesting ‘keep going.’

—

“The problem in France is that ambition is not a compliment.

It’s almost a bad word. ‘Ha, look, he’s ambitious.’

So that’s a very difficult situation for an athlete: As soon as you try to be ambitious you have people mocking you.

For instance, we would never have made the war in Iraq. On the other hand, we may never win anything.”

Bouin

—

This is not about slamming USA.

Shit. This is not about slamming your own ambition.

This is not an indictment of a ‘can do’ spirit or an indictment of ambition.

This is simply a reflective moment on how we think about what we deserve on Thanksgiving.

We deserve more than a ‘bucket of balls’ on Thanksgiving.

We deserve a sense of success for effort. Not anything truly tangible, but a sense.

We deserve a good sense and a good feeling for playing the game well, and with effort.

If we figure that out, I tend to believe all the rest will simply fall in place. Ponder. And Happy Thanksgiving.

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

“The life so short, the craft so long to learn.”

Hippocrates

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

“Ninety percent of paid work is time-wasting crap. The world gets by on the other ten.”

John Derbyshire

We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism

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

How many times have we sat back and said “I can do that job”?

Now. To be clear. I am going to talk about this from a business-to-business perspective and not the corner of the bar-to-‘some job’ perspective because from the corner of the bar, after a couple of beers, any of us can do any job better than the person who is currently doing it.

This is an “I have been in the workplace, I feel like I have had some success and … well … shit … I can do that job” perspective.

OK. I am chuckling a little, c’mon, let’s face it, I don’t care who you are and where you have worked, you have eyed what another person is doing and thought you could do it. At some point, if you have had some success, all jobs start having some commodity-like characteristics which tease you into believing shifting from one to another just isn’t that difficult.

Ok. To be fair. I have never lacked in business confidence. I do not believe there is a business problem that cannot be solved and I also believe <with some realistic pragmatic goggles on> that there is not a problem I cannot solve if I hunker down and get all the information I need. This can make me aggravating to work with on occasion because, well, I make no apologies for “how I may repair things”.

But that shouldn’t be confused with believing I can do any job.

Ok.

Yeah.

I admit.

I am certainly guilty at points in my career where I have certainly thought “I could do that job” over a wide array of responsibilities and unrelated industries.

** Note. I rarely thought I could do it better … just that I could do it.

……….. my MBA at Wake Forest experience ………..

I would say that my MBA experience, a great experience with great professors at Wake Forest, encouraged me to think this way. It was a case study program which inherently encouraged thinking skills over black & white discipline skills. I tend to believe a good MBA program insures you know enough about a specific discipline to be dangerous if you overestimate your own knowledge, but effective enough to be able to understand the discipline to apply it in a general management scope.

Now.

In general, I think this attitude, on the positive side, permits you to make the leaps you have to make to jump into new jobs, new responsibilities and new positions.

In general, I think this attitude, on the negative side, can make you overlook some skills other people have as well as … at its worst … can put you in positions in which you will fail in a spectacular fashion.

I imagine as someone gets promoted, as I did, every step up showed me that there was a shitload I didn’t know overall, as well as about the responsibilities of a specific job, but at the same time it also continuously reinforced that I could “do that job.”

Success in business is a double edged sword.

Conversely.

………. what you know versus what you do not know ………

As someone gets promoted they also can see that some people got their jobs not because they necessarily had the experience or skills for the job, but simply because they had the appearance they could do the job.

You watched as these people invested gobs of energy trying to “fake it until they actually make it” or, worse, they realized they were in over their heads and invested even more energy simply maintaining a facade of bullshit to hide their hollowness.

I would also note that given your experience on the last thing I just shared that also encourages someone to believe they could, well, “do that job.”

The higher I got and the broader my experiences, my sense of “I cannot really do that job” increased with regard toward the jobs I really shouldn’t do. It didn’t diminish my sense of ability to handle increased responsibility, it simply made me more reflective of other skill sets and the reality of certain jobs.

To be clear. There is a certain group of people who never reach this realization. They tend to be either sociopaths or oblivious narcissists, but they do exist.

Anyway. My real realization on this topic came when I reached a general management position <and did some consulting>.

It was there that I recognized jobs are like icebergs. 90% of a job you never see until you actually do the job. And to successfully do the part you don’t see needs a couple of things beyond the obvious ‘I need to be competent with regard to the specific skill itself’ aspect:

Attitude alignment

source: Tom Graves, Services and Disservices

This attitude goes way beyond the simplistic “I can do the job.” This attitude is more with regard to what you are actually good at.

As I have stated before I am more a renovator than a builder.  That is a mindset. My attitude is just put me in a room with all the puzzle pieces and I can rearrange them, maybe polish off a couple, maybe smooth out some edges that no longer fit well and put a different puzzle together that works better than the one that exists.

And then there are people who say ‘I envision a puzzle and build the pieces.”

Those are two different attitudes that, certainly, have some overlap but also, certainly, drive a different type of style and ability to succeed in one type of job versus another type of job. I believe many people are successful in their jobs, and new jobs, because they have the proper insight into themselves and position themselves well to take advantage of this insight.

I would also add that a leader who can see within a person’s ‘skill set’ to recognize this attitude will also be the type who can hire incredibly effectively. Not all leaders and hirers can. Some simply see the façade and surface abilities and believe they are easily transferable and hire them believing anyone can do the job if they have that appearance of a type of surface skill set.

The less-than-obvious skill set

… example of under the radar understanding (Juran Institute) …

Each skill, each specialty, has layers to its depth & breadth. Let’s say this is the “art” of the skill <I sometimes refer to it as “the shadow of your skill”>.

When you are a junior person you are demanded day in and day out to craft your pragmatic ‘non-artistic’ skills. You learn how to screw screws into holes efficiently and hammer nails into their proper places effectively.

As you gain seniority you are demanded to start incorporating the art aspects of your craft. I like to explain this as you have to learn to be more of an architect of your department, skill and specialty. By the way, not everyone can do his and not every department head is good at this and it tends to start filtering out those who move on to the next level … general management.

And if you move up even more into general management you are demanded to gain some skills in the “art” of combining all the skills into the overall progress of a company beyond the simplistic “are each department doing their fricking job.”

Ponder this.

In general the biggest difference between thinking you can do a job and actually being able to do the job is your less than obvious skill set. For example … I cannot tell you how many times I have sat in a conference room with a CFO who has displayed a skill set that made me think “shit, this company is lucky to have them” not because they knew all the accounting mumbo jumbo, but because they knew how to wield account skills in ways that  the company benefited beyond accounting.

Pick your C-level title and I would say the same thing.

At the corner of the bar you have no clue whether you have this ‘less than obvious skill set’ and if you actually have the experience you may only have a sense of whether this skill set exists. This is an intangible, however, 90% of the time this intangible arises from some relevant experience <maybe not within that specific discipline but a discipline nonetheless> … so your experience does matter.

So.

I decided to write about this today because, frankly, as a business guy I know you cannot do a job simply because you say “I can do that job” and that experience really does matter and that simply because you believe something … <sigh> … does not make it so.

I will say that I have learned this lesson the hard way and it permits me to be able to call a bullshitter a bullshitter and to be able to point out that some roles & responsibilities dictate at least some relevant experience in order to be effective & efficient. Just because you think you can “do that job” does not mean you can actually “do that job.” It takes some self-awareness to know that.

The lack of self-awareness has a ripple effect.

In a bar your lack of self-awareness can create a range of responses – some chuckles, out right laughter of disbelief and maybe even some aggravation if it inches into what some of the people actually do sitting at the table.

In a business your lack of self-awareness can create some real business repercussions. Not only may you be out of your depth, but you may actually start making some poor hires who are also out of their depth and that kind of shit gathers negative momentum <down the slippery slope of less-than-competent results>.

In business you get fired for that shit.

In business that kind of shit gets the entire business in trouble.

Anyway. Not everyone can do a job. That’s the message of the day.

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

“I lived according to the prevailing myth.  Everyone lives by myths.

Prettied up they are called truths … basic truths, natural truths, self-evident truths. What I knew or thought a year ago is beside the point. The problem is today. Even if the past was a lie, what am I supposed to replace it with? Another lie? All that’s necessary is to pull the old one out and put a new one in like a circuit board?  

Inspector O

=====

“The capacity of the human mind for swallowing nonsense and spewing it forth in violent and repressive action has never yet been plumbed.”

Robert Heinlein

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

“The way we got out of the caves and into modern civilisation is through the process of understanding and thinking. Those things were not done by gut instinct.  Being an expert does not mean that you are someone with a vested interest in something; it means you spend your life studying something.

You’re not necessarily right – but you’re more likely to be right than someone who’s not spent their life studying it.”

Brian Cox

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

“… if no one knows anything then why can’t I know something?”

Bruce McTague

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

Well. Increasingly we are hearing more and more people publicly questioning the expertise & knowledge of experts. It has come to a point where significant public figures have even stated things like “we have had enough of the experts.”

Uhm. When this occurs, and enough people actually believe it, well .. geez … if no one knows anything than why the hell can’t I know something becomes the overarching perception <if not attitude>.

You know where this belief has always existed? The corner of the neighborhood bar. I am sure we have all experienced it. Sitting around with friends, maybe at the corner of the bar, bitching about the world and talking about what we would do to fix it. At that table … and at that time, well, we can solve everything that the experts, the leaders, the grand decision makers seem to struggle solving.

Most of the time, if we are honest with ourselves, we dumb it down to some simplistic surface conclusion which sometimes is partially right. Often we apply a ‘common sense’ filter which, if we are honest with ourselves about this too, does not really reflect the complexity of reality. If we are honest with ourselves <once again>, more often than not we are wrong. Now. Its not that we aren’t smart. It just may be we are a little intellectually lazy.

Ok. That was harsh. Try this. Maybe we just don’t know enough or have enough experience. Maybe it is because we have not spent a lifetime studying it or we assume our personal professional or whatever experience is indicative of the knowledge necessary to be ‘right.’ And maybe we rely a little too much on what I have called “fortune cookie wisdom” <quasi-intellectual soundbite wisdom>.

But … whew … in the moment … in the discussion and debate and obvious common sense, we could run the world, the country and the biggest business venture out there. It is a fun moment. And we feel smart and even more importantly we feel as if we could do whatever it is as well as the person who is doing it. For a moment, just a moment, we look around at all the Harvard MBAs and all the policy experts and all the high falutin’ experts and we are as good and as smart as they are.

Sigh.

But we are not. It may seem like it. But we are not. Yet, at every bar, at every table, every Steve, Sarah, Sue and Sam thinks that they are.

That is the sad truth.

I actually believe this belief is driven by a version of the 80/20 rule. Assuming you are fairly worldly, fairly well informed and fairly enlightened, you probably get 80% of it right. And, boy, that 80% feels good. It may even feel “right enough.” But, in general, its just, well, 80% right. In general, just 80% on the important stuff just is not good enough. That is the difference between an amateur and a professional or an expert. That 20%. Some would argue it is simply the nuance, but in most of the larger more grand problems and issues we face it is that 20% that makes something go incredibly right or incredibly wrong.

And, uhm, I hate to tell everyone … but … most of us are not capable of that 20%.

That said. Realistically the last time everyone possessed the same skills in a society to participate within a leadership role at 100% equal was maybe several million years ago when all of us humans ran around as hunter/gatherers. Once we evolved into larger social groupings, and inevitably created cities and population clusters where some people had to make decisions for the greater good of the whole some people naturally evolved into governors and governing <leadership> and the expertise needed to assume those responsibilities. And while we can bitch & moan about the ineptness of leadership, in general, leaders lead and others follow. Yet, we everyday schmucks get confused and believe we would be smarter, if not as smart, as people in the positions of leadership.

Part of the problem is the problems themselves. Most problems contain contradictions and truly are complex with lots of moving parts. Heck. Everything is complex, not just the problems.

** note: that last point contributes to corner of the bar wisdom. solutions, or good past decisions, tend to look simple in hindsight and we ignore the complex interconnections which begets the result we are pointing to <while at the corner of the bar>

For example. As we discuss country issues we discuss natural contradictions within a complex world <both domestic & international is important> as well as the fact the American people often embrace contradictory goals <just wander through any PewResearch report to confirm that thought>.

What do I mean? Well. For example. While any citizen of any country wants to be ‘great’ – defining ‘great’ is a complex puzzle. At the corner of the bar more often than not we ignore the contradictory challenges with more simplistic solutions for what would be great <under the guise of common sense actions or ‘seems to make sense on the surface’ attitudes>. Sometimes this ‘common sense’ assumes ‘oh, everyone would agree with that’ when, in reality, the majority of people would debate it <that is actually complexity in a nutshell>.

I would like to note the exceptional corner of the bar pontificators position themselves incredibly well to exploit such contradictory opinions. For example. “Make America Great Again” is a simplistic slogan that embraces some aspects of patriotism or nationalism pride and is broad enough that any individual can define ‘great’ from their own perspective including both a harsh insular ‘past driven’ edge to a much grander ‘future possibilities’ thought.

That said. At the corner of the bar we more often than not rule our thoughts based on passion <fear, individualism, frustration & anger> supported by reason. The experts reverse the equation ignoring passionate response <fear, individualism, anger> and basing ideas & solutions on solid reasoning and rational thought <and things called “principles” & laws>. I will not spend any time on laws, but, while we at the corner of the bar sometimes shake our heads wondering what common sense <or lack thereof> created some laws we accept they are laws because in some way we all know it creates a construct of ethics.

But let’s be honest. The neighborhood bar is in … well … the neighborhood. It is where we kibbitz over non neighborhood things.

In general it is healthy semi-intellectual debate which makes us feel intellectually good.

In general we take a fairly ridiculously narrow view of how the world works.

Anyway.

The experts who have been talking about this stuff. For today’s discussion I am going to lean on two relatively short, but broader insightful reads – Huntington’s “clash of civilizations’ written in 1993 for Foreign Affairs magazine and then Foreign Affairs magazine’s reprise of the article in 2013 with a number of short “here is what I think” articles.

Rereading the well written thoughts makes you not only realize that the intellectual of those of us at the corner of the bar may not be at the level of stupid, but that there are a shitload of really smart people discussing these topics not at the bar.

Basically, most of us struggle with globalization and nationalism. It’s not that we do not want either or reject one over the other it is that we struggle to see, feel and understand the balance. One expert called this uneasiness we feel ‘casual collapse.’ It is the seemingly ongoing blurring of many beliefs, rituals, formal requirements and laws that define specific societies and us.   And we feel a little helpless in stopping this ‘casual collapse’ because of that darn thing called ‘the internet’ <the cross-cultural sharing of information and knowledge> all compounded by all those darn people shouting nonsense on that darn thing called ‘the internet.’

Now. All this is happening without causing any particular larger collapse of anything. It is just a casual collapse of things as they used to be. And it is happening despite any government edicts or programs designed to slow the change <collapse> or older generations tied to some past cultural aspects efforts. It is an inevitable collapse driven by the fact as everyone becomes more knowledgeable about ‘what is happening and what people are thinking’ half way around the world they begin questioning the status quo conventional thinking where they are. It becomes a blending of local cultural thinking and a more global perspective.

And the whole issue is exacerbated by a faster additional natural progression created by the urbanization of emerging countries.

Why does this change anything? There’s an obvious link between the broad spread of more liberal attitudes and increasing urbanization globally <in 1980 Africa 28% lived in cities – today its 40+% – 40+ million people>. As new urbanites find themselves further distanced from traditional social and familial structures, and are exposed to a wider range of alternative goods, services, lifestyles, opinions and experiences, their tolerance to alternative thinking and behavior grows – as does their interest & attitudes. The web simply accelerates what would have been happening naturally.

I am certainly not suggesting this will happen overnight. As trendwatching suggests “compared to much trend thinking, casual collapse moves at a glacial pace.” Basically, whether we like it or not, globalization has forced the world to be at odds with itself. We are not a world of countries and states living in solitude, but rather one in which we overlap linked, and delinked, by varying degrees of history, culture, religion, language, location and institutions.

This causes a natural reaction against a sense of uniformity. We naturally chafe at the thought of “being the same as everyone else” <while still viewing aspects we like & want>. And therein lies the greater conflict – while economic life takes place on a global platform human identity remains national & local.

Yeah.

The identification of local <and nationalism> will always continue and will always create the same angst we feel at the corner of the bar as we watch the zillion TV’s typically sitting in the bar suggesting globalization is infringing upon our corner of the bar.

Even global economic growth infringes upon our national identification.

What do I mean? Economics depends on education and communication which leads directly to conflicts over language and comparisons over education levels. All the while … a global economic view encourages everyone to believe the world is their oyster – anyone can aspire to any economic position. The reality is that everyone does not have an equal likelihood of upward economic mobility <locally, nationally or globally> and not simply because individuals have different innate capabilities <but that is a different post>.

At the corner of the bar we need not worry nor address the balance we focus on what we need and what we want – not necessarily the greater good.

And then there is the scary factor we local experts face over a beer.

Terrorism.

There is clearly a relationship between globalization and violence. Unfortunately, this stage of globalization <its current stage of maturity> doesn’t necessarily spread peace & understanding. Instead it tends to foster conflicts and resentments <global media makes it possible for the most deprived or oppressed to compare their fate with that of the free and well-off as well as showing one nation what another nation is achieving>. In today’s world globalization tends to provoke revolt and dissatisfaction.

All that said. The one thing we common everyday schmucks can certainly do at the corner of the bar is to analyze the present, embrace some of the past, but we cannot predict the future.

The future is yet to be written by a world that is anything but simple. It is a world where society is often uneven, always complex and often local societies overlap with a global society all the while burdened by public institutions seemingly incapable of navigating local and international needs. This often leads us to simply divide the issue into a solvable part versus unite the complexity into one seemingly unsolvable issue <because it is easier to solve a part rather than a complex whole when you are at the corner of the bar>.

And that is where most of us at the corner of the bar truly fall short. Enriching people, minds, bodies and spirit, is the ultimate objective of any problem & issue and the most difficult task in the world.

It is a complex task.

It requires the best of everyone, the best of civilizations and the best of leadership & thinking all not emphasizing the differences, but reinforcing the common objective.

A country, a culture, a civilization … is a messy creature.

A country can be kind & generous as well as cruel & coldblooded as they pick their way through the natural chaotic world.

Me, and American, believes the United States clearly has the capacity to influence which future is most likely. However, for anyone to predict the future confidently would be naive <or outright lying>. But globalization is not a simplistic concept. But nationalism is not a simplistic concept. Being a president, or any leader of a significant organization, is not a simplistic concept.

Inevitably leading is not just about hope or promising something better, it is a pragmatic pushing of  opportunity to the people who need it the most and want it the most <thereby maximizing what opportunities do exist>. And opportunities abound … in fact … there may actually be more opportunity in the world than problems <but you would never know it by listening to conversations at the corner of the bar … or on TV>.

Look. In a world where I have no idea how my mobile phone or the internet work <or my car, television, or microwave, or … whatever> and, yet, they consistently work, everything seems so unknowable that amateurish expert wisdom actually seems … well … attainable.

In other words. If no one knows anything then why can’t I know something?

C’mon, let’s be honest, corner of the bar discussions typically devolve into the simplistic and our solutions skate on the superficial surface of reality. We should not, and cannot, devolve into a world where there are no experts or believe that experts don’t know more than we do.

Simply being an expert doesn’t mean ‘perfection’ – not making mistakes or being wrong <because that would predicate they could actually tell the future>. But let’s be honest, we want people smarter than us – the people sitting at the corner of the bar – making the really important decisions.

Well.

I certainly do.

---

originally posted July 2016

====

“There’s always a strange feeling you get when you come across one particular line by chance.

It feels somehow significant.

That’s irrational of course, but humans are irrational creatures.

Even the sturdiest, most down-to-earth chap will turn pale if he opens a book at random and sees the words PREPARE TO MEET THY DEATH. “

Mark Forsyth

======

Survival is a great motivator.

Suffice it to say there is pretty much nothing like feeling like ‘prepare to meet thy death’ is imminent to create a sense of urgency in your actions. I believe this is true in your personal life as well as in your business life.

But.

Let’s be clear.

Up until that “death scenario” point most of us swing back & forth between a general sense of lack of urgency and just getting all the shit done you need to get done <no urgency nor laziness just doing and checking shit off your list>.

It is a fairly practical approach to approaching Life <and business life>.

Looking at Life objectively, Life is almost always a balance of pacing yourself so that you don’t burn out <and have the energy when you actually do need it> and a sense of urgency to ‘do’ when the situation dictates.

And, yet … we almost seem irrational when it comes to this balance. We run, and run, and run and then all of a sudden schedule some forced ‘stop’ under the guise of ‘re-energizing’ or recharging our batteries.

This is kind of nuts.

This actually implies we can control what we face and when we face it.

Let me explain what I really mean.

Well.

Even the sturdiest, most down-to-earth chap will turn pale if he opens a book at random and sees the words PREPARE TO MEET THY DEATH.

So let’s say your idea of balance is a simple “go” or “stop” — either 100% of one or 100% of the other.

So let’s say you have been running and running and running with your planned “stop” imminent.

Uh oh.

Life stands in front of you with some situation and places the words is ‘prepare to meet thy death’ squarely in front of you.

You pale.

Shit.

We all pale in  moment like that.

It is ‘survival time.’ What many crappy bosses flippantly call “an all hands on deck” moment.

Well.

You are fucked.

Just when you need the energy the most you are most likely at your most depleted.

Suffice it to say the ‘100% stop or go’ Life strategy is not the most practical or efficient living Life model. And, yet, that is exactly the model most of us use.

Our reason <excuse>?

This is what Life demands of us.

Well.

I could argue that Life may certainly pressure us to live life this way, but it certainly doesn’t demand us to live it this way.

We get lots of choices in Life and one of them is how we live it.

Even with all the “survive must do’s” we get a lot of room on how we conduct our lives.

Death or survival moments reminds us of this. It is in these moments in which our survival mode kicks in, i.e., “I am not prepared to meet my death … if at all possible”.

Most of us figure we may as well go out fighting … hence the urgency.

“Better it is to die as a soldier since die we must.

And though the man who dies hath pain – to all his house accrues praise and pride. “

Euripedes

Now.

I will admit.

I hated the false ‘prepare to meet thy death’ moments a shitload of managers create in business.

Well. I really believe most of them do not create them, but rather they simply cannot discern between a true “meet thy death” scenario versus a “a calculated action is called for here.”

In addition.

I admit.

I found it incredibly frustrating to have a “prepare to meet thy death” scenario rear its monstrous head and any and all resources became available. Not because I begrudged the resources needed to meet the situation, but because months before you had asked for the same resources <maybe even a lesser degree> and, if invested then <as asked>, this particular ‘prepare to meet thy death’ scenario most likely would have never occurred.

But that is why I said what I said upfront — most of us grind our way through life, business & personal, with a general lack of urgency. The uncomfortable truth is that creating urgency without a ‘prepare to meet thy death’ situation is difficult. And because it is difficult and because there is a mostly lack of urgency general attitude, managers almost get trained to inspire urgency with ‘death-like scenarios. This is the truly evil business version of “false sense of urgency.”

It is a mind numbingly stupid situation we have created for ourselves.

I, personally as a manager, do not know if I was particularly good at heading off ‘prepare for thy death’ situations and I don’t know if I was particularly good at recognizing real ‘prepare to meet thy death’ scenarios <because sometimes they actually can be slightly sneaky>, but I do tend to believe I erred on the side of treating almost all scenarios initially as ‘non urgent’ believing more often than not if we didn’t run around like chickens with our heads cut off and didn’t invest a shitload of extra resources we could most likely handle it fairly efficiently.

My only proof to back up what I just wrote?

I am not dead.

Regardless.

I do wish more of us, in Life and in business, could cut back on the “go 100%” and “stop 100%” interval living. I don’t think it is particularly healthy nor particularly effective in the long run.

Death comes to all of us soon enough … no reason to seek it out.