——

цветы необычайной красоты

translation: “flowers of unusual beauty”

<note: these words are pulled from a random piece of Russian poetry … or maybe a very old song … I am not sure which … in which the full line is “and in the neutral zone … flowers of unusual beauty …” … it is a metaphorical reference to the beauty of fragile freedom that lies within the space between old West Germany and East Germany>

—-

Mashkawizii

translation: “strong … inner strength”

—–

The title of this uses two words – one Russian and one Ojibwe <Chippewa>.

That said. I tend to believe both inner strength and character not only lies within each of us, but actually represent the secret to Life <‘secret’ being metaphorical>.

Why? Well. I had to pick up a copy of The Secret in order to have a quasi intelligent conversation with a friend of mine <my thoughts on The Secret – , p.s. – don’t read if you like the book>.

Suffice it to say I believe, despite what the books says, there is no one secret to Life.

The secret actually is finding the key that unlocks your own inner strength, or inner character or inner passion or <to keep with the thought> the key that opens the door to your own flowers of unusual beauty. Yup. The secret is finding the flowers of unusual beauty that lie within your own walls and give them freedom to prosper in the light of day.

The secret is finding your ‘mashkawizii’ – the strength that lies within you. Now. This is a very personal individualist thing. It is not a formula and most likely not replicable <therefore I cannot write a book telling anyone what the ‘one thing’ is>.

Which makes this topic tough.

Because Life can be really really tough on us. Relentless in fact. And it would be nice if you could hand something to everyone and say “use this, it will help.” There is no one secret, but I would suggest inside everyone and, yes, I mean everyone, there is a flower of unusual beauty and strength.

No book will tell you the secret to unlocking it.

I kind of even doubt a person can tell you the secret to unlocking it.

Only one person has the key – yourself.

Now. I am not suggesting this is easy nor do I believe you always get it right the first time. Because sometimes it gets pretty dark inside as doubts & insecurities cluster around like shadows following closely on your footsteps as you look in the corners for what you seek. In addition it is kind of like a Rubiks cube of shifting thoughts and ideas inside you as you experience things. All of it makes this difficult, but I imagine secrets to life wouldn’t be easy if they were actually worthwhile to figure out.

Oh. This all gets complicated <worsened> because sometimes you find people who just don’t believe they have this inner strength or flower of beauty. I feel very very safe in giving this one piece of advice — if you run into one of these people … stop … and tell them they are wrong. 100% wrong.

It is there. They just haven’t recognized it yet. But. Everyone has it.

Everyone.

No matter how hard Life has been and hardened the walls of doubts, despair and disappointments within you, there will always remain … well … цветы необычайной красоты … a flower of unusual beauty.

Mashkawizii or цветы необычайной красоты it is within you and worth finding.

I call it character <probably because I am neither Ojibwe nor Russian>.

Now. While The Secret suggests happiness <or ‘attitude’> is the key to life & success I cannot guarantee that for you if you focus on my thought.

Nope. Sorry.

Heck. I cannot even suggest happiness, in & of itself, is the key to Life & success <because it seems more like an outcome than an objective>. But. What I can guarantee is that your “happies” will be more meaningful if they are a reflection of what is within because then your happy moments will always be full & have depth.

Oh. In addition. And I think I can guarantee <this is not a price back guarantee though> that your un-happies will be liveable. They won’t kill you. Maybe better said you will have the mashkawizii to be strong and hold on <without losing yourself in the process> until Life decides to move along to the next phase. This is a corollary to what I suggested on happy moments <they are more full>. This thought is in the darkest unhappy moments you will never completely empty because you’re not dependent upon anything superficial but instead relying on your ‘inner flower.’

But that is just what I think. And please do not tell me a book can give you the secret to Life.

That said. Because some people push back on how harshly I judge The Secret let me say this. While I just said I do not want anyone telling me a book can give you “the secret” to Life I will add <and I am very consistent on this> that while I do not believe people should foolishly and blindly pursue ‘get rich fast’ tricks to Life, I also believe that people need to do what they need to do to get through Life.

So, if The Secret gets you closer to where you want to go … use it.

Heck. Use any book <I suggest the Bible, Torah or Koran provides a nice possible foundation to start with> that helps you. Just be smart about whatever you gotta do to get your head straight and seek out your own ‘flowers of unusual beauty’ which reside within you.

Ponder.

=====

“It’s dark because you are trying too hard.

Lightly child, lightly. Learn to do everything lightly. Yes, feel lightly even though you’re feeling deeply. Just lightly let things happen and lightly cope with them.

I was so preposterously serious in those days.

Lightly, lightly – it’s the best advice ever given me. So throw away your baggage and go forward. There are quicksands all about you, sucking at your feet, trying to suck you down into fear and self-pity and despair. That’s why you must walk so lightly. Lightly my darling… “

Aldous Huxley

=====

Life truths.

Hard and lightly.

Haste with patience.

Forward diagonally.

Happy and sad.

Success and failure.

Right and wrong.

Thinking and doing.

Dreams and hard work.

Whew. This means that the truly great things in Life may be a coin you can put in your pocket — a coin made up of two sides and two faces.

Yeah. Life is usually a combination of opposites fighting a tug of war moment to moment. I bet no one told you that when you were growing up.

Far too often we are told the secret to life is one thing.

Far too often someone is not telling is the truth <or maybe they don’t really know the secret to life?>.

Th truth is Life <and business also> is a wonderful, maddening blob of inconsistency.

The only way to survive , and not be totally boring, inept or a hermit, is to steal a little of something from both sides and do your best to proportion it all out in the end.

Proportional?

I need some sadness to recognize true joy <only I certainly don’t want to dwell on sadness nor walk around as Happy the Clown every minute of the day>.

I want a leader who is energetic and demanding and cajoling, pushing, shoving, pulling, inspiring people toward a horizon < but I want the moments of idle strength and compassion intertwined>.

I want to work hard … so hard the muscles, brain and/or physical, are strained and hurt … and get to maybe get a glimpse of one of my dreams on occasion <so I can dream a little when not working hard>.

I want people to play hard and play to win <in any endeavor> … but do so with grace in victory & loss, with sportsmanship & fairness and respect for the game.

I want, well, it doesn’t matter what I want. Pick your ‘hard-lightly’ Life combination. I guarantee you will find the most interesting people, most interesting experiences, most interesting moments, most interesting anythings are a reflection of this ying-yang combination. Life is meant to be lived, and experienced, hard & lightly.

Now. By the way.

Just because Life is meant to be lived this way doesn’t mean it is easy to actually live it that way. Living hard, or living lightly, is not only addictive, but also often generates a sense of ‘lostness’ when shelved for a bit.

Why lostness?

Well. It is mostly fear that we will not refind or regain it therefore we hesitate to ever let it go from the way we currently live our Life.

So what do we do? We ‘take a break.’

We ‘get away from it all.’ In other words instead of seeking some ‘how we actually live’ balance in our lives we just step away from the way we live our Life by simply not going lightly <if we typically go hard> or not going go hard <if we typically go lightly> and we don’t do anything other than how we live our Life so, ultimately, we just choose to do nothing to ‘recharge.’

I would suggest that you don’t need to ‘take a break’ to recharge, but rather if you seek the proportional ‘yang’ to your ‘ying’, well, you will find additional purpose as well as your ‘ying’ takes on an entirely new image n your eyes & mind.

• *** note: proportional versus balance: I purposefully use proportional rather than balance because on an individual, person to person, basis it is rarely a 50/50 split – even over time. everyone customizes their life between hard & lightly as is appropriate to their personality, ambition and life desires. once again, this is rarely 50/50 and everyone should just seek what their optimal proportional mix is.

Regardless, just approaching Life one way means you miss out on what is most interesting in life – going hard & lightly.

Aw shit. Look. All I really know if that if you can figure out how to go hard and tread lightly at the same time, you will most likely be successful in business & in Life. You will most likely be appreciated, respected, sometimes liked and certainly not hated. I know … I know … the ‘tread lightly’ part is really really hard if you like to live Life going hard.

But.

As I just told someone go hard for the things you want and dreams you seek to reach toward and if you continue to do these things for you, knowing that your moral compass is set correctly and that your instincts with regard to ‘what is right’ versus ‘what is wrong’ are good, you will be happier and the people around you will rarely be disappointed.

Ponder.

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

“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.

=====

“… but there is a certain point where trying to choose between the lesser of two evils is just an exercise in futility. It doesn’t matter what you choose … both are so bad you struggle to discern which would be worse. Therefore, I refuse to choose.”

Alex Verus

———–

So. The opening quote is from a character in a fantasy book, but, that said, we have all been in a situation where all the choices look bad, or not so good — but definitely not good.

This is the choice of the lesser of two evils:

—

The lesser of two evils principle (or lesser evil principle) is the principle that when faced with selecting from two unpleasant options, the one which is least harmful should be chosen.

—

Let’s just say, well, it sucks. And it sucks even worse when we stop and fruitlessly seek some silver lining in what is, frankly, no good choice trying to convince ourselves it isn’t ‘actually’ that bad a choice. But. It is a bad choice.

This is not one of those choices where someone says “sometimes the wrong choice puts you in the right place.” The only place this choice puts you is in a bad place, sure, maybe less bad than somewhere else, but bad. In game theory it is typically known as the no-win situation – an unavoidable decision with unavoidable an outcome which encompasses the losses of whatever value resides within the choice.

Uhm. And, yet, the character decided to not choose. Why?

At some point it becomes an exercise in futility.

Now. If there was ever an example of ‘no choice actually being a choice’. this may be it. In fact, it may actually be ‘the win’ choice.

Huh?

It seems like when faced with a lesser of two evils far too often we look at harm associated with the choice itself and not the harm to ourselves.

This may sound crazy, but survival is not always the desired outcome.

Huh?

Well. If survival means sacrificing all that you find valuable & important to your self, you better be damn sure it is worth the evil you are choosing.

And that is what the character in the book is saying.

“I choose neither of the evils because if I did … I live … but I may not be able to live with myself.”

Well.

Personally, I probably think about this ‘live with myself’ with regard to my decisions more than most people and possibly more than is productive or healthy for me. But.

I have seen success and I have seen failure.

I have had rewards and suffered penalties.

I have risen toward the top and scrambled to get free of the bottom.

Through it all the only one, the only thing consistent, is me.

Just saying ‘I survived’ <and this can be in business, life or situational> is not enough for me. Never has. Possibly because I have seen the wounds inflicted upon character, esteem and integrity with basic ‘I survived’ choices. Personally, I don’t want to survive if I have to sacrifice … well … me <the character portion … not the physical portion>.

To be clear. This is a personal choice and I do not judge others on how they choose.

To be clear. This personal decision comes with a cost. But it is a cost I am willing to bear because it only costs me material rewards & society-based successes. It doesn’t cost me any of what resides within me.

Look.

Choosing between the lesser of two evils is almost always actually choosing between three evils: the two choices and what evil it inflicts upon yourself.

I cannot tell anyone what to do when faced with a ‘no win’ scenario.

That is for each person to face on their own and decide what is best for them. But I can tell everyone you should think about it.

It can be a ‘no win’ choice just make sure you, yourself, also doesn’t win. Because losing yourself in addition to having to choose between a lesser of two evils means, well, some version of evil has won.

Ponder.

———

All of this is temporary
All of this is temporary
All of this is temporary
All of this is temporary
All of this is temporary
All of this is temporary
All of this is temporary
All of this is temporary
All of this is temporary
All of this is temporary
All of this is temporary
All of this is temporary
All of this is temporary
All of this is temporary
All of this is temporary

———

Ok. I was tempted to call this ‘the glimpses of perfection’ <which I also call “the flickering of perfection” somewhere later>. What I mean by that is if you put any real effort into what you do, in business or in Life, you will actually brush up against perfection on occasion. And that’s the maddening part.  Life is pretty maddening in that it often gives us these little glimpses of perfection, but at the same time refuses to let us actually keep it for anything longer than a glimpse.

This is where it all gets tricky. Therefore <because we like … no ... LOVE ... those glimpses> we constantly attack Life & business always slightly tainted by this ‘temporary perfection’.

Why? Because the temporary glimpses, those ‘moments’, they suggest perfection <or a version of it> is achievable. And you try and plan, and replicate, those glimpses so that they become the norm. Unfortunately, we people are imperfect so replicating perfection is almost impossible. We struggle in this wretched in between almost everyday.
Now.

First. Let me be clear. The whole idea of perfection is shit.

Second. That doesn’t mean we cannot achieve perfection <whew … there was a contradictory thought, huh?>

The difficulty resides in the fact that perfection is fleeting and we only get glimpses of it. I sometimes refer to it as the flickering of perfection in our lives.

And you know what? That’s good <that flickering>. In fact I would argue it is often good enough. In fact I could argue it is as good as it gets.

Look. I imagine most of us probably feel like we are ‘doing’ somewhere between okay and good in most areas of life. We are, in our minds, doing a decent job day to day. Some days better than others, but overall decent.

But perfection? Whew. I don’t think so. Maybe at moments … but all the time in life? No way.

That said. Maybe the key point, or issue, most likely comes down to my ‘definition of perfection’.

Here is my take.

I sometimes believe we see perfection as a home to move into.

It is not. It is a hotel <or maybe a motel>. You may stay one night … maybe a week <if you are really really lucky>, but you can’t live there.

Am I saying this as a way of condoning mediocrity?

No. Absolutely frickin’ not.

It is just a reminder that people are not perfect <most of the time>.

It is a reminder that Life is not perfect <all the time>.

It is a reminder that Business is never perfect despite all the best practices, process, system, ROI & corporate cultural guidelines <never perfect contextually>.

It is a reminder that aiming for perfection <all the time> is wasted energy and maybe to take it easier on yourself.

Now. This doesn’t mean you should try to be your best <because you should>, maybe just acknowledge that your best doesn’t equal perfection <at least all the time>.

Uhm. Uh oh.

It is quite possible one would think that “doing your best” should be, well, our best, no?

And if we believe that, well, our best should equal perfection, no?

Unfortunately it doesn’t actually work that way.

That actually isn’t the formula.

This may be difficult to accept, but your best is a jagged line. Jagged as it is dependent upon what you have and when you are doing something – context as it were.

On occasion that jagged line butts up against the ‘perfection line.’

So.

Unfortunately. Under the harsh spotlight of self judgment you may be tempted to judge this as not really your best. Or maybe you make it a caveated best. A derivative of best as it were.

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

“It’s easy to miss and easy to mistake
For when things are really great
It just means everything’s in its place.”

Aimee Mann

Well. You would be wrong. Its not some lesser version as long as you were truly “doing the best that you can.”

Oh shit. Trouble. In actuality many times we are not actually doing our best.

Huh? C’mon. 90% of the time as we go thru the grind of Life & business you know you could do more <if the measure is truly our best>.

Look. I truly believe chasing perfection is an endless pursuit. And, frankly, if you try to do this you only put yourself under unbearable pressure aiming to be the perfect version of who you are. And, inevitably, this relentless quest for perfection can only bring disappointment because not only is being perfect all the time <if not at any time> an impossible task, but it becomes exponentially more impossible <ok … how can something that is already impossible become exponentially so? … its kind of like getting three death sentences …> if you actually attempt to do “it” all the time.

Planning perfection, which is most often a random confluence of factors, is a sysiphean task. Someone can waste far too much time and energy trying to be the perfect ‘whatever’.

Sure. None of us want to be ‘less-than-perfect’ in anything we do, but it is a fact of life. But. Here is some news.

Ok.

No. Here is the fact.

Doing your best isn’t about perfection and it isn’t always trying to be perfect. Because doing your best is about “good enough with what you can actually do”. Doing your best is about maximizing ‘as long as it lasts.’ And that is often not perfection.

Ok.

In the end. Don’t think about perfection as ‘your best.” Best is simply … ‘effort + attitude’. And … just … well … do your best. Choose the moments and truly do your best <and admit the other times just aren’t your best you are just muddling through>.

Why?

Well. I believe every action has an equal and opposite reaction <actually … each action can have a variety of opposite reactions of which it is difficult for you to discern beforehand what will occur but that’s a different post>. Therefore, if you perform any action the results will come, maybe not today or tomorrow, but at some time. So if people could keep their minds thinking what I just typed above and truly do your best at the right time and mentally unattach yourself from the outcome of the ‘best’ actions <and the concept of perfection> I think more people would be happier and they may actually do their best more often. And, maybe more importantly, if you do not try and fool yourself into believing you had done “your best” in certain situations you may be able to manage your life expectation-wise a little better.

Regardless.

Just do your best and, if you are lucky, you will get a glimpse of perfection. We can try and be our best all the time, but perfection is temporary. While that may sound painfully disappointing maybe look at it is “possibilities”.

——–

I dwell in Possibility—
A fairer House than Prose—
More numerous of Windows—
Superior—for Doors—

Of Chambers as the Cedars—
Impregnable of Eye—
And for an Everlasting Roof
The Gambrels of the Sky—

Of Visitors—the fairest—
For Occupation—This—
The spreading wide of narrow Hands
To gather Paradise—

Emily Dickinson

———

Remember. While your life may only have the flickering of perfection it surely seems like a positive way of attacking Life would be to dwell in the possibilities that perfection will visit again.

=======

“Aesthetics is the shop window, ultimately, if there’s nothing in that shop, it has no longevity, do you know what I mean?”

Geri Halliwell

———————-

Well. Of all people in the world I never thought I would read ex-Spice Girl Geri Halliwell <Ginger Spice?> saying something relevant to business and actually use it to write something.

Anyone who has ever worked with me has heard me use the “fluff and fold” reference.

Fluff is the aesthetics.

Fold is the value.

Fluff is puffery.

Fold is the substance.

Look. We like the aesthetics. Maybe even love it, adore it and bond with it. But without the fold, the value and functionality, we end up disappointed in the aesthetics and will inevitably move on to the next thing to adore. In other words, we just see the fluff.

And, while I have never articulated this thought like Geri, I have tried to say it over and over and over again in meeting after meeting after, well, meeting. Perception is not reality. Reality is reality and if your aesthetics don’t match reality you are screwed.

I do know it is one of the most consistent discussions in business positioning, selling and marketing. And it will continue to do so because there is a natural tension between “fluffers” and “folders.”

While the most strident of each wish it would be 100% at the exclusion of their kindred enemy, most of everyone fall into a natural 80/20 versus 20/80 Pareto rule.

A fluffer understands that substance is necessary, just maybe as a period at the end of the interesting fluff.

The folder grudgingly accepts that aesthetics are necessary, just maybe as a “once upon a time” entrée to the main story of substance.

It really doesn’t matter which side you fall on in this discussion the debate revolves around the same issues time and time again:

• If they are not interested <sometimes confused with ‘entertained’> they will not pay attention
• Everybody is stressed for time and if you don’t engage them in the first 10 seconds you have lost them <a hyperbole statement at best>
• People are tired of bullshit and just want you to cut to the chase <flawed logic because this assumes substance/rational sell itself>

But regardless of how often all of us fall into this tired argument, this is where most trains go off the tracks.

Suffice it to say, businesses get mesmerized by aesthetics.

If I hear one more quote about “first impressions count” or “they have to like you before they can enter into a brand dialogue” or, well, any of the semi-intellectual strategic crap that flippantly gets tossed around like the newest office toy sitting on the conference room table … I will puke.

In the simplistic dialogues that take place you inevitably find people debating what is more important — when it isn’t a matter of importance; it is a matter of balance <or proportion>. And, yet, while I sense we all know that balance is the answer we seem to consistently slide down the slippery slope of fluff under the guise of “the substance is complex and we need to simplify!”

Huh?

Everyone wants ‘the one thing.’

Everyone wants ‘the formula.’

Nuts.

That is what I say to that.

Nuts.

Substance is substance. I am not suggesting you have to serve it up in some complex unpalatable way, but substance, more often than not, is not simple. And if we try and simplify substance too much, uh oh, it becomes … uhm … fluff.

In the end.

You cannot just have fluff.

You cannot just have fold.

You have to have both in some form or fashion. And more often than not there is no formula, but <I have to tell ya> if you can balance your fluff and fold in a quasi-50/50 split <maybe 40% fluff & 60% fold> you have a very good chance of delivering relevant information in a palatable way.

Oh. That word may get me in trouble … “palatable.”

Look. I am clearly in the substance <fold> camp.

While I enjoy the fluff I find that it maddeningly takes up an excessive amount of energy and focus away from substance <fold> which is inevitably what represents the effectiveness of whatever idea you are sharing.

But I have also learned, and have the scars to show, that ideas, even great bigly ideas, do not explain themselves, do not sell themselves and are often not attractive in their black & whiteness. I have learned that, while starkness has its time & place, businesses <and people in general> engage with things that have a more rich & royal hue.

I imagine all us business folk should remember the famous words of that ex-Spice Girl Geri:

Aesthetics matter … but … if there is nothing in that shop … well … there is no longevity … is there?

Stick with the Spice Girl advice and you may actually do well.

====

“There are no rules here – we’re trying to accomplish something.”

Thomas A. Edison

===

Ok. Anyone who reads what I typically write already knows I struggle with rules <although I do like discipline & construct>.

And that is why I love his quote.

Edison is a guy who pretty much failed more than any inventor, let alone anyone, and yet was more successful in the end. I continuously read he was often a jerk and egotistical and had all the flaws that make someone fairly intolerable socially despite the fact he was a relentless innovator.

Well. I am gonna disregard that and focus on trying to accomplish something.

Accomplishing things is good. And, generally speaking, if you set some milestones/objectives and play by the rules you will accomplish things. That said. If you truly want to accomplish something stunning, something really big, something that turns the world slightly upside down, well, there are no rules.

Why?

Because the rules keep you from attaining everything I wrote in that sentence.

Rules maintain the norm.

Rules maintain the status quo.

Rules maintain “what is” and never <ok … rarely> generate “what can be.”

What is possible (impossible within the rules) is typically attained when you break thru the boundaries of what is accepted and what everyone feels comfortable with, i.e., the ‘rules’ which have generated past success, and you reach out to something new and innovative.

Rules are dictated by what got you to the success you attained today. As a cautionary corollary, those same rules restrict you from attaining future “new unseen success.”

To be clear.

Does this mean I am suggesting unethical behavior? Nope. I am simply suggesting process & practices rules tend to constrain the new behavior/practices to create something meaningfully new.

Does this mean I am suggesting chaos is good? Nope. I am simply suggesting that rules often restrict you from anything but maintaining the status quo (which isn’t bad but at its core simply means you are stagnant in one sense or another). And at some point someone is gonna come along and break the rules.

I can guarantee that.

And as a leader you will be judged by how you handle that.

Because not all rule breakers are good.

Just as not all rule breakers are bad.

You, as a business, are bad – ok, you suck – if you judge all rule breakers equally.  As in “they broke a rule and that is bad.” You suck because that means you are not only mired in a sea of maintaining sameness, but you have also attained the true status of squelching any innovative thinking that could possibly help you, or whatever you are managing, “break out” and get to the next level.

Am I suggesting this is easy? Nope.

And that is why so many businesses suck.

Because it is easier to maintain the status quo.  It is easier to have everyone follow the rules.

Because then your job is simply herding and not leading. Herders suck because they simply follow rules.

Suffice it to say businesses attain their status because they know how to make exceptions (and maintain the overall organization momentum).

Following rules is easy.

And lazy.

But, once again to be clear, not all rules that are broken is a good thing. Some rules kind of keep some necessary boundaries <on behavior and such>.

So, as are most things in life, there is no formula.

And those who break rules are as likely to have fucked up as they are to have been stunningly successful.

Personally I believe every organization should not only have these people, but encourage them.

Stunning failures with glimpses of success should be celebrated for the attempt of glory. And business shouldn’t chastise, but teach. For in every stunning failure there is an opportunity for a stunning success.

And shame on any business who doesn’t recognize that.

===========

“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>.

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

“No enterprise can exist for itself alone.

It ministers to some great need, it performs some great service, not for itself, but for others…or failing therein, it ceases to be profitable and ceases to exist.”

Calvin Coolidge

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

“Let’s be honest. There’s not a business anywhere that is without problems. Business is complicated and imperfect. Every business everywhere is staffed with imperfect human beings and exists by providing a product or service to other imperfect human beings.”

Bob Parsons

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

Originally posted in 2017

Let me take a minute and discuss “fraternite” in business.

Just a reminder but “fraternite” is one of the  French values of Liberté, Fraternité and Egalité (“liberty, equality, fraternity/brotherhood” the national motto of France).

Anyway. Business. Inevitably a great organization exhibits both efficient AND effective progress. What typically creates that combination is part discipline, part structure (systems), part leadership, all glued together by “fraternité”. That ‘glue’ is most often discussed in the American business world as ‘a vision’ or maybe ‘a purpose’ or even ‘culture.’ We do so because we Americans hate any kind of lack of specificity. But the truth is that the most common bond of a great organization is a more nebulous concept, i.e., one of “fraternité”.

Or.

“Any man aspires to liberty, to equality, but he cannot achieve it without the assistance of other men, without fraternity.”

Napoleon

Oddly enough, while this sounds like relatively common sense, I kind of feel like business itself needs a revolution to overturn the current thinking to accommodate what should be common sense.

What do I mean? Current business is kind of in a wacky spot. It talks a lot about vision and purpose and culture as if they are “things” — like maybe a lighthouse anyone can see as they bob around the chaotic sea of business life to find a way home. By the way, I would argue that is a very individualistic thought — “I can find my way home” type thought – and not really a team thought <but that could quite easily be debated>.

Regardless. Fraternity is more like “everyone not only knowing what they need to do to keep the ship afloat but actually pitching in whether needed or not because they love the ship itself.” That may sound like some wacky nuance, but I have to warn people that revolutions can kind of gain some momentum off of some fairly wacky things on occasion. By the way, this thought is a more nebulous “I feel this way” aspect of organizational culture and, as noted many times, if it cannot be measured or indexed or scored.

** note: most older leaders into today’s business just don’t like that kind of shit – things they cannot measure or score.

Anyway. Not to beat this metaphor to death, but I do believe we need a semi-revolution in the way business organizations are created and run and managed. I think we may need that revolution because “fraternité” as a core principle just ain’t the way business is run today. And, yes, it should be viewed as a “core” principle because … uhm … when discipline falls apart, when structure falls apart, when leadership falls apart what keeps you on the battlefield and fighting is … yeah … “fraternité.” Yeah, yeah, yeah. A lot of people talk about a “community” or “company team” or some other nice sounding platitude which sounds a lot like “fraternité”, but its mostly lip service. Its lip service because fraternité is a ‘collective’ thought and most businesses reward and incentivize individuals.

Anyway. On a bigger organizational level I worry about how an idea like this is getting suffocated by generational issues <younger people desire something and older people think they know the best> and maybe an outcome-is-the-only-thing-that-matters worldview versus a belief business should incorporate altruistic aspects. Both of those conflicts are HUGE issues. I have written about in 1200+ word thought pieces on both of these but, on the former, the best piece I can share is from Corporate Rebels “Cut The Crap: The Made-Up Nonsense About Generations At Work” which states all people want meaning at work (regardless of age or generational label).

I actually believe we need some revolutionary thinking on the latter. To me we have a bunch of people who look at business and turn away to non-profit because … well … I fear that they only believe they can change the world through more altruistic pursuits and not traditional business. And, yes, they are important and good pursuits but, from a larger perspective, business drives the world. Business makes shit that makes lives easier and healthier and impacts the home and life in ways that it is difficult to imagine let alone outline in a few words <and the business office/working groups creates behavioral cues which ripple out into culture>.

Somehow … someway … we need to insert the ‘believers of principles and principled behavior’ into the business world with all of their ambition and hope and remind them, empower them and enable them that they can change the world.

That they can make the world a better place. They can make society and people and lives better. And they can do it in and through business, not just altruistic career opportunities. If we do that, and do that well, I tend to believe we will build more organizations driven at its core by a sense of “fraternité” rather than a bunch of documents setting out some guiding or shared values, vision and purpose which everyone says “okay … let’s do that.”

What I do know is that … well … read the following quote:

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

“I have found no greater satisfaction than achieving success through honest dealing and strict adherence to the view that, for you to gain, those you deal with should gain as well.”

Alan Greenspan

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

I do believe we need to be drawing some lines in business. And I don’t mean company handbook type lines or even some well-crafted ‘lines’ in “how we conduct our business” or “who we are” but maybe they are more lines with regard to some unwritten principles.

I say that because when you can gather a group of people together who share a strong set of principles they will walk straight into a hail of bullets to not only survive, but to get good shit done.

==========

“Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace.

Oscar Wilde

===========

Now. Business absolutely makes dealing with your principles a constant struggle. It can kind of suffocate your principles in between the pragmatic aspects of getting shit done <discipline & structure> and how that shit is designed to meet specific objectives/results and the faux burden of some vision or grander purpose which “you know is important to us therefore it should be important to you”, i.e., extrinsic importance not intrinsic importance. Frankly, when suffocated by these bookends you don’t have a lot of elbow room for any type of true, intangible, unsolicited camaraderie.

The fraternité is more forced than natural. Obviously, when it is not natural it is not as strong.

In the end.

Fraternité in business. I believe we have forgotten this. And while I do believe many of us have forgotten how to draw lines with regard to our principles I tend to believe business, in general, has simply decided to just draw lines <in a box in fact> and say “there you go”, i.e., there are your principles and rules for camaraderie.

That is kind of whack.

Look. I can honestly tell you that being a senior leader in a business and organization you like <you do not have to love> may be one of the greatest experiences anyone can ever have. What makes that experience truly great is when you are fortunate enough to foster something intangible, something that really cannot be measured, and something which doesn’t earn you some performance bonus at the end of the year … it is when you stumble upon the sense of fraternité.

I am sure some organizational guru will send me a link to “steps to build a fraternité organization” and … well … good for them. I tend to believe this is one of those intangible things that is created less by some “how to” guide or some formula and more by simple good intentions combined with some good discipline, construct and leadership. To steal another word from the motto, by creating a fraternité organization you inevitably create liberté for the organization to be the best version of what it can be.

This is what I thought about today and “liberty, equality, fraternity <brotherhood>”. With that I imagine I should end with where I began … no enterprise can exist for itself alone. That is the foundation for a fraternité organization. Ponder.