Earlier today I reshared my thoughts on the lack of civility in political rhetoric and how that fosters an environment of violence – either unacted upon violent thoughts or actual violent actions. I even wrote ‘the politics of resentment’. Which leads me to Trump. Violence has always bubbled below the surface in America, but where I lay a large burden of the blame on Trump is for using it as a tool of “America Greatness”, i.e., the violence is done by patriots passionate about their great America. It really was not that long ago that in 2015 and 2016 the Trump cult was being shaped with violence.

It seemed like just another day and another violent Trump rally. The incidents kept piling up.

Chicago protest fights. A Black Lives Matters protester was sucker-punched by a white bystander at a rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina. A young black woman was surrounded and shoved aggressively by a number of individuals at a rally in Louisville, Kentucky. A black protester was tackled, then punched and kicked by a group of men as he curled up on the ground in Birmingham, Alabama. Immigration activists were shoved and stripped of their signs by a crowd in Richmond, Virginia. A Latino protester was knocked down and kicked by a Trump supporter in Miami.

At that time I said this version of America is not the America I know, the America I want nor is it America anywhere near great. While I remain steadfast on the latter two, on the first I was wrong. I now know the Trump America and it is violent.

It makes me angry.

It disturbs me.

Just to remind everyone, one of the most disturbing moments, one which truly made me angry, was angry as I watched a protest in Chicago devolve into what could only look like a riot to the entire world.

Another reminder. A Republican, at that time, said: “Tonight the seeds of division that Donald Trump has been sowing this whole campaign finally bore fruit, and it was ugly.”

I am angry because Mr. Trump knew what he is doing. He was playing with fire. Playing it as close to the fire as he could without getting burned <or burning down the house> because in his own pea like mind he has decided that this warped version of passion will energize change and ‘winning.’

Just as he has shown a complete disdain for a ‘good win’ versus a ‘bad win’ he also shows no signs that he understands the difference between ‘bad passion’ and ‘good passion.’

That is the sign of an incompetent ignorant lazy leader.

I am angry.

I am not angry at America or its people or even most of Trump’s followers; I am angry at a person who wants to be the emperor who has no clothes. He offers only platitudes of ‘deals & wins’ as solutions to any issue he is asked about and, worse, simplistically twists the “us versus them” narrative into “we good people & they bad/evil people” platitudes.

He skates on the slippery superficial surface of emotion and an enhanced feeling of irrelevance <or being marginalized> from a minority of the populace who has now found a voice.

I remain angry even to this day.

And I get even angrier because Trump, to this day, assumes no, none, nada, whatever version of “zero” you want to apply here … responsibility for anything.

It is never his problem. It is never his issue. It is never anything but ‘the bad people’ <media, people who do not agree, Muslims/Islam, Mexicans, immigrants, stupid elite, etc.>. It is never him.

This despite the fact he is the common denominator.

And this also means, to Mr. Tump, he is never responsible for his words.

We are all responsible for the words we say. Everyone.

That said.

It most likely took me far too long to understand this, but while freedom of speech is an equal freedom for all & everyone, the responsibility tied to that freedom is not equal. Responsibility increases upwards. The larger the forum, the more impact as a leader I have, the larger the actual managerial/actionable responsibility the leader has AND the larger the responsibility to the speech portion of my freedom I have.

Trump acts, and has always acted, like he has no more responsibility with regard to what he says than the guy sitting at the end of the bar after a 10 hour day drinking his 5th draft beer with his buddies bitching about the world.

======== Trump supporter ==========

A leader has a responsibility to listen to his/her people but any good leader knows you don’t incite latent negative emotion within an organization … you show you listen, unite and give specifics on how the organization will progress from that point on.

Lastly.

I am angry because I have run across these faux business leaders in business and they are the worst of the worst. They are hollow of anything. And blanket their hollowness with superficiality or faux emotion. And, most importantly, they make nothing great.

Trump is particularly skilled at manipulating his version of the public to his own ends. And, in that, he doesn’t even recognize his divisiveness <which is frightening for someone who was leader of the free world>. I believe he doesn’t recognize the divisiveness because he lives in an alternative universe in which everyone else is wrong and the problem and protestors never have a valid reason and anyone not in ‘his crowd’ must be unpatriotic.

Mr. Trump, assuming he actually desired to be a president, never understood all citizens are his crowd. You either decide to try and unite by listening and convincing them of your path to ‘greatness’ or I imagine you just let them rot somewhere as you, and your followers, shun them. And, well, that’s what he did. And by shunning them, while fostering a violent attitude, he gave implicit permission to be violent as long as it was targeted to those he shunned.

I cannot remember in my 60something lifetime anything like this.

And, yeah, I am still angry.

And, if I am honest, a little nervous certainly unsettled and, well, maybe a little scared.

This feeling did not come easily.

And I know exactly when it happened. It was a March morning in 2016 when I discussed my anger at Trump’s lack of assuming responsibility after the Chicago rally incident and it happened as I said “I have never seen this before in my lifetime.”

Because I do know where I have seen it before. This is the divisiveness of dictators and autocrats. I hesitated to use examples from the past, but the names came very very close to crossing my lips. It was an uncomfortable feeling to be that close to comparing Trump to some of the worst of the worst leaders from past history. And what got me that close to uttering the examples is that instead of making a call for discussion and debate he insists on calling for silence and authoritarianism <absurdly under the guise of ‘freedom of speech’>. To be clear, I no longer hesitate to draw these comparisons. To be clear, as he harkens back to the ‘good ole days’ he even seems to encourages violence <under the guise of “we are so weak and need to be strong again”>.

This is bully logic.

Trump disavows violence and yet encourages it. He encourages a consistent ‘strong message’ <however you, the followers, would like to deliver that message to ‘them’> of silencing dissent, silencing debate, silencing real solutions, silencing critics and silencing competitors. And he fills their silent space with bombastic platitudes of deals & wins and divisive rhetoric.

While he’s narcissistic, self-absorbed, power hungry/crazy and driven by either greed or ‘winning by any measure” I almost think we are seeing a public case study example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

This is a cognitive bias in which a relatively unskilled person suffers illusory superiority. This translates into mistakenly assessing their ability and believing their skills, and themselves, to be significantly better than what it actually is. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their own ineptitude and evaluate their own ability accurately. When Trump looks in the mirror he sees only something superior to everyone else … maybe even superior to America itself.

Anyway.

I am not a huge follower of politics but it seems to me that consistent violence at the scale of 2016 was rare in American politics, but now it has almost become the norm.

And I am still angry at Mr. Trump.

Angry at his overall lack or personal responsibility. Angry at his disdain for the power of words. Angry at his lack of understanding of freedom of speech as it pertains to leadership. Angry at his lack of desire to try and convert dissenters, but rather silence or eject/reject dissenters.

Angry at his hollowness <because I want a leader who is full of a robust vision beyond deals & wins>.

And, mostly, I am angry at what he has done to America.

He never had any interest in making America great, he simply encouraged us to hate.

And hate is the foundation for violence. Ponder because this is important.

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

“America is great because she is good.

If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

Alexis de Tocqueville

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

“We Americans are a do-it-yourself people.

We are an impatient people.

Instead of teaching someone else to do a job, we like to do it ourselves. And this trait has been carried over into our foreign policy.”

Nixon from his Silent Majority speech

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

Nationalism, populism, and “America First,” and economics are inextricably linked. The Trump administration simply embodied the dull axe version of nationalism economics so we have some indications of what it means in terms of implementation as well as consequences. That said. It is a little difficult to unpack everything happening with regard to “America First” and what it means for America economically short term and long term.

Alternatively. The Biden administration is (mostly) returning to the economic path the Obama administration implemented with the twist that the pandemic permits them, because of the global supply chain shakeup, to redesign global structure a bit. But the main thing the Biden administration is doing, significantly different than the Trump administration, is the balancing of short-term results and long term desires/needs. As I pointed out before, the Obama administration never got enough credit for doing this. it is a trickier path because it does sacrifice some short-term metrics in order to be able to retool for a healthy future economy. The truth is America is now on a much healthier path going in the right direction (one does wonder what a better place we would be in if we hadn’t had to endure the dull axe policies of the Trump administration which set us off the path) and supply chains are shaking out, businesses are reshaping (too slowly in my mind) their economic structures, there are some significant strides in retooling for a future economy and a globalized economy is taking on a new healthier shape. Yes. Contrary to alarmist headlines the American economy is in really good shape, (particularly compared to other countries) and we should not confuse systemic consequences like inequality with a poor economy or inflation with poor domestic policy because inflation is not an American issue, but rather a global issue, therefore, it is not a reflection of any American ‘flaw’ but reflective of a global response to a myriad of issues.

I have a lot to suggest on the America First Economics topic, but because there is so much let me offer some overarching ways of viewing it all. I will also note that I am purposefully using Trump and not Republican or Trump administration because I believe we would be incredibly shortsighted to think that his personal views on how the world exists <in his mind> do not drive his behavior and the administration decisions being made:

• How Trump views the leadership concept of dragging up versus dragging down
• How Trump views rules & regulations
• How Trump views I versus team
• How Trump views uncertainty
• How Trump views life only through a dollars & cents lens <driving an economics first, and only, view>
• How Trump views infrastructure (building)

All of these views drive America First all of which <I would suggest> actually encourage an America Alone strategy. In addition, to a larger extent, all actually encourage an “every man for himself” attitude <kind of an extremely perverse version of traditional conservative ideology>.

Dragging up versus dragging down

America didn’t stay in the Paris Climate agreement, among other transnational alignments, so I will use it as an example of how Trump views America leadership and leadership in general <because it applies to almost everything the administration did>.

Leaders understand that to lead you need to ‘drag up’ behavior. This comes at an expense in that you are demanded to do more things without any real compensation or obvious immediate ROI. For example, part of the Paris agreement was that United State had higher standards. This certainly places a burden on American companies. It also translates into an innovation push to meet those standards. And, ultimately, because we lead in innovation the rest of the world will eventually buy our innovations. As noted earlier this is an example of sacrificing some short term results for longer term structural value creation and, ultimately, a stronger economic presence. This leadership also encourages other countries to ‘play up’ as close to United States as possible.

Conversely, if United States drops out of the overall leadership, standards drops and, as any organizational study will tell you, the overall tide of standards will be lower as things get dragged downwards. This is, simplistically, why leaders have higher standards in business. It drags the organization up and not down. As for businesses, as I will highlight again later, without normalizing stanards a business will typically align with the lowest possible standard that optimizes profits. That’s why businesses need to be given some guardrails if we want new standards of behavior/operations.

Trump does not understand this. Nor does he believe in this. I believe ‘America First,’ generally speaking, understands this, but ignores this.

Rules & regulations

I took a lot of big gulps during the Trump years as I viewed lists of regulations the Trump administration eliminated. I viewed this as general incompetence <they appeared to follow an “if it exists it should not exist” strategy and not “a thoughtful consideration of its impact” type decision> or general lack of understanding of how business works. What I mean by that is business has a fairly simple objective; profit making. It is within that simplicity that a lot of bad things, and bad behavior, can occur. Government has always been in the business of ‘guardrails to ensure the populace benefits’ and, generally speaking, do fairly well at that. I am certainly not suggesting governments shouldn’t be reviewing regulations all the time and eliminating, or editing, existing regulations that have served their purpose. The Trump administration applied the dull axe version of my last sentence. One could ponder if at the core of their deregulation there was some corruption, but let’s just say they embraced unfettered free market (which almost any eminent economist would tell you is a bad idea).

That said. Trump believes if there had been no rules & regulations, he would be the wealthiest man in the world. He has never found a rule or regulation he has ever liked. He also believes that if he thinks that everyone should think that. I have written about capitalism a zillion times and I have argued that unfettered capitalism simply brings out the worst in people and increases inequality. Rules & regulations, done well, tend to herd behavior.

Trump doesn’t think rules apply to him so why wouldn’t we expect him to eliminate rules so he doesn’t even have to pretend he plays by the rules.

I versus team

Economics, whether we admit it or not, is about people. More specifically, it is about people working together and communicating with each other. There really is no such thing as a ‘sole business person’ because in order to achieve any profits, at scale or not, that one must interact with others (the market). That said. Trump has never been part of a team nor does he have any desire to be a team leader. How this translates into his decision attitude is that the global interconnectedness is irrelevant to him. No. He actually thinks it is a negative. We are not a global team seeking to win, but rather it is ‘every man for himself.’ Unfortunately this attitude also cascades down into domestic policy.

And because I used the Paris Climate deal earlier to make a point on something else I will do so again here. One would think it would be remarkable that someone who has not appointed someone to run the White House Office of Science and Technology <a person who traditionally serves as the President’s chief science officer> or has the majority of posts on the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology <a group of civilian science and tech leaders who advise the president> unfilled would feel qualified to make his decision.  However, if you do not value a team effort and believe “I” is all that matters then the qualified support doesn’t really matter and, in fact, could negatively affect “the I.” Trump is a focus group of one making decisions. And it has become apparent he believes the ‘best of the best’ work that way. Once again, effective economies do not work that way.

All that said. Everything Trump does and supports gives the finger to anything that could be construed as a team effort. It is “I” in the world. “I” as a country. “I” as a business and, well, “I alone” is the mantra. The problem is that every “I” in the American economy is dependent, and connected, with a variety of other resources, distribution partners, and customers. Basically even the American economy is a system nested within a larger global system and attempting to optimize a part, or an “I”, will never improve the system nor optimize the return.

That said, “it has always been about me and just me” bleeds into everything Trump believes and does.

Uncertainty

Solid economies tend to lean on some certainties – monetary systems, distribution systems, partnership systems, resource systems, etc. as the pandemic reminded us, when these certainties become less certain, bad things happen. Trump views uncertainty as a positive <with regard to everything>. This attitude undergirds behavior. For example, whole sale immigration changes disrupts the entire workforce and negatively affects a variety of industries. His appositive view of certainty upends industries within his actual behavior – and he doesn’t care. It seems to me that wrenching the entire system 180degrees creates what I offered up as the biggest flaw in Trump’s way of doing business — uncertainty. He believed everyone was like him and every business would thrive if he created the uncertainty and he thrives on the belief America will ultimately benefit from uncertainty. He believed America will swoop in now that is it is free from the shackles of the ‘old order’ <way of doing things, deals, regulations, etc.> and dominate what, uhm, we already dominated.

The country that had spent decades erecting an international order based on free trade, multilateral cooperation, a global alliance network, and the promotion of democratic values had now chosen as its leader a man who detests any structure supporting all those things.

What a bad idea. Very bad. And, once again, while I am disappointed in Trump, I am even more disappointed a business man <his 1st secretary of state> thought this way because it ignores business 101.  Well. It ignores business 101 depending on whether you think America is special, exceptional in some way or that part of what makes America distinct in the world is not the bigness of our economy but rather the bigness of our idea.

That said, Trump doesn’t believe in big ideas he only believes in big money. Oh. If you have no ideas the only way to make money is to take advantage of uncertainty. The problem is that America is built on an idea, ideals and a system of implementing those to the benefit of the economy (in a globalized interconnected economy) and not just “more money” and while we may <if we are really lucky> benefit economically, under this Trump philosophy we would do so at the sacrifice of our ideas, ideals and leadership in this uncertain world Trump desires to play his dangerous game in.

Leaders don’t act with uncertainty as their compass, they use certainty, or degrees of, to lead. Of course, Trump wouldn’t know how to lead even if given an instruction manual with lots of pictures.

The dollars & cents lens <economics first>

I am not a diplomat or some foreign policy expert, but I admit that I took a big gulp when early on in the Trump administration I saw the secretary of state suggest that America should make economic and security needs above American ‘values.’ It seems to be that everything will be decided on an exchange of money and not on an exchange of ideas <where value is a combination of economics and values>.

US foreign policy, Tillerson said, is guided by fundamental values, but he cautioned: “If we condition too heavily that others must adopt this value that we’ve come to over a long history of our own, it really creates obstacles to our ability to advance our national security interests, our economic interests.”

Well. It seems to me while USA is in the ‘doing & making & selling shit” business we are also in the “doing & making & selling with values” business.

It seems to me that USA is not particularly in the “partnerships of convenience “business where we can conveniently set aside our values & ideals but rather we are in the “partnership with ideals” business where we are delighted to do business with you but you are gonna have to accept the fact we are gonna showcase freedom, democracy and what we believe people deserve.

To Trump everything is marginalized excepting economics <money>.

Let’s be clear. American ‘values’, or a belief in winning the right way, doesn’t get in the way of our economic interests. To believe that is to not believe in ‘value’ <in which premium price relies on some value equation above a dollar is a dollar>.  As Gen. George Marshall, Army Chief of Staff, commented in 1945, Washington could no longer pursue a narrow conception of national interest or limit its strategic horizons to the Western Hemisphere: “We are now concerned with the peace of the entire world.” I would be remiss if I didn’t point out peace is, well, certainty, and certainty, through peace, is good for our economic interests.

To me, the pursuit of “America First” can often be accomplished best by protecting and defending the rights of others which actually includes economic relationships. I dug up a speech made on December 20, 1951 by Dean Acheson which laid out a view of American foreign policy very different from Trump’s first secretary of state Rex Tillerson:

——————–

The greatest asset we have in all the world—even greater than our material power—is the American idea. No one needs to tell an American audience all the things that this holds for us. It is so much a part of our everyday lives that we do not stop to define it, or to put it into packages for export. But throughout the world, wherever people are oppressed, wherever people dream of freedom and opportunity, they feel the inspiration of the American idea.

What we are trying to do, in our foreign policy, is to make possible a world in which our own people, and all people who have the same determination, can work in their own way toward a better life, without having to bear the yoke of tyranny.

—————-

I have always known the Trump administration would be putting economy, money, above all and I did outline some concerns I had about attacking a foreign policy based on transactional relationships, but it now had become a reality; it is commerce over conscience.

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

“Life doesn’t get easier or more forgiving, we get stronger and more resilient.

Steve Maraboli,

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

Money is the currency of survival in today’s world and offers an ongoing temptation for “well, just a little bit more would be nice.” 90% of us know money isn’t everything, but that same 90% knows money is something. I mentioned it that way because it becomes easy to think money as a ‘this or that’ thought, everything or nothing, and, yet, in this case it is not everything, but is certainly still something. That said. I think Trump yielding the high ground to simply gain some perceived temporary ‘economic advantage’ was simply wrong and is haunting us now.

To be clear. Trump wouldn’t recognize the high ground if it smacked him in the face.

           The myth of being a builder

As noted above, America is the business of making and selling shit. Now. While that has certainly shifted over the decades (we do significantly less ‘making’ and significantly more ‘services economy’), the core of any country’s economic resilience resides in manufacturing (large, medium and small sized businesses). That said. Trump always claimed he was a builder and America must have had a dozen “infrastructure weeks” espousing a growth in manufacturing that never occurred. While it is easy to chuckle over ‘the infrastructure week that never was’ it is actually sad because it was a reflection of a cascading number of issues surrounding an “American first” belief. You need money to build infrastructure – government money. Government money subsidizes innovation and growth for which it gets paid back in tax revenue (business and individual wages) over time. Governments get crucified when they make a bad bet or ROI isn’t clear upfront, but the reality is for every ‘bad bet’ government has made that bet has evolved into, well, economic progress. In other words, you need government money for infrastructure. Which leads me to the Trump tax decreases. Ignore the fact it benefited the wealthy, it increased deficits as America gained less in tax revenue which, as a consequence, they didn’t have for, yes, an infrastructure week. In addition, the tariffs. I am neither anti nor pro tariffs. They can be used tactically quite effectively to help specific industries compete. The Trump administration implemented tariffs like a dull axe in combination with the fact they didn’t coordinate with the EU so tariffs hurt the US doubly as that business went elsewhere. But the tariffs situation got a bit worse as we think about money to invest. Trump, in the attempt to limit the bad news domestically, began subsidizing the American industries he crippled with the tariffs. Basically, the government money wasn’t being used to innovate or invest but rather to prop up industries he was hurting with his policies. To be clear, I am not opposed to doing that when warranted, but this was a self-inflicted deficit increaser which capped any opportunities to invest elsewhere.

Trump really was never a builder, he just likes to own things, and the American economy got trapped in the wretched hollow in between his ‘builder myth’ and the reality of how a country actually builds shit.

In the end.

“The U.S. is, for now, out of the world order business.” <Robert Kagan>. After more than 70 years, American internationalism was pronounced politically dead during the Trump administration.

What is really stunning, and upsetting, to people like me is that the United States started going backwards. It is simply beyond me that we began steering ourselves toward antiquated systems and antiquated thinking rather than moving forward to leading in innovations and ideas. I can only feel a sinking feeling in my stomach as the rest of the world understood what Trump, and his administration, apparently did not; that the United States was about to give away the markets, the technology, the innovation, the jobs and the leadership. The unifying thread through Trump’s agenda appeared to be an attempt to resurrect an earlier antiquated world which marginalizes future considerations and maximizes short term considerations culminating in a stunningly self-destructive United States act of diplomatic and economic isolation.

“Our plan will put America First. Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo. As long as we are led by politicians who will not put America First, then we can be assured that other nations will not treat America with respect.”

Donald Trump

Well. That in a nutshell summarizes a naïve view of Life.

For in those words, he implies the only way to gain respect is to act only as an “I” and that within a “we” world a country, or a person, no one can be first. And, well, first is all that matters. For in these words, he implies globalism is a hollow idea and that first can never be achieved, at any time, by creating a rising tide for everyone, but rather if it is only our tide that rises.

During the Trump administration Pew surveys showed United States became less and less popular and while popularity is not the best measuring stick I could suggest <in looking at the information> that the decline is a reflection of our growing indifference to democratic values and increasing interest in economic values.

They see United States assuming a transactional based relationship with the world and not a democratic based relationship with the world.

There is a price to pay for such positions – both morally and economically.

Here is what I believe.

Trump’s attempt to reverse the shift toward the future is not sustainable. Going backwards never is. And while his quasi-insane onslaught against any rule and regulation under his belief that rules and regulations were the only thing that kept him from being the wealthiest man in the world, he is actually going to be a horrible temporary “aberration” in the world’s long march toward the future.

I also believe the aberration came at a terrible cost to America.

Trump is a profoundly mediocre man with a profoundly dangerous idea of how to make America First.

I personally don’t believe Trump has ever known what America First meant, it was simply a slogan to him and he would laugh if he ever read this “If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great” <Alexis de Tocqueville>. An Economics First strategy sacrifices “the good” which inevitably means America will cease to be great.

For that, even beyond the economic malpractice, I will never forgive Trump. Ever.

========

“The most successful businessman is the man who holds onto the old just as long as it is good, and grabs the new just as soon as it is better.”

Lee Iacocca

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

“I have found that hollow, which even I had relied on for solid.”

Henry David Thoreau

==========

Ok. Let’s get the harsh truth out upfront. I am a 60something and I believe the older generation, mostly old white men, hollowed out business to the shithole soul-less point we face today. I also believe we are facing the dying rattle of these old white men’s grasp on how business is conducted.

That said. Let me spend a minute on old white men <my generation> to explain why I believe this.

While a generalization, because there are exceptions, old white men have hollowed out the business world in their quest for “winning at any cost”, “efficiency”, and maximize “converting that win-to-cash <making $>” ratio. These men hollowed out business primarily thru extraction and exploitation <of value, values, and resources>. These men have guided business to a level of so-called, self proclaimed, “greatness” through a variety of ‘great’ business acumen thoughts & business culture attitudes which, in reality, were non-great hollow attitudes, were wins which in reality a reflection of hollow behaviors & techniques, and, ultimately, created fantastic looking hollow outcomes and achievements.

In doing so they successfully hollowed out business. I could argue, and will, “hollowing” has been the guiding light into this dark world of money grubbers with questionable moral compasses who deemed resources as infinite and people as finite machines they could plug ‘n play into their money creating machines. You want some specifics? Here you go. This is how they have hollowed out business:

Capitalism

Capitalism is not inherently bad. In fact it is an incredible engine for growth, innovation and increased wealth & standard of living for any and all.

But old white men hollowed capitalism. They took out all the good and added all the greed. I could partially defend old white men and suggest that they were simply participants in the arc of business history, but I will not. Peter Drucker pointed out the beginning of the arc in 1989, as I noted in Salvation by Society, and we old white men could have eyed the arc and, well, stopped it. Instead old white men viewed the arc as an opportunity to not be burdened by morality & soul, but rather an opportunity to build personal wealth.

     Humans

Humans are amazing things. Irrational, unexpected, inconsistent, bundles of untapped potential. Old white men hollowed humans as well as humanity in their total embrace of people as machines of productivity – scientific management was their religion. We cannot blame Frederick Taylor for this because it was these men who made Taylorism into a cult of business. they were creative in their scientific management slotting their little people productivity machines into thinkers and doers, stars and worker bees, right brain versus left brainers. They first wielded carrots & sticks to manipulate desired results and then fully embraced gamification. The intent was always to squeeze out productivity rather than let people potential emerge. It is within that last point in which old white men propagated their most insidious myth – humans are lazy and left to their own devices will do nothing. This became the underpinning to everything with regard to their treatment of humans as machines. Needless to say, business without humans and humanity is simply a machine. Old white men got exactly what they wanted to the detriment of business and humans, hollow widgets producing exactly what they are told to produce.

Branding

Brands are fabulous creatures and not inherently bad. They offer us every day schmucks a nice heuristic way to make decisions and isolate differentiation in which we can make true choices.

Old white men hollowed brands. The easiest way to point this out is that we stopped talking about brands and started talking about branding. Old white men started looking at brands as vehicles of wealth and not vehicles of differentiation. Brands should evolve and not be constructed or built like some building of cold steel and cheap Styrofoam ceiling tiles. Focusing on brands permitted old white men to hollow out the substantive work of creating products & services of substance. The whole concept of ‘building a brand’ is one of the most insidious concepts to infiltrate good and meaningful marketing and communications.

Profit

Profit is not inherently bad. Used wisely it contributes not only to personal, or individual wealth, but spurs on business growth in terms of innovation and employee development AND social involvement. But old white men hollowed the soul out of each dollar as they squeezed every cent of profit it of it. Profit is good only if it is not tainted by <a> greed or  <b> created at the expense of giving back <in terms of true societal salvation type things>. Businesses represent an important weave in the fabric of society and the moment a business ignores that weave and focuses solely on the profits of the entity itself the opportunity arises to let the soul of each dollar made bleed out into the ether. And, yes, dollars can have a soul. Making money shouldn’t feed stock holders, it should a business that feeds society.

Wealth dispersion

Making money and creating wealth is inherently a double positive: proof of the value for your efforts and increased standard of living <not just in materialistic comforts but in real living>. This is a good thing for individuals, society and the world.

Old white men hollowed out the middle and carved out the good aspects.. This is more a byproduct of their business acumen more than anything else because I cannot really point out any specific behavior they consciously took to do this, but, suffice it to say that more went to the old white men and less to the ones who actually made the money for them. Possibly worse is that crafty old white men crafted a tier of wealth creation in which they had to do nothing, but use other people’s wealth to, exponentially, create their own wealth. Basically, they hollowed out the value in wealth.

Communication

Effective communication has been, and always will be, complex and complicated. Effective communication inevitably feeds into the minds and enlightenment of the listeners. If you dumb down communication, inevitably you dumb down the listeners.

Old white men hollowed out communication. I imagine as they hollowed out everything else they found it inherently more productive to gain their objectives by also hollowing out communication. Everything became soundbites, powerpoint bullet points and ‘elevator speeches.’ Effectively communicating complexity took on less importance than a quick sharp stab of “here is all you need to know” <and then walking away>. Old white men mastered the art of emptying communication to a point where businesses end up walking on the slippery surface of irrelevance <cloaked in a beautiful robe called “what is important for you to know.”> Heinously, they hollowed out the value of words all the while replacing them with bullshit buzzwords <hollow shells of words> all under the guise of “simplicity.”

ROI

ROI <return on investment> is a fabulous tool. It offers us every day unimaginative pragmatic schmucks an almost heuristic way to judge some fairly complex and complicated things in business.

Old white men hollowed ROI of anything intangible and along the way scraped away some of the most meaningful things associated with investment in their desire for simplistic “this led to that.” Certainly some investments have linear outcomes and results. But not all. And these hollow men in their black & white pursuit of profit, efficiency and outcomes became color blind.  Old white men started looking at people as equal to numbers & dollars and not organic organisms of less than linear productivity <in terms of Life actualization as well as business actualization>. These hollow men fell in love with cause & effect, numbers and began diminishing the value of humanity and complexity <dynamics of business & Life>. They saw people as investments, like manufacturing robots, rather than, well, people.

Racism

Racism in the workplace is a stealthy virus invading the organism in ways that can create an unhealthy organism which sometimes seems to never attain its full potential despite producing results.

Old white men enable this virus to exist by hollowing out the meaning in any racism discussion, and real substantive actions, in business.

These old white men rose through the ranks of business surrounded by other white people, & few minorities, simply believing it was so because it was a reflection of those “who deserved to be here” (assuming everyone COULD be here if they worked hard enough). When in leadership positions & told about racism issues they didn’t really believe it, reluctantly doing things they were told they should do all the while thinking “it’s just political correctness”. The times old white men got trapped in diversity meetings & shared 5 things they did & were told were racist, in their heads they said “they can’t handle truth, they are too sensitive.” What this all led to was hollow efforts at addressing racism. They grudgingly implemented some initiatives, while publicly espousing their enlightenment, but privately thinking it was a waste of time, energy & monies. Underlying this purposeful ignorance was an ongoing belief white people never got any more breaks than anyone else or that there was never any inherent ‘privileges’ bestowed upon white skinned people.

What the business world ended up with was a generation of old white men who are the worst of racism ,and some real racists> – racism convinced it isn’t racism and racists convinced they are not racist. Ultimately, any substantive efforts to address racism in business were hollowed out by old white men who didn’t really believe in them.

Behavior

I hesitated to call this “the hollowing out of morality” mostly because that sounded a little harsh and I tend to believe the reality within this particular hollowness is more pragmatic. That said … it doesn’t make it any better just that I didn’t really want to get into a morality & ethical finger pointing game.

Leadership is a complex mix of personal, professional and pragmatic. When wielded well it is a beautiful tapestry of effectiveness, however, beauty is often in the eyes of the beholder when actual effectiveness becomes the measuring stick. As a reminder, old white men leadership grew up in a business of dictatorship leadership behavior or, at its best, benevolent dictatorship.

Old white men grew up in the hallowed halls of hollowed leadership management. This means that their ‘management twitch muscles’ inevitably provide reflexive business decision making based on this.

The easiest way to point this out is that businesses have developed a myriad of cultural initiatives and, yet, old white men leadership tends to simply treat them as “feel good politically correct” initiatives. They view them as “society dictated” thinking and not “business dictated” thinking. Therefore, a hollowness was inherent in the organization between how the old white men leaders attitudinally approached the business, how they viewed behavior and how the organization actually behaved. In other words, a hollow mindset affected expectations of attitudes and behaviors.

Old white men began talking longingly of straight talk, when people knew their place in business and ‘carrot & sticks.’  Old white men started looking at businesses in disdain as vehicles of political correctness and not stark effectiveness. The truth is that many of the old white men simply didn’t buy in to a better way of doing business and, therefore, when put in a corner & challenged revert back to the hollow management style of “do what I tell you to do and shut up.”

To be fair, old white men did not create this hollowness, they simply propagated it.

Pretty damning evidence of their hollowing, no?

All that said. These old white men, in their heart of hearts, inherently do not care about a ‘better world’ or even “a better way of conducting business” from a soul perspective nor do they care about any aspect of ‘being a better person’. Despite the fact we read headlines about business people embracing “Purpose” or creating panels to create a better business, it’s all words, no actions. Or maybe better said, there are actions but they are hollow actions. The truth is that for the most part they are indifferent to the bigger, more important, issues and solely attach ‘better’ with wealth, importance and wins and their own interests.

I get angry. I get angry because I do not believe ‘hollowness’ is the path to a better business world and society <let alone the world>. It certainly has not helped us reach greatness up to this point. And I am angry because I have believed this, and known this, for decades.

Look. This can be solved. And it can be solved by, well, old guys/people like me.

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

“At any other time it’s better. You can do the things you feel you should; you’re an expert at going through the motions. Your handshakes with strangers are firm and your gaze never wavers; you think of steel and diamonds when you stare. In monotone you repeat the legendary words of long-dead lovers to those you claim to love; you take them into bed with you, and you mimic the rhythmic motions you’ve read of in manuals. When protocol demands it you dutifully drop to your knees and pray to a god who no longer exists. But in this hour you must admit to yourself that this is not enough, that you are not good enough. And when you knock your fist against your chest you hear a hollow ringing echo, and all your thoughts are accompanied by the ticks of clockwork spinning behind your eyes, and everything you eat and drink has the aftertaste of rust.”

Dexter Palmer

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

Old white men created the problems and as so well said in the movie The Return of the Pink Panther: “you set a thief to catch a thief.”

Older people can reverse the hollowness problem in one fell swoop. I could do it with a small merry band of contrarian older people (women & men), who have chafed in this hollow existence, and could bring some good healthy substance back into this wretched hollowness. To be clear, to fix this it isn’t about attacking one of these issues and working on it, it is coming up with a business model, and a way of doing business, that resolves all these issues. In systems thinking vernacular, the system in its entirety needs to regain robustness and substance because a substantive non-hollow part, alone, will not improve the system.

This is a unique time in history in which business, country and politics have intersected. This is a unique time for older business people to right the wrongs of all they have wrought up to this point. I certainly hope this happens, as an old white man myself, simply for the sake of redemption for all of us old white men. Ponder.

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

“Our souls, which are only now beginning to awaken after the long reign of materialism, harbor seeds of desperation, unbelief, lack of purpose. The whole nightmare of the materialistic attitude, which has turned the life of the universe into a purposeless game, is not yet over. And yet, a weak light glimmers, like a tiny point in an enormous circle of blackness ….”

Vassily Kandinsky in 1912

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

Today I speak of soul, purpose, life and business and in doing so I am totally going to misuse this quote which was written about art. This quote spoke to me in a way that explained the sense of desperation I sometimes hear people speak of when speaking of today’s world. And how they speak about their belief that too many in society think that being materialistic and greed is the prevalent sense of ‘being’ throughout society, business and the world.

I don’t really believe people think that way. Or, maybe better said, is I do not believe people want to think that way. I believe the majority of people simply act in a materialistic mode because they sense there is there no other path available, i.e., if they don’t the other guy will and they will get left behind and not get their ‘fair share’ of whatever the prize appears to be.

Let’s call it materialism survival mode in a zero sum game world.

Therefore, the desperation I am talking about is truly a derivative of knowing that there is actually something is better. An understanding that materialism is a path with no real destination, in other words, as soon as you have what you have you want more <sociology calls this “hedonistic adaptation“>.

We want better <most of us> than this. Better just doesn’t seem so attainable these days.

In addition. In this sense of desperation <I wrote “who will stop the madness?”> I admit that I don’t hear people using words like ‘weak light glimmering.’ They just see darkness and madness in the world,

Me?

I see it. I see the weak light glimmering.

I see it in people themselves <in how I described where I believe the desperation evolves from>.

I see it as a generational “thing” <as in ‘turnings’ described by Strauss & Howe and cyclical attitudes and behaviors over generations, i.e., we have been here before attitudinally>.

I see it, most importantly, as the evolution of capitalism <which is the basic economic model for materialism — although we should all note that ‘materialism ‘ is a human attitude & behavior wrought from within and not from without>.

Anyway. The capitalism evolution is neither good nor bad  simply an evolution and what is occurring is the natural friction that occurs during evolution <please note: I do not see this as ‘revolution’>. I could also note that there is natural friction that occurs in any change just that when an entire economic model creates friction it has some larger repercussions.

My belief in this arc of Captalism evolution to grounded in Schumpeter thoughts. If you read Schumpeter it can possibly explain why there is a sense of desperation or maybe a sense of uneasiness and why it is natural to feel this way.

According to Schumpeter there is a natural process of creative destruction  within capitalism based on the affect the “cultural contradictions of capitalism” have:

–          The Process of Creative Destruction.

I)  Capitalism cannot be stationary. It revolutionizes the economic structure “from within”, destroying what went before through a process of competition that affects costs as much as quality. Creativity in consumer goods, methods of transport, of production, systems of organization, search for markets and technology. It is a process that undermines traditional supports existing at a given moment, weakening its own system. Moreover, capitalism devitalizes the idea of “property” <the existence of great and small shareholders>.

*** note: He is simply saying that capitalism inevitably empowers anyone anywhere to build something … and as that is built something has to be destroyed <or replaced> to accommodate it. Capitalism encourages individual thinking and ideation and business building. Interestingly … it is actually anti-establishment and anti-‘maintaining the norm.’ There is no normal in capitalism beyond its ongoing self destruction and reincarnation.

–          II)  Rationality. Capitalism encourages rationality in behaviour. Rationality involves, on the one hand, the “maximization” of particular interests of individuals and groups, the use of the instrumental means in a coherent form, and in the same way a series of readaptations empirically controlled by a procedure of flawed -testing. On the other hand, rationalization rushes into both private life and cultural forms. Consumption wins against accumulation, diminishing the desirability of incomes above a certain level. At the same time, however, when the breaks of certain values associated with ethical or religious tradition fail (the sophrosyne), irrational components of behavior that are critical for capitalism emerge and cannot be refuted with rational arguments, especially when based on long term considerations.

*** Note: Capitalism is a constant struggle between the rational <let’s say ‘profit & dollars & cents’ in this case> and the irrational <let’s call this the human Maslow ‘feel good’ intangible in this case> within people. It is interesting to note he suggests that money is a means to an end. In other words … you could earn a dollar a year and save only a dollar a year and be okay with that if you could consume <buy, eat, live to what you desire> whatever you wanted and needed. Regardless.  This constant struggle occurs and when it is perceived to be out of balance there will be friction as compromise is debated <and neither side wants to let go of what they have or what they think – which are often inevitably linked>.

III)   The Obsolescence of the Entrepreneurial Function. Increasing difficulties for the classical function of management. Increasing importance of specialized groups. The context, moreover, has been accustomed to change and each time a greater number of factors are calculable. The success of business ends up in removing the owners.

*** Note: He is not suggesting that entrepreneurship or small business becomes obsolete in capitalism. What he is saying is that capitalism inherently makes good small businesses into big businesses and as that happens they lose the ‘entrepreneurial function.’ In other words …. Capitalism encourages small to become big and in doing so they destroy what made them successful in the first place <and inevitably they are ‘destructed’ either from within or from without – by small business that destroys them>.

–          IV) Protecting Strata. In the modern era there was a symbiosis between the nobility and the productive sectors. The former occupied the State organization, guided political decisions and supplied officials for the army (the bourgeoisie was only sometimes in charge of local administration). It was a sector that survived the social and technical conditions that produced it. In conclusion: the bourgeoisie is politically defenseless without the protection of non-bourgeoisie sectors, but capitalism, however, encourages the breaking up of the precapitalist framework of society.

*** Note: Capitalism is most effective with a strong middle class and not a massive gap between the haves and have nots. Effective capitalistic societies will strive to reset when the gap is to large and there will be inevitable conflict/friction when this occurs.

–          V)   Intellectuals. Characterized as those who exercise the power of the spoken and written word, they are used to not having any direct responsibility in practical matters and thus, they lack a direct knowledge of experience. They encourage self-conceived attitudes as “critical”, more from a logic of opposition, we could say, than from a logic of government. There exists a parallel between education and the scale of moral values in the intellectual sectors and the administrative or bureaucratic sectors against the values and technical criteria of the economic system as it operates.

*** Note: I find it interesting that while Schumpeter is NOT discussing governmental structures <democracy, republic, socialism, communism> he gets right to the core of the issue in that inevitably officials who make decisions for the everyday person are most often not the everyday person nor do they think like the everyday person. Therefore the economic system may be operating at odds to what they believe is the right thing to do.

There you go. Schumpeter uses these five arguments to discuss the process of what he calls ‘the self-destruction of capitalism.’ Now. Self-destruction is not suggesting capitalism destructs as in ‘ends’ … but rather  that in its ongoing self destruction <or crisis in Hegelian terms> it recreates itself <synthesis> into something new.

Heck. Now that I have written all this I can see why there is so much angst in the world today. I can even see why the business world is talking about “intrapreneurship” <having large companies seek small company attitudes & innovations>, distributed leadership models and, most importantly, Purpose & meaning into work.

Regardless of whether this is evolution or it is a ‘natural conflict’ or not. Conflict is conflict. It is friction. And in this time and place it is friction upon friction.

Not only is the entire system being reshaped <as it is cracked and put back together again>, but the generational attitude infrastructure is also in conflict <of which Capitalism has been a catalyst for attitudes & beliefs>.

In the end.

Why are so many of us feeling uneasy, maybe even harboring some thread of desperation in what we see in the world today?

‘Our souls, which are only now beginning to awaken after the long reign of materialism, harbor seeds of desperation, unbelief, lack of purpose …’

Maybe our souls are simply awakening. Gee. That may feel like desperation but, well, who wouldn’t see a glimmer of light in that thinking?

===

“As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too.

Words are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: you liberate a city by destroying it.

Words are to confuse, so that at election time people will solemnly vote against their own interests.”

Gore Vidal

===

“The greatest enemy of clear language is insincerity.”

George Orwell

===

Well.  I thought it was time to pull out my thoughts on political correctness. Let me begin with the poster child of political correctness – Merry Christmas. Well. I am not really sure when Merry Christmas got hijacked by Happy Holidays, but I wish I had been there to repulse the hijackers. Look. I am clearly sensitive to responses to Merry Christmas and am more than happy to pull my Happy Holidays greeting out of my seasonal greeting joy bag when appropriate but, in general, most people recognize that I like Christmas in spirit, not spiritually, and I am simply wishing everyone a little bit of the magic we call Christmas during this time of the year. But, frankly, political correctness has made it significantly harder to authentically spread joy by demanding people to actually think about what they will say (I imagine this could be good – be thoughtful before you speak – or it could be bad – takes the spontaneous out of the joy wish). In the end. Where political correctness got us during the holidays is either spew soft joyful platitudes or defiantly stabbing people with a Merry Christmas.

That is where political correctness has taken us. To be clear. I think everyone believes the idea of political correctness has gone too far.

That said. My thoughts today are about that political correctness has beget an even more heinous idea – ‘anti-political correctness’. It has become the flag bearer for anything that anyone wants to say which can span from tactless ignorance to blind ignorance to, at its best, true common sense clarity <called “talking simply” by many people>.

The trouble we are running into is all three of those are amalgamating into one big blob of things being said.

Basically, anti-political correctness is becoming the go-to answer for anything people may object to. What I mean by that is you can now say the stupidest thing known to mankind, someone can point out that it is stupid <even in a tactful way>, and the answer is almost always “I am tired of political correctness standing in the way of truth.”

Basically, we are now facing the backlash to an overextended political correctness from people sick of being told that they have to admit things that they don’t really believe <or think>.

Individuals are realizing they are individuals and that they don’t have to play by the same rules as a large corporation or the ‘pretentious few who try and speak for the many.’ Speaking out has become independent of anything other than “I”, i.e., what is in MY mind, and feel like they will say whatever the fuck they feel like saying. In other words, many people are standing up and saying “I am society so why can’t I speak for society” <as if that was as easy as I just typed>.

Well. Let state the obvious point. Among the many cases in “the problems in the world today”, political correctness isn’t standing in the way of truth; stupidity <or irresponsible thinking & speaking> is. But, and this is a big ‘But’, overreaching political correctness does create a problem and it HAS created a problem in some people’s minds and it is now being released <and some of our leaders are taking advantage of it>.

Look. I am absolutely with many people who suggest political correctness has become a bigger problem than the problem it was intended to try and address. However … maybe … just maybe … instead of ignoring the original good intent of political correctness <encourage tact and sensitivity to others’ feelings around issues of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, physical abilities/disabilities … among other things> maybe we go back to its original intent and just keep the ground rules a little simpler and stop its invasion into the minutiae of Life and what we say.

We need to keep the ground rules simple because this effort to not offend has spiraled into a type of verbal censorship, certainly has generated conflict and sometimes seems to infringe upon some fundamental freedoms.

We need to take a close look at this <without completely rejecting it> because what constitutes offensive or unacceptable speech has bled into the minutiae in everyday Life approaching simple everyday actions bludgeoning Life into a … well … wussified world.

We need to “fix” political correctness because we do need some harsh truths. We need some ‘edges’ in the world view. We need to discuss them, express them and debate them. We need a little, well, enlightened conflict.

All that said that doesn’t mean that under the guise of some sense of individual sincerity <“I truly feel this way”> that good taste and respectful of what others think & feel has to be sacrificed <this is the balancing act> – everyone should show respect for your audience and any audience you are speaking about.

Words carry some responsibility beyond “what I feel.”

Yet. Political correctness has become a nomenclature for “not being able to speak what you feel” so words start getting thrown around without any thought beyond … ‘this is what I feel.’ Well. Sometimes what we feel is not what we know <knowledge is different than feeling> and what we feel may seem like truth, to us, but it is tainted by everything we do not know <therefore is nothing more than an opinion> and, frankly, sometimes what we feel should be kept to ourselves.

Let’s be clear. We got to this point because many of us were afraid to speak something for fear it offends someone rather than for fear it may actually be stupid, ignorance or just wrong <I say this because this creates misguided thoughts in one’s head on how to correct the situation>. Therefore, by overcoming our fear of offensiveness we simply roar our way into stupidity, ignorance or wrongness under the guise of simple speak or simply speaking our mind.

This also translates into the belief that all of a sudden those who decide to eschew being politically correct have decided they are smart or smarter than everyone else or , at minimum, as smart as everyone else. So smart that they can say whatever they believe and simply point to ‘I refuse to be politically correct’ when challenged over any stupidity they may be spewing.

====

Commenter: JoeAmerica • 4 hours ago

Get off my back libtard, you can’t control my speech.

====

It becomes words of stark harshness because there is no version of modesty, respect or dignity in the harsh backlash to political correctness.  And why should there be any concern for those things when you are simply stating common sense? <that is the logic>. And you get the added bonus of sticking it up the pretentiousness of, well, everyone who has even a tinge of respect for decorum or what someone may truly be offended by.

====

“Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred.”

Jacques Barzun

===

We now have organized hatred, anger and frustration. And these organizations <and some leaders words feeding on those organizations> use words that can shame, ridicule, and humiliate … delivered not with the intent to  deliver the shame or ridicule, but to show “my point of view & thoughts should be heard!”

Anti-political correctness has simply tapped into a pent up sense of relief that people can debate and talk in simple terms. Corporate speak and political language and marketing bullshit sayings and even tmotivational speak is dying.

No. It is being killed.

To be clear. All this ‘non political correctness bullshit is not just ‘simple talk’ <therefore the path to solving this issue isn’t simplicity or ‘dumbed down’> it is simply monologue stripped of political correctness.

It is addition by subtraction.

Do I like it? Of course not.

Do I understand it? Yes, I surely do.

It needs to be addressed for the good of society and what is going on in our heads.

Someone can get a grip on this without having to be plain-spoken <which implies ‘dumbing down’>, it can be managed intellectually and smartly because, frankly, the people who are most frustrated with political correctness ain’t dumb.

=====

“Democracy was supposed to champion freedom of speech, and yet the simple rules of table decorum could clamp down on the rights their forefathers had fought and died for.”

E.A. Bucchianeri

=====

Here is why they aren’t dumb.

This is what they see. They see that we are in a bad place with political correctness because if we have to constantly censor any conversation pertaining to race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or physical ability/disability, then it seems like we will simply bury the issues and perpetuate that what exists in the minds of people without taking the opportunity to confront them. This means in the effort to protect everyone’s feelings we have essentially lost, or willingly sacrificed, the edges and imposed the wretched middle on everyone.

This wretched vacuous middle hinders progress with regard to understanding different perspectives, viewpoints, feelings, and doesn’t really permit the discussion of real life experiences in the harsh light of reality but instead in muted thoughts of what should be discussed.

Anyway. Here is my real fear about this whole political correctness shitstorm.

Inclusiveness versus exclusiveness.

While the intent of political correctness was to make a more inclusive society and rhetoric it is now creating divisive rhetoric in which society is splintering.

While I could argue that it was pious arrogant intellectuals who created the overblown political correct environment we are chafing against, it is the everyday mostly white middle aged people who are now clearly anti-political correct.

=====

The angriest and most pessimistic people in America are the people we used to call Middle Americans. Middle-class and middle-aged; not rich and not poor; people who are irked when asked to press 1 for English, and who wonder how white male became an accusation rather than a description. You can measure their pessimism in polls that ask about their expectations for their lives—and for those of their children.

On both counts, whites without a college degree express the bleakest view. You can see the effects of their despair in the new statistics describing horrifying rates of suicide and substance-abuse fatality among this same group, in middle age.

The Atlantic

======

Regardless what you read about the anti-political correctness crowd <mostly embodied it seems by those who follow Trump around these days> they are not stupid, dumb nor ignorant. Some may have less education than the population median, but since when has education always been a reflection of true smarts <never>.

Yes. It is a mainly white population that is making up the anti-political correctness crowd, but we shouldn’t ignore what they are saying or feeling because of their skin color. Why? Because they have a point.

They are angry & frustrated with how political correctness has infringed upon their lives.

Now … when people get angry or frustrated they say things that they regret <or more likely they just don’t get articulated in the best possible way>.

I think this is pretty much a Life truth.

A lot of today’s frustration with what seems to be overreaching political correctness is being captured in a loud voice fighting back without any debate wordsmithing training other than what you may get sitting at the bar with a group of your friends yelling at each other.

That said. I think it is the responsibility of those in leadership positions to recognize the frustration with political correctness and permit frustrations and anger to be heard and respectfully listened to — the frustrated masses deserve that.

What they do not deserve is to have their anger flame fanned and encouraged. People deserve to be heard and offered solutions not someone simply agreeing with them and offering platitudes.

I think the leaders who will end up being the most successful in this ugly stage of political correctness will be the one who leads us to the proper respectful place – where we respect the fact that not all people believe in the same things, that all people have the right to believe in different things and say different things, that simply having a different point of view doesn’t mean you are an outcast, ignorant or stupid just that you view things differently and, finally, that there is balance.

It will be within balance that we will finally encounter inclusiveness and not divisiveness.

Let’s handle this discourse with some respect & dignity. Everyone deserves that. I don’t need a leader talking down to me and, frankly, I don’t need some leader suggesting my frustrations are the source of the problems of the world or my country.

Political correctness hasn’t created shit for problems other than it makes discussing things more difficult. Simply pointing that out isn’t a leader’s job. A leader offers solutions in a respectful way. They offer solutions to a group of people no matter what point of view they have. They speak TO the people without demeaning the larger view of ‘what we should be’ as people.

In the end. Political correctness has created some problems, but it is not a problem (despite what some politicians suggest). It hasn’t directly created what some idiots call “the cancel culture”, but, indirectly, anti-political correctness yahoos are actually canceling out voices. The intent behind political correctness actually does have good merit – forcing society to face some harsh truths. What I would now suggest is we talk about some of those harsh truths rather than cancel them out.

** note: This does not mean everyone can say whatever they want wherever they want. Lies or, worse, heinous activity, shut not be permitted a platform. Eliminating their platforms is not political correctness nor is it censor, it is consequences for bad behavior.

This is not censorship. This is consequences.

==========

updated from December 2015

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

“Don’t tell me how good you make it, tell me how good it makes me when I use it.”

Leo Burnett

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

Even though I don’t get paid to do so, I think about work, its meaning to people, how it may create some meaning for people and how we could make work, and the way we work, better.

“Man is an agent… a center of unfolding impulsive activity “teleological” activity… seeking… some concrete, objective, impersonal end. …he is possessed of a taste for effective work, and a distaste for futile effort. He has a sense of the merit of serviceability or efficiency and of the demerit of futility, waste, or incapacity. This aptitude or propensity may be called the instinct of workmanship.”

Thorstein Veblen 1899

I, personally, believe whatever work we do, especially if we get paid for that work, always means more than just ‘work’ or a paycheck. It is part of our identity. This view is not shared by everyone. There are many people who say “your work is not who you are” or “work should not define you.” I believe that’s absurd.

That doesn’t mean I believe work should be all that defines you, but even if the workplace, itself, treats you as if you are a widget or judges you in some less than human ways, more an ‘output generator’, this does not mean you should ignore the workplace as ‘de-humanizing’ (or wall off because it doesn’t encourage ‘positive human identities’). In fact. I believe its healthier to say “despite the environment, its more than a paycheck” and start thinking about what you do that actually has meaning (things that make things, or people, better). I believe its healthier because work, whether you admit it or not (or like it or not), represents a significant portion of waking hours within which there is a constant feedback mechanism between “what I do” and “what I get.”

What I “get” is sometimes called ‘purpose’, I will not do so. I think it easier if people just acknowledge that everything we do touches people, and by extension, changes people’s lives – in a little, medium or big way. And, yes, I said everything.

Which leads me to the invisible economy.

To be clear, in economic terms the invisible economy is a reference to ‘unmeasured GDP.’ This is not what I am talking about. My invisible economy are the unseen workers, who contribute to not only GDP but just to making sure the daylight working force gets its shit done.

• • • The high school maintenance person at 6:30 in the morning clearing the grounds for students
    • The nurses walking in for their shift at 7 am (and the ones leaving who got there at 10 pm)
    • The trucks rumbling down the streets at 4:30 in the morning carrying supplies & food stuffs for buildings, offices & schools throughout each city
    • The groundskeepers who mow all the public lawns & fields, at 6 am, before everyone arrives to use them
    • The garbage trucks
    • The building cleaning teams working overnight

They aren’t faceless, just invisible doing what they need to do so well we don’t even notice. Yes. When they do their work well we don’t even notice. I bring them up because far too often we look at these invisible workers (when we choose to see them) and think “they must be miserable” or “they must be doing it just for the paycheck.” Well. I certainly know some people who say and think this.

This belief is driven by the insidious ‘some work is more valuable than other work.” That’s utter bullshit. All work is invaluable to a business. All work.

Note: if you doubt me on this please take a look at Zach Mercurio’s study “Its Time to Stop Dehumanizing Frontline Workers”

“I don’t know how to talk to everybody, only to somebody.”

Howard Gossage

Look. I love working. I am probably a borderline workaholic. It kills me a little each day I am not working. I have had two of my closer friends say in different words that my work defines me. I cannot argue. And, frankly, I don’t want to. But that’s not the point <although it will contribute to my points>.

My point has 2 aspects:

The perception that work is a grind. Yes. Sometimes it is. No. You don’t always have to be passionate or find some grander purpose . But. Work is still a valuable part of a life.

At best, work should be fulfilling and your efforts reflect tangible benefits.

At its worst, people drain the meaning out of it and encourage you to believe anyone could do it. That said. Even at its worst the benefit of what you do STILL EXISTS its just that the environment and people are trying to convince you it does not.  If you listen to people telling you your job is mundane and worthless, it becomes easy to believe so. Don’t.

Related to that.

A significant amount of people in my generation are ‘dropping out of the rat race’ and shifting to ‘doing something that matters’ <let’s call it ‘doing something nobler’ for the sake of this post>. They are doing so like it is a light switch moment in Life.

Off with ambition and ‘work.’ On with noble and ‘purpose.’

Watching closely, younger people see what is happening, hear our words, and are questioning whether the work world my generation created isn’t lacking something or that there is something wrong with ‘this rat race they built.’ Therefore, they are coming out of the blocks into the working world looking for careers ‘doing something that matters.’ Seeking to make some grand gesture or higher purpose investment of time & effort.

Well.

With all due respect to my generation <and hopefully young people listen and follow along> I think we are making a mistake. In my pea like brain I think this whole discussion of ‘purpose driven business’ or even ‘business with a conscious’ is kind of wacky. Ok. Maybe not wacky, because it has great intentions, but misguided. It is so, well, grand. I tend to believe we would be better off focusing on the gestures.

Teaching that work can be done with purpose … not TO a purpose.

Teaching that purpose doesn’t have to be grand … but rather working with purpose is noble in and of itself.

Teaching that work, done well, is meaning in and of itself.

Inevitably it seems to me that we would be better served if we simply taught people <and encouraged people> to be the noblest version of themselves regardless of what they did in the working world and who they worked for. It seems like work itself would be better served because then work IS never just a paycheck or some achievement, but rather HOW you did your work.

Note: There is a difference between doing and achievement.

Anyway. Here is a big problem to work: how an individual defines progress.

“Our motivation/focus/attention/behaviour will naturally gravitate to things that provide the richest sense of progress.”

Dr Jason Fox

If the de facto emblem of progress is money or materialistic proof, people will inherently gravitate towards it even if it may not actually be the ‘richest sense.’ This issue gets compounded because at exactly the same time we often value effort more than we value, well, real value. What that means is currently far too many people view progress through a progress toward riches and not rich progress perspective.

Note: I will not invest a lot of time today on progress, but I would highly recommend reading “How to Lead a Quest” by Dr, Jason Fox or for a less intellectual view try my piece The Forward Progress Theory or How Exceptional Doing can Drive Progress.

Without getting too philosophical I would suggest, if you don’t get your definition of progress right, you will never truly find meaning at work and the arc of your career life will bend toward “it is just a paycheck.” And if that happens, I would suggest the problem is not work, or what you do, but rather you and how you think about your work.

Anyway.

This is all food for thought and I imagine my thoughts will be tested in the coming years as technology (AI & automation) seep into work itself.

I, personally, believe discussions of a world in which people do not have jobs, or don’t have a job, is absurd. And, yes, I see a distinction between “work” & “job” and I see work as being ‘creation/doing’ and job being a hollow label for showing up.

Note: listen to Mike Walsh and Calum Chace discuss this..

I do not believe automation or AI or technology will replace human doing jobs, but it will surely change how people work.

I do not believe a job is just a job.

I do not believe people don’t intrinsically enjoy at least some aspect of work & working.

I do believe if you strip away many of the industrial age tropes that barrage people showing up everyday and doing the best they can every day, you will find a core substantive intrinsic interest in productivity.

All that said.

I fully understand increasing self-awareness runs the risk of creating further disengagement with the institution itself even as the institution pursues a different, better, way of judging/assessing human (identity) value in the workplace. On the other hand, we, the workers:

• know there is not only something wrong with business, as an institution
• know there has to be a better way of conducting business
• know most businesses do not maximize our potential
• know (for the most part) we do not get assessed properly.

In other words, we know our work (mostly) matters and we know it is partly a reflection of our identity and we know the institution of business doesn’t engage workers in ways that enhance our identity and meaning in the best, and most effective, ways. In knowing that maybe any short-term disengagement is simply the cost of a longer term better way of doing business.

Let me end by saying:

• 99% of jobs are more than a paycheck
• 99% of jobs that feel just like a paycheck, are actually more than just a paycheck
• 99% of people who say their jobs are just a paycheck, it is actually more than just a paycheck

All of these above are unresearched numbers, but I would bet they reflect some basic truth. Ponder. Because every day you bring home a paycheck it just doesn’t reflect dollars & cents, but also how you did what you do and how it impacted other people. Once again. Ponder.

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

Most things will be okay eventually, but not everything will be.

Sometimes you’ll put up a good fight and lose. Sometimes you’ll hold on really hard and realize there is no choice but to let go.

Acceptance is a small, quiet room.

–

Cheryl Strayed

==

“The whole is simpler than the sum of its parts.”

–

Willard Gibbs

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

While attaining leadership positions is often a difficult weaving and winding path strewn with obstacles, losing your leadership role is pretty easy. It is easy because, well, while the compass to actually being successful leadership has a clear center line <uniting in a common cause> the path has to be wide enough to accommodate all the lanes necessary so that the organization can fit on the path <you cannot leave some behind and you cannot just take the “we few” along for the ride>.

Alignment in business is always a difficult thing.

Shit.

Alignment in any group environment is always a difficult thing.

Alignment is a multi lane highway, not just offering a center line, which needs to be continuously paved with a deepening trust and cooperation. But, suffice it to say, nothing kills trust & cooperation faster than lack of trust in competency. In other words “not knowing your shit.” Words need to meet actions, actions need to meet decisions and decisions need to meet the greater needs & wants of the whole not just the parts.

All leaders, all of us, have made promises as we assumed responsibility. Some were hard promises and some were hopeful promises. As we shifted into leadership maturity we learned, often the hard way, how to shade the promises properly. What I mean by that is while in our minds something was a hopeful promise, in our employee’s ears it was a real promise <albeit … the savvier ones were skeptical>.

Ah,skeptical. I will suggest the ‘skepticals’ are the most important employees in an organization in terms of “mutual progress” and the ultimate success objective. Skepticals are the ‘swing employees’, i.e., the ones who held your organization together or tore it apart.

The skepticals listened to how the hopeful promises were shared. The skepticals discerned whether you … well … “knew your shit.” This is more the attitudinal part.

The skeptical also view with an eye toward  another aspect. What you actually do, or did as things proceed, with your hopeful promise. This is the functional part.

While any business leader worth half a shit only offers ‘hopeful promises’ which contain at least a glimmer of possibility those words then have to shift into “what we are gonna do to attempt to make that glimmer a reality.”

Oh. Yeah. This is the plans, the what we are gonna do, that kind of pragmatic practical shit.

This is where skepticals really own your ass.

They are the careful readers of promises who sit back and ask themselves whether they want to believe such a thing badly enough to overlook its improbability. They are the ones who can actually drive the organization through improbability towards probability.

Yeah. Even more so than the delusional rabid believers. Why? Because the ‘believers’ are far too often blind to the real obstacles and wildly bludgeon their way toward some objective no matter how improbable the objective. Believers have a nasty tendency to create carnage.

It is the Skepticals who create a path which is sustainable.

Skepticals are always, well, skeptical of the ‘new thoughts’ you share with them and relentlessly compare it against not only what they know but also against whatever other information is out there <they are the ones who maddeningly demand “have you done this before and where”>. Skepticals are always, well, skeptical enough they focus on what I believe the Intelligence Community calls ‘expectability.’

Skepticals understand that when promises are made there is a significant difference between ‘it might be true’ versus  ‘you can’t prove it’s not true.’ They are quite good at recognizing when you are misleading versus when you are honestly trying to get the organization somewhere … even if it does seem slightly improbable.

Look. No one can be sure of anything 100%. And an organization is never 100% aligned when a new leader steps up to assume the responsibility. Therefore you, everyone, assigns a rating to information. And an organization with a strong skeptical segment most typically turns to these skepticals, not the believers, for some guidance on how to rate the leaders words & promises. Outside of the rabid few, an organization is usually not willing to run right out of the gate with a new leader <and we who have led know that>.

You assume as you step to the front of the room that the Skepticals look at you with an uneasy sense you are simply playing your role and not really worthy of the role. They seek to get behind what they, skeptically, view as the mask of who you are and what you offer.

You learn quickly that you, and consequently the organization, are doomed out of the gate if they end up frustrated. Frustrated either that they cannot discern what is behind the mask or frustrated that what they can see looks less than what is needed to deliver upon the promises made or frustrated by what they view as “making shit up” versus “knowing your shit.”

I know everyone knows this, but a leader can get fired for any number of reasons. The ones most overlooked are:

• Failure to convert skepticals <attitudinally>
• Failure to convert skepticals <functionally>

Converting Skepticals is always the key to organizationally unity <sorry, no, it is not breeding excitement among the fewer believers nor is it attempting to placate the non-believers>.

I say that to make another point.

Skepticals reside in the promised land for a leader. One foot in hopeful promise and one foot in practical promise. Most good leaders recognize that there is a significant difference between war against the status quo and war against stagnancy. Status quo, most typically, has aspects of shit that keeps the trains running. In other words, not all status quo is bad and throwing out the baby with the bath water is never good.

And, therefore, you learn very very quickly as a leader you just cannot lie and that hyperbole kills you with Skepticals. You realize it is dangerous, to the organizational success and your own success, to embrace any kind of absurd unblinking willingness to look your people in the eye and flat out lie to them. You just cannot do shit like say “things are going great … just the way they planned” when to the skeptical, and possibly the organization as a whole, it sure appears like “there is a lot going wrong.”

This believability gap can very quickly shift from a simple hiccup on the path or crack in the alignment plan to a crevasse of dysfunction. Regardless. None of that suggests alignment or unity. It all undercuts competency and creates concerns with regard to capabilities, planning and implementation … all of which are the foundation on which any leader stands upon <even more so than vision and hope>.

Discrepancies force people to choose between what they hear and what they see and what they actually know in their own experience.

A leader can only create an upside down world for so long before the skepticals decide to make it right again – whether the leader wants it to be that way or not.

In the end?

Ignore the Skepticals at your own peril. Any successful leader will tell you focusing on Believers will not only put your own career in danger … but it puts the organization, as a whole, at risk.

=====

“The only competition worthy of a wise man is with himself.”

—

Washington Allston

====

“By dividing the people we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us except as teachers of the common herd.”

–

The Civil Servants’ Year Book, “The Organizer” January 1934

========

Ok. This is about the fallacy of the “us versus them” narrative. One of the first temptations in business differentiation is the ‘us versus them’ narrative. Not only is it a natural instinct to identify an enemy <them> to compete against it also naturally generates a competitive spirit as well as survival spirit.

It is incredibly tempting, but incredibly wrong.

Frankly, it is what lazy business leaders and strategists do.

And, in their laziness, they create what is more often than not a false narrative <how can they be the enemy if you hire some of them?>, but it also falls apart as you realize that ‘the enemy’ often has the same intentions you do and often has some aspects of business product, organization, thinking … that you actually like.

That is the failing of an ‘us versus them’ narrative.

Well. That is one failing. The ‘us versus them’ narrative is strewn with not only failings, but danger in the larger scheme of things.

Often it is rooted in some ‘conspiracy theme’ within ‘them.’ Them always seem to have a nefarious intent to rule the world, or crush our thinking, or take something away from us or … well … basically undermine all that is good & right about the world “us” sees as what is good & right <and ‘common sense’ to ‘us’>. This theme can tear your business culture apart through paranoia as well as wasted energy constantly defining ‘what is good & right’ <because those damn “thems” keep trying to show us it isn’t good & right>.

Let me suggest several things with regard to the underpinnings of ‘us versus them.’

– Common sense is relative to perspective.

Contrary to popular opinion much of common sense is not universal <therefore less than common>. My main proof point for that is easily the United Nations Human Bill of Rights. One would think there are some common sense beliefs that underline all human behavior, well, at least until you try and gather all the countries in the world and get them to agree to them.

People are no different.

Common sense advocates typically suggest what I call “headline beliefs” of which almost all of us quite easily grasp and nod our head to. It is when we get to the story outlining the hows & whats where everyone starts losing their minds. An ‘us versus them’ narrative in the hands of a charismatic leader can dwell in the headlines. Unfortunately, there is such a thing as ‘day to day behavior’ which needs laws & rules & guidelines in order to establish a relatively fair game in this thing called Life. Businesses are exactly the same.

Here is what I am saying.

In discussing a headline common sense thought 90% of people are all in lock step.

In discussing the details under the headline common sense thought 90% of people are all in slightly different places.

That, alone, is one of the key reasons most reasonable business leaders avoid an ‘us versus them’ narrative.

– Conspiracies may exist but they most typically are within the purview of the few and not the many.

What this means is that there may possibly a small group of people scheming something up, but they remain few because <mainly> the many have no palette for what that few have to offer. In addition the ‘few’ scheming rarely are powerful people.

Yup. Despite what conspiracy theorists posit about cabals of powerful people somehow guiding the globe on its axis, most powerful people who would have an inclination to involve themselves in some nefarious scheming like this would have no desire to collaborate <they are typically of dictator mentality>.

In addition to the non-collaboration aspect the majority of powerful people have less interest in running the world, they are more focused on defending their own empire <and ego>. That is exactly what happens in business.

These people may truly be ‘them’ to ‘us’, but they are not our enemy — they are simply more likely to be indifferent to ‘us.’ It is difficult to invest in an us versus them narrative when ‘them’ doesn’t even care. Most businesses avoid “us versus them” because they have enough trouble maintaining integrity within an organization to have to bring in the whole concept of “thems” manipulating anything.

– Complexity not simplicity.

I could invest page after page outlining how complexity destroys the oversimplified ‘us versus them’ narrative, but I will focus on one aspect – people can rarely be easily bucketed into simplistic character, attitude & behavior descriptions.

Not all accountants are boring or socially inept.

Not all conservatives are against abortions.

Not all liberals are socialists.

Not all religious people are close minded.

Not all French people like wine.

Not all Hawaiians know how to surf.

In business, and sports, you learn this quickly <it seems like politics hasn’t received this memo yet>.

You meet ‘them’ and, uh oh, you not only find you kind of like them, but more often than not <yikes!>, they believe some of the same things you do. The ‘us versus them” narrative can only exist in an environment where oversimplification has a chance to live. Business is anything but simple. So while a crappy, or lazy, leader may find some initial success rallying the organizational troops with an “us versus them” narrative it all falls part pretty quickly.

That is why business people avoid the ‘us versus them’ narrative.

Anyway. I read somewhere that if you truly want to defend liberty, the first thing you should do is defend the liberty of people you like the least. But instead, in today’s world, we seem to be spending more time focused on defending the liberty of “me”, and what “me believes” first. Even businesses struggle with this <under the guise of “building a strong culture”>.

Let’s be clear. Leaders — of companies, of organizations, of countries, of any rather difficult to manage and align group of people — realize that if they intend to make something happen that it just needs to be done <sometimes> acting in the best interest of ALL who they lead and do it without discussion because discussion slows the process down.

Is this a conspiracy? Nope.

This is leading. Sometimes you get it right <and good things happen and you never explain all the decision you made without inviting opinions of others> and sometimes you get it wrong <and bad things happen and you (a) keep your mouth shut and just hope the problem goes away or (b) end up explaining every decision minutiae in extraordinary excruciating public discourse>.

I am not suggesting there are not better ways to communicating and aligning an organization than simply ‘doing & telling later’, nor am I suggesting transparency isn’t important in terms of uniting, but I am suggesting that in business sometimes a leader makes a decision because it has to be made, and it is made with the best intentions for “all” and not with bad intent for “us” and a better intent for “them.”

And maybe this is where businesses have truly learned to avoid the ‘us versus them’ narrative.

If you plant the narrative and constantly water it into a healthy belief system within a business, it can then very very quickly become an unhealthy integral part of an organizational DNA viewpoint. Side to side <department to department> as well as down to up <workers – perceived doers/non intellectuals – to management – perceived non-doers/intellectuals>.

Lastly. Here is what the good business leaders have learned as to the most insidious organizational aspect in an ‘us versus them’ narrative:

… take care of their own <the ‘us’> even to the detriment of the “all”

By the way. Crappy leaders love this because it absolves them of responsibility and they can always point to external ‘them’ as the reason why ‘us’ isn’t getting what they believe they deserve.

Regardless. The narrative permits ‘their own’ to be constant victims of whatever ‘them forces’ that are constantly scheming to impede or crush the ‘us’ personal ambitions.

Part of the appeal of us versus them is it’s simplicity.

In a complex, changing world, it is tempting to reduce multifaceted issues to the us-and-them narrative.

The narrative eliminates any context thru oversimplification. Interestingly, the oversimplification actually creates conspiracies/conspiracy speculation and enhances fears by suggesting the complexity doesn’t exist <and people know in their heads there has to be more and create the ‘more’ all on their own>. This, in turn, permits everyone to skip facts and go immediately to emotion from which point “we the people” <whoever ‘we’ is> resides on one side and “the system” or “some idiot who cannot do the right thing” or “a cabal of dishonest untrustworthy thems” on the other. This narrative is particularly tempting to the weak leader these days because general mistrust of everything is at an all time high.

The charismatic crappy leader suggests that the business <the ‘us’ in the equation> has a plan, a good plan, a plan that really will not work only if the ‘thems’ work their mysterious wiles. Trust therefore resides with ‘us’ and mistrust resides with ‘them.’

The us versus them narrative is seductive. Aspects of it sound great, frankly, to any and all of us. That’s why it is so compelling if you are not careful. But the world, and business, is more complex than ‘us versus them.’ A good leader, a leader who understands you are seeking success in the moment, today, tomorrow and next month/year/decade will weigh the true costs, and effects, of investing in the us versus them narrative beyond simply winning.

Ponder. And listen closely to the charismatic jesters who lean in on “use versus them” rhetoric.

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

“Too many people are only willing to defend rights that are personally important to them. It’s selfish ignorance, and it’s exactly why totalitarian governments are able to get away with trampling on people.

Freedom does not mean freedom just for the things I think I should be able to do.  Freedom is for all of us. If people will not speak up for other people’s rights, there will come a day when they will lose their own.”

Tony Lawrence

=

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

Pope Francis saying No to An Economy of Exclusion

—-

Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have created a “throw away” culture which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the “exploited” but the outcast, the “leftovers”.

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

This is about jobs., working, productivity and meaning. I will begin by leveraging off the opening quote and discuss exclusion & inclusion.

Exclusion in work is working in a detached way. You are not really being exploited you are just scraps in the business world. The ones doing the “mindless work.” Unfortunately, disengagement numbers suggest a shitload of people feel like they are in this category.

Inclusion in work, to me, is meaning or finding ‘joy in the task.’

In 1949 Harry F Harlow, Professor of Psychology at the University of Wisconsin, outlined an alternative  … something he called ‘intrinsic motivation’: “The performance of the task provided intrinsic reward. The joy of the task was its own reward.”

Beyond motivation this idea is also linked to productivity. Inclusion matters because economic knowledge exists in bits & pieces within an organization scattered amongst systems, process & people. This means value creation is often a dynamic discovery process, not a more static system driven process. In other words. The more workers are included in the discovery process the more dynamic the value creation.

Contribution.

Meaning at work truly comes down to one thing – contribution. What I mean by that is, if the response to your job/doing (the stimulus) is “I have contributed” <with tangible proof or intangible reward>, you will have meaning. Now. Meaning can come to you in a variety of degrees – all powerful in their own way, but in totality is most likely attaining the highest order of contribution.

The most basic is “I” have just become better. This is an internalization of personal improvement suggesting “I am not stagnant, I am growing.” The second phase is if you view that your ‘growth’ has contributed to the people most important to you – your team, tribe or department. The third phase is to the organization itself. Something you have done, like a pebble in a pond sending out ripples, has contributed to the larger success of the organization & business. It makes one part of the ‘productivity enterprise’ so one doesn’t feel inconsequential even if the enterprise is massive. Lastly, is society or community or global. Your little contribution was part of a big contribution positively affecting someone, or some-ones, outside the selling aspect of your business.

Progress.

Simplistically, we all want to get better. Better at being a person, our skills, socially, professionally, for our kids, morally, etc. Therefore. The progress measurement is most likely, at its simplest, “better today than I was yesterday, better tomorrow than I am today.” I am not a motivation expert, but if I set up a feedback loop to show this to a worker <doesn’t have to be daily but maybe weekly at minimum> then a worker sees progress tied to ‘contribution’ <value & meaning increase with this alignment>.

To be clear. This is different than milestones, sprints & any measured activity. While those things can be useful to get things done, they do not insure meaningful progress. They are completion checkmarks and meaning needs progress checkmarks.

Decision utility.

To me decision utility, especially when it comes to workplace productivity, is a mix of doing & thinking. Most people focus on the doing aspect of decision utility, but I believe everyone likes to ‘think’ in terms of ‘my thoughts matter’ <the harsher version is “I know I’m not stupid and having my thinking contribute to what I do and we do proves I am not”>.

That said. It was Clotaire Rapaille who pointed out in America our heroes are athletes, entrepreneurs, police officers, firefighters, and soldiers – all people who take action. We may respect thinkers, but we don’t celebrate them nearly as much as we do our ‘doers’. As Rapaille said: the American Culture Code for work is WHO YOU ARE. We often seek so much meaning in our jobs, if our job feels meaningless, then “who we are” is meaningless as well <at least in some dimension>.  If we feel inspired by our job, if we believe that we are doing something worthwhile in our work, that belief bolsters our sense of identity in that we feel like we have some grander Purpose.

Our work ethic is so strong because at the unconscious level, we believe that if we work hard and improve our professional standing, we become better people <note: that’s not particularly healthy but its good to recognize it>.

I bring in work ethic because this is where game theory plays a role (Jason Fox speaks of game theory as a way of viewing employee motivation). As a reminder, I see decision utility as in thinking & doing. Thinking as in ‘solving a complex issue/problem AND doing something about it.” I first began discussing game theory in 2010 when crafting critical thinking games for children. The fact kids like thinking & game theory ratchets up complexity of problems sequentially as one is solved. Critical thinking at its most basic level is trial & error. However. Game theory also ‘dials down’ complexity to insure one doesn’t get too frustrated with failure. A child gets rewarded for failed attempts as well as successful attempts. In other words, you get value off of decision utility where marginal units are rewarded with higher value <and standard units get rewarded despite failed attempts>. I envision workers would respond just as positively to this activity – a combination of thinking and doing to create some progress.

Lastly, with regard to decision utility, let me lean into ‘marginal units‘ and the economic concept of marginalism. The fact that prices don’t correspond to the total value of all goods in existence, but rather the marginal unit (the value of the next unit>. I am not a behavior expert, but I would suggest meaning in work would seem to be of more value to the worker if they were constantly being rewarded for the marginal unit and not just the costs of doing.

Lastly.

Values.

I was tempted to call this ethics, but I tend to believe work is more meaningful when it feel substantive of values (to increase value) and virtue (which is a feeling outcome of doing things with value substance).

“Striving to meet the deepest moral needs of the person also has important and beneficial repercussions at the level of economics. The economy needs ethics in order to function correctly — not any ethics whatsoever, but an ethics which is people-centred.”

Vatican (encyclical Caritas in Veritate)

Values is, well, the good stuff that infuses all the doing and thinking. As I have said numerous times before, winning the right way creates the highest satisfaction possible <versus just winning>. People feel ‘fuller progress’ if they know they did it ethically, within the rules/laws & with a sense of dignity. I could suggest this values orieneted work feeds the moral soul, but I will not. I will just say we sleep better at night when we do it this way.

Anyway.

Self management permits the internal to be maximized on an individual basis permitting the whole, the business itself, to intervene with regard to eternal problems. This matters because the most basic economic problem is allocation – how the business can allocate its scare resources so as to best serve the interests of the business as a whole. Business should seek to maximize its people resources, minds & bodies, t maximize its inherent other scarce resources.

This leads me to systems & processes (often called best practices) which are based on restrictive assumptions to create an equilibrium between inputs & outputs for efficiencies.

If the individual is empowered to maximize their productive (on all measures listed above) the internal maximization of resources naturally occurs so that the organization itself can assess external challenges which may demand resources. This ying & yang insures maximum use of people, process & resources.

So. Here is what I think.

We are a doing people. People inherently enjoy thinking & doing and when it is visible <showing progress> we actually derive meaning. As a corollary, When our doing doesn’t seem to offer value, or meaning, it strikes at us emotionally – in a negative way. Our soul is in doing. We find our way by saying “let’s go to work” on something. This includes even pursing the seemingly impossible. Because in the end we are dreamers. We do because we dream and dream big, i.e., give us an impossible assignment and let us go do it.

For in the end, for all the culture code speak and thoughts about what makes us happy, People are pretty simple. We like making the impossible possible. And that is what makes People, well, People. At the heart of dreams and making the impossible possible is, well, doing. In the end I struggle to find a better meaningful value than “doing a dream.”

===========

“I cannot be angry with you. Anger would be a waste of the moments we have and would make us weak in the face of the things yet to do.”

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

I feel like there are undercurrents of anger and even some rage running through America these days. There is a critique of … well … everyone and everything <albeit much of the vitriol seems to be targeted at the president> utilizing some unmistakable xenophobic resentment, lots of wild conjecture, a dash of conspiracy theories and a thread of paranoia.

You can debate some of the words I just used, but suffice it to say that everyone is angry.

Well. Ok. The incredibly rich of the rich just don’t care.

But the aspiring incredibly rich are angry at the ‘lazy entitled lower income’ who want money they haven’t earned.

The middle <going down> income are angry at everyone.

The lower middle income people <who are probably hard working &pragmatic but have always had hope to be & do better> are angry at the aspiring rich & the incredibly rich.

The lower income people are just angry <because while they don’t see the poor social mobility numbers that I do which state that America is not the land of opportunity … they already know that if they are born lower income they will most likely live & die in lower income>.

And all incomes are angry at government.

Worse? No one is even really sure what rich is, what middle income is or how much money is enough <except the lower income who recognize that whatever they have is barely enough>.

Thinking about it I believe people are angry on a number of levels:

–          People are angry at work.

They don’t feel secure in their jobs on top of they are losing hope they will have opportunities to move up on top of the fact it sometimes seems like charisma <and what is being called ‘instincts’> is being valued more than actually knowing what to do <and rational logical thinking>. Therefore those with ability <or the ability to enhance their ability>, but don’t meet the charisma criteria <gift of gab, appearance, etc.> or don’t value the charisma thing themselves <they just want to get shit done> … lose hope.

And get angry.

And get even angrier when the gap in pay between those who are leading <sometimes not that effectively> is disproportionately out of whack from those who are quite effectively getting shit done.

–          People are angry at home <and with Life>.

Home values <most homes major investment> struggle. There is uncertainty with the economy on top of uncertainty with time … people work hard to manage time and yet there never seems to be enough of it.

Now. It would be easy to think I am talking about money, but it is really about hope. Hope for a better life. Hope for better fairness. People are happy in life when they think it’s fair or they get a fair chance. “I don’t need to get to the top … or be the best … or even get the most … I just want to know that I had the opportunity to do so IF I had really been the best or the top or deserved the most.”  Most of us realize we are not ‘the best’ or the ‘cream of the crop’, we are just average Joes & Joettes. But we just want to feel like that if by some miracle we were, if but for one critical moment, the best that we would get the opportunity to get what the best get.

Alternatively, no opportunity and … well … we get angry.

Is this unrealistic thinking <because it is just a ‘what if’ scenario>? Sure … maybe. But opportunity & hope are fickle funny things. And pretty valuable to us average Joes.

Bottom line. While Life has always seemed to never miss an opportunity to screw with you at least in the past it seemed like Life was fair <it took away and gave>. We get angry.

–          People are angry with themselves

Push social mobility off to the side. Push aggravations with Time. Push government and the system and all the other things off to the side.

We are angry about talking about money & having things — material things — because material things don’t really make us happy <I will discuss this in more detail later>. We know that not only in our hearts and souls, but in our heads. And yet it seems every time we open our mouths words come out about income and owning homes and being able to afford things. We are angry because we are talking about shit that doesn’t really inspire us as people. Simplistically, it sometimes appears like materialism has become the new standard people measure themselves by in society. And greed is the fastest way to attain higher levels of materialism.

But. Here’s the deal.

We don’t like materialism. WE don’t like greed. We don’t like the whole concept of it. And we get angry when it not only appears like it is the most important thing to us, but also when it appears the only way to look, or be, successful is to make it an important thing to ourselves.

Mostly we are angry because we know there is a better way of thinking. We know we are better as people than this.

Ok. Moving on.

It is interesting <at least to me> but when I wrote my Unicorns and Rainbows post it was because I feared that people were losing hope and being depressed. So depressed they had just given up hope and dreaming. I believed the issue then was “tough times and people under daily stress just to keep head above water.” I felt like people just had no time for hope.

Now I feel the overall issue has changed.

Now people haven’t given up on hope and dreams, they are angry because they believe someone, or someones, are screwing with their hope and dreams.

It could be culture in general, economic climate, decaying social moral morays, politicians <or government in general>… doesn’t matter … pick your target … people are angry at something.

What I believe about this anger?

People are looking for someone and anyone to blame for having their hopes and dreams screwed with.

To be clear. There is a difference between hope and optimism.

Hope is emotional. It is a longing for something that is somewhere beyond our reach & most likely out of our immediate control.

Optimism is a conscious belief almost an ideology if you elect to be. It has a tangible cognitive attachment to it … almost an expectation of what will be.

Both can lead to happiness <an ever elusive objective>, but, both can also lead to disappointment and unhappiness; if not anger <if people perceive someone is putting obstacles between them and their hope or optimism>.

This leads to an additional problem in today’s world.

While most people are relatively pragmatic with regard to hope, they are not very pragmatic on optimism.

We are a country of optimists – positive thinkers. And maybe, as a book by Barbara Ehrenreich suggests, we have been sucked too far down into the positive thinking tripe hole to get out.

Just a quick note.

I am not ‘anti-positive thinking.’ I believe it can be a healthy addition to one’s life … and in balancing pessimism and/or pragmatism can help maintain ‘hope for something better.’ As I read somewhere … ‘it cannot hurt to put a picture of your dream house up on your mirror … it could be what leads you to your next step toward it.’ My main issue with positive thinking resides in the thought that simply visualizing that dream house will not bring it to you <sorry to Unlaw the Law of Attraction>. This may seem contrary to some things you have read in media about “positive psychology” … but this is truth.

Anyway. While I certainly can agree with ‘too much unrealistic positive thinking” and I can point out that research shows the happiest people actually are not the most positive <or optimistic>, but actually the most pragmatic balanced <they have both realistic optimism as well as pragmatic pessimism>. I will actually suggest to Barbara and her reader’s that it isn’t positive thinking that is creating the issues in today’s emotional society, but instead it is how it affects hope.

“The most dangerous moments are not when people are their poorest but rather when their expectations of significant improvement are raised … and end in frustration.”

de Tocqueville

Happiness <and Hope> is, and isn’t, about money. Once you have enough money to escape miserable lives of hunger and sickness, money quickly leads to a perpetual state of dissatisfaction.

The role income plays is fraught with conflict. No study has really been able to correlate a specific income to happiness <multiple studies reflect anywhere from $50,000 to $161,810>.

The most interesting thing? When conducting studies like this, if you give someone cookies before you ask this question, the income stated is less.

If you ask them to make a copy at the copier and leave a dime on it for them to think they found it before you ask them this question, the income stated is less.

What does that mean? <beyond the fact research is dangerous to use as your sole decision-making platform>

Money ain’t everything unless you focus solely on money.

Money also leads to lifestyle upgrades. But, once again, that is fraught with conflict. Psychologists call it ‘hedonic adaptation.’ Once you achieve the income you desired … well … you go back to desiring more.

Money also translates to happiness in another very odd way — relativism. If you earn more than your brother-in-law, you are happier than if you just have a certain income. In other words actual wealth does not always equate to happiness <albeit the citizens of richer countries tend to be ‘happier’ than non-richer countries>.

Ah. But hope for wealth does equate to happiness.

<therein lies the value of Hope … actual is valued less than the Hope for …>

And if someone screws with that hope … well … they are unhappy.

This is where reality may be actually settling in to the everyday person.

Optimism can ease the pain of being laid off <downsized>. Optimism can ease the uncomfortable sense of economic inequality.

Well. It does until someone screws with your hopes <therefore attacking all that positive thinking>.

In the past it was easier to not resent the CEO’s earning $10+million a year and the owners of luxurious homes when you thought <or hoped> you had as equal an opportunity to attain that as they did. This is true despite the fact, especially in today’s world, real social mobility is just a myth.

The Brookings Institution stated just before 2010 … “the strong belief in opportunity and upward mobility is the explanation most often given for Americans high tolerance for economic inequality. The majority of Americans surveyed believed that they will be above mean income in the future <even though studies reflect that is a mathematical impossibility – or incredibly high improbability>.

That is perception reality <‘I perceive it so strongly it must be reality‘> … which is almost as tangible as anything else in people’s heads.

Reality is not just unemployment. It is the fact between 1981 and 2003 about 30 million people lost full time jobs in company downsizing.

Reality is a hazardous less stable new workplace.

Reality is ‘working hard’ does not guarantee you ‘something better.’

Reality is that you can paddle as hard as you can … and still sink.

That said. This new reality has not really changed our desires. Our desires, and optimism for what we want and feel we deserve, remain at the same levels as before … if not higher as we watch the top of the top <the richer than rich> become richer and we aim to be able to get to where they are if only we got ‘the break.’

I say all this so I can get past pure economics … and money. Because while money is part of the issue it is more about desires <to have> and increasing levels of desire <increasingly more difficult & disappointing to fulfill>.

I want to get past economics and money because, as I stated earlier, this is all about someone screwing with our Hope. And that, my friends, is unacceptable.

People are becoming furious with those who’ve hurt their hopes.

It leads to a “I would rather be right than listen. Heck. I would rather be angry than listen” attitude. All driven by “I expected more for my life” or even worse … “I can’t picture a future for myself anymore.”

And it leads to a burning anger.

“I had hope … but it’s gone now. I don’t deserve to be disappointed in this way.”

So? People get angry.

I believe so many people are angry because someone & someones <and society in some for or fashion> is screwing with their hope.

Loss of anything is a thoughtful topic and when you make loss equal Hope … oh my.

Everyone always says that loss is natural, but the truth is that when you are going through loss it is the most unnatural feeling in the world. And when it is Hope? Oh my double.

And it would be one thing if all this anger was limited to the fringes, but the anger <and the conspiracy theories and paranoia and everything attached to the anger> has become a pervasive thread in today’s world. Once relegated to email chains and the corner of neighborhood bars and even some oddball blogs, anger has percolated up into the mainstream.

Which leads me to:

“Why should I be angry? It won’t change how you feel.”

unknown

Desire defines what we think we need. And often defines how we act. When we don’t get what we ‘desire’ <or expect — they can be interchangeable> it sometimes can bring us mentally to places we never thought we would ever go. It leads us to anger & disappointment.

Frankly … we expect to have Hope. But simply being angry or disappointed doesn’t change the situation.

And <frankly again> … anger is simply a self-imposed trial. Rarely will anger ever change how the other person feels or the situation.

Anger is a black hole. A black hole where nothing exists — there is no past, present nor future in anger.

It would be silly of me to suggest that no one should ever feel anger … because it is a human thing to do.

But. Think about this thought of ‘anger is a black hole.’

Think about it because after anger there is typically a need for some type of forgiveness to fill the hole and move on. Maybe the mistake many of us make is to believe that we can leave the anger behind, we cannot, and probably will not. There will simply be a hole.

And holes need to be mended <or filled>.

I don’t have an answer of how one would ever fill up a black hole enough to insure that which has no past, present or future ends up having some meaning, but I could try and answer by saying that Hope is a pretty big expansive thing.

If society, or the world, or some stupid leaders, stopped screwing with our Hope and actually gave it back to us … well … we would still be angry <remnants remain> but Hope is pretty powerful.

Yet. In the end.

Anger gains you nothing and costs you much. 

“Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned.”

Buddha

That may sound like philosophical tripe in a very practical challenging society and world. But all this anger is burning us up from the inside out. Not just individually, but culturally, societal and … well … whatever bigger entity you want to think of.

This anger is burning us all.

Look. I began with this quote:

“Anger would be a waste of the moments we have and would make us weak in the face of the things yet to do.”

I explained the anger in today’s world.

Heck. I even explained what would solve our anger.

But I imagine my real point is that no one should be able to steal your Hope. In fact no one CAN steal your Hope.

It’s yours.

If you lose your Hope, you have no one else to blame but yourself.

—-

Q: do you get angry?
A: why should I be angry? Because someone believes a thing does not make it so.

There is no dignity in anger.

—-

There is no dignity in anger. But people are feeling indignant about a situation in which they feel like they have little or no control over.

But <once again>. You have control over your own Hope.

Me? I feel like we are losing our dignity within all our anger. We seem to be focused on tearing down ideas and thinking <and people> rather than fixing or improving upon ideas and thinking.

And that makes me angry. Sigh.

———————————

Original posted October 23, 2013