—–

“People aren’t always what you want them to be.
Sometimes they disappoint you or let you down, but you have to give them a chance first.

You can’t just meet someone and expect them to be everything you’re looking for and then be angry when they’re not every hope and aspiration you projected onto them.

It’s foolish to believe that someone will be what you imagine them to be. And sometimes, when you give them a chance, they turn out to be better than you imagined.

Different, but better. “

Chloe Rattray

—–

Well. This is about expectations and how having expectations is bad <disappointing> and good <people like to strive toward expectations>.

No matter how cynical you are, or skeptical with regard to whether there is truly ‘good within all’, pretty much everyone expects everyone else to be the best version of who they can be.
The trouble is that our version of your ‘best version’ is … well … ours. Unfortunately, this “ours/you” expectation tends to be a pretty high standard for which the person we are eying at the moment has to meet.

We tend to not only expect people to be ‘like us’ in the ways we consider positive attributes, but then we also attached a wish list of expectations <based on some fairly idealistic thoughts of how people should be .. and how we see ourselves>.

Well. That brings to mind a Marilyn Manson quote:

—-

“Find out what’s really out there.

I never said to be like me, I say be like you and make a difference.

Marilyn Manson

—-

People are rarely what we expect them to be and they are rarely like us. And, frankly, we don’t want them to be like us, we want them to be like, well, themselves. But this creates the uncomfortable situation in that we then have no clue what to expect.

So what do we do? We fall back on ‘us’ <our bias & attitudes & beliefs> and build our expectations.

This is, frankly, silly if not stupid. We should focus instead on ‘different, but better.’

Me? Over the years I have become significantly better at setting aside expectations of people and permitting them to build what I should expect of them. Even then I have to constantly remind myself that people are less consistent than what I would like <to expect>.

I guess I believe people can change. I say guess because I think we are a little flippant with that thought. Flippant because I think we are more hopeful than reality suggests. Most people really don’t change that much. They may evolve as they grow, but people tend to be the people they were <just maybe a little more here and a little less there>. To be clear, evolving involves some iterative change usually driven by new experiences.

And that’s okay.

Now. There is the inconsistency factor. Inconsistency is good in this case albeit confusing to others and makes it difficult to discern ‘what to expect.’

But.

Everyone is inconsistent because Life is inherently inconsistent and therefore we make mistakes. That’s kind of the way it is. If everything was always consistent, the odds of us making as many mistakes as we do now would decrease significantly.

Unfortunately everything is not consistent <except in its inconsistency> and therefore, unfortunately, we make a shitload of mistakes.

Oh. And mistakes shape expectations as much as successes do.

Now. This means also means how you handle the mistakes matter in terms of setting expectations for people. If you own up to them, adapt, make some adjustments and move on … well … the mistakes don’t accumulate like a snowball but instead remain individual flakes you meet as you progress and are manageable in their smallness. Frankly, anything less ‘owning up’ is counterproductive, self-serving and carries a hue of non-accountability. I will also note that under the glare of circumstances ‘beyond our control’ <let’s call that Life’s shit> it is certainly aggravating, and sometimes even a little unnerving, when people don’t own up to their mistakes and we waste time & energy flailing about seeking blame.

Regardless. People aren’t always what we expect.

And, oddly, we get disappointed even if they are actually just a different version of what we said we wanted <expected> and THAT may be a better version <but we are so disappointed we didn’t see it>.

Oh. Another thing about having expectations.

There is a really nonsensical thought that is strewn throughout the World Wide Web with regard to ‘have no expectations and you live in the now” … or “have no expectations and you won’t be disappointed.”

What bullshit.

Utter nonsense.

Regardless of the fact our expectations are sometimes misguided and that we far too often judge people on some really out of whack expectations, expectations are part of Life.

They set standards.

When we expect nothing from anyone while we may save ourselves from being disappointed, it comes with a cost. With lower expectations we make less of an effort. We have convinced ourselves that fighting for things that are pretty important in life are no longer worth fighting for as a standard. And while some of our expectations are unrealistic the horizon aspect should almost always “best version of.”

Well.

That is a good expectation. And if you have it, or them, others around you tend to see them, feel them … and absorb some of the pressure to meet them.

Yes. It has been proven over & over again <research> people do better when more is expected of them. I am fairly sure this cause-effect is called the Pygmalion Effect. Study results have shown some consistently significant ‘better’ associated with this effect.

A guy named J. Sterling Livingston is the one who wrote in 1969 about the Pygmalion Effect <named after the mythical sculptor who carves a statue of a woman that is brought to life>.

His title also pays homage to George Bernard Shaw, whose play Pygmalion explores the notion that the way one person treats another can, for better or worse, be transforming.

The influence of one person’s expectations on another’s behavior isn’t a recent discovery. More than half a century ago, Albert Moll concluded from clinical experience that subjects behaved as they believed they were expected to – “the prophecy causes its own fulfillment”. Livingston stated that creating these positive expectations is remarkably difficult, but I would argue setting ANY expectations is difficult, but, we should do so.

Expectations challenge the status quo; even if the status quo is good & right.

That’s okay too. Affirmation is often as powerful as change. Accepting the status quo and not making any effort to push ourselves and those we care about to become better is almost like giving up hope for anything better.

Now. Expectations must always pass the test of reality before they can be translated into any real outcomes. Expectations must have more gravitas than the fluffy power of positive thinking or some generalized confidence that ‘it can & will happen.’ People are not motivated to reach for unattainable shit — they need to have some sense of realistic and achievable. Suffice it to say encouraging one to strive for unattainable goals is simply encouraging the eventuality of ‘give up trying’ and ‘settling for results that are lower than they are capable of achieving’.

Regardless. We need to and should have some pretty high expectations of people. All people. And while I know it seems counter intuitive to suggest that we should idealize what people can be, okay, some people, with regard to expectations because it would most likely means a shitload of disappointment.

But, I remain steadfast in believing we SHOULD have expectations and we SHOULD set the standards high.

Research shows that while we will be disappointed initially the people themselves will be more likely to step up to meet some of the idealized expectations.

Our expectations can drive ‘better.’

The cost? We bear the cost in that we get disappointed. Shit. I will pay that price. It would be selfish to think otherwise.

People will disappoint us with regard to our own expectations.

People will more often surprise us if we are open to a different better version of our expectations.

But all of that is kind of irrelevant. It doesn’t matter how you feel … get over it … it is the objective that matters. Steven Covey said it the best:

===

“Treat a man as he is and he will remain as he is.

Treat a man as he can and should be and he will become as he can and should be.”

Stephen R. Covey

===

Yes. It is foolish to believe someone will be as you imagine they will be.

But go ahead.

Have expectations.

Be prepared to be disappointed and, more often, surprised by something different and better. Ponder.

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

“We promise according to our hopes; we perform according to our fears.”

François de La Rochefoucauld

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

In an era when we appear to be facing an increasingly uncertain and complex economic future, in this wacky business world in which technology seems to becoming the new ‘labor’ for business productivity <please note I am not suggesting technology is reducing ‘people jobs’ because it is not … simply shifting them>, the one certainty is that we have become the outcome business generation.

I say that to begin a business rant about how I believe our future resides in having every young person finding the skills to be successful <and generate results>, but also to develop their own character <and resilience to manage their generation’s version of business> AND have them reshape the current business world.

I say that because we are an increasingly outcome oriented world and focus.

In fact it may be the sole ‘go to’ focus and criteria for success. At least that is the current business environment and current business leadership focus.

How did we get to this place?

How did we create this misguided direction young people focus on <and business>?

How did we come so far down this path seemingly on misperceptions?

Let me suggest 3 things on how we got to this outcome generation business model:

–          Fear <performance according to>

–          Boomers <older people> – beliefs & attitudes

–          Boomers <older people>- perceptions

First. Fear.

Businesses are promising hope and a full business future to everyone and anyone interviewing and showing interest in walking thru their doors. But. Once in? It becomes performance based on fear. What I mean by that is business institutions , as soon as they put you in a position with some responsibilities will immediately tie you to some accountability for outcomes, therefore, creating a fear of not generating outcome & results. At least that is the inevitable leadership message.

Someone can put a positive spin on ‘we believe in business success’ or ‘results are the ultimate measure of effective skills’ or even ‘your ability to meet the outcome objectives despite such obstacles shows real character’, but, in the end it comes down to fear management.

Second. This beliefs and attitudes thing.

We current older folk grew up in a business environment in which the typical overly successful ambitious individual was always one who always seemed to desire what was just out of reach and go to almost any length to get what they thought they deserved often believing they were not only above everyone else, but also above the common rules <and in some cases … above law itself or some bent version of law>.

That was an attitude and a belief. A broad playing field of ‘do whatever it takes’ mentality.

That was a belief in results & outcome as proof of success. And it has bled into how we older folk think about how to live our lives in general. Shit. Even “the Secret” has embraced outcome <therefore we have gobs of people in the midst of life convinced the Secret to Life can be found in focusing on outcomes>.

Anyway.

Because we know this ‘secret’, i.e., this attitude/belief inevitably created a misperception among older folk that the current generation feels they deserve the same ‘outcome success’ but without the work <when the reality is they don’t want what we have>.

Well.

Not exactly.

Of course when in business you want business success. And the young are certainly willing to work for it, but they would just prefer getting it differently.

Regardless.

My generation’s <older> management style has beget its own uncomfortable outcome. A younger generation basically unhappy <or constantly chafing more so than usual in past generations> which, in my opinion, has fed into some fairly dismal employee engagement numbers.

I also believe that it’s possible to become so focused on the process of reaching our old folk business goals, our desired <or demanded> outcomes, that we not only lose sight of some of the other important things, in other words, ‘objective blindness.’

We forget that ‘outcomes’ are not the end all be all.

We forget ‘winning’ in business can come in different sizes and shapes.

Of course, making some sacrifices to achieve results is expected. There is always a price to pay to get where you want to go.

But let’s be clear. Young people are NOT taking for granted all the ‘good things’ we have going for us now, but rather they are challenging the journey we took to get the ‘good things’ and outcomes. They not only second guess our ability to balance ‘whatever it takes’, but they second guess our moral compass. And they are certainly second guessing ‘do what it takes to win’ mentality.

They also certainly second guess our obsession with time.

Why?

Maybe they have watched us older folk for so long endlessly obsessing and endlessly cycling through some constantly changing to-do list or watching us spending gobs of time simply arranging and rearranging a schedule <not doing … just planning on doing> or watching us wishing throughout the day <out loud most of the time> that ‘if there were only more time’ only to find out that at the end of the day … well … you were at the end of the day.

Frankly.

Old people are stubbornly holding on to the past attitudes and it is negatively affecting our future. Not only are we creating an outcome skewed generation, but also one driven by fear <of not generating outcomes or else> and ultimately they are becoming increasingly disengaged <they just don’t want to play our game>.

By the way, this outcome mentality the older generation has, and is implementing even now, is impacting kids even before they get to the workplace <which will inevitably bleed into work>.  Here is an example:

Five students were shadowed during a year of high school. The students attended a high school where 95% of its graduates attend college. The students in this book were forced to cheat, act different, etc. in the pursuit of high grades. The author of the study mainly addresses the “force” as coming from the inadequately structured school system, family, and in the end, America itself.

In looking for some insight from students regarding how school can be better a few of the students had some respectable suggestions such as fostering student engagement by allowing students to pursue topics that actually interested them and connected to other courses as well.

Ok. On the more positive side … we can also impact our children in good ways:

In a classic experiment, the psychologist J. Philippe Rushton gave 140 elementary- and middle-school-age children tokens for winning a game, which they could keep entirely or donate some to a child in poverty. They first watched a teacher figure play the game either selfishly or generously, and then preach to them the value of taking, giving or neither. The adult’s influence was significant: Actions spoke louder than words. When the adult behaved selfishly, children followed suit. The words didn’t make much difference — children gave fewer tokens after observing the adult’s selfish actions, regardless of whether the adult verbally advocated selfishness or generosity. When the adult acted generously, students gave the same amount whether generosity was preached or not — they donated 85 percent more than the norm in both cases. When the adult preached selfishness, even after the adult acted generously, the students still gave 49 percent more than the norm. Children learn generosity not by listening to what their role models say, but by observing what they do.

Suffice it it say this outcome mentality focus is affecting our youth’s education. Our school systems are increasingly not really places that foster learning <which has a disturbing ironic side to it> mainly because it is being built as a reflection of America’s own stressed out, materialistic, and results <test scores> culture. Schools are so worried about their outcomes, mostly because it is tied to funding, they have begin gaming student outcomes <or gaming the students so they achieve desired outcomes> and the real valuable student outcomes, like good citizens well trained for a variety of possible careers, is being ignored.

Third. This overarching perception about younger people by us older business folk.

Let’s call this attitudes towards work and work ethic. The perceived decline in work ethic is perhaps one of the major contributors of generational conflicts

In the workplace older employees complain that younger workers are uncommitted to their jobs and work only the required hours and little more.

Conversely, Boomers may be workaholics and reportedly started the trend <the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Office of Diversity, 2006> coming in on the heels of those before who have been characterized as the most hardworking generation <Jenkins, 2007>. Regardless … the prevailing stereotype is that younger workers do not work as hard as older workers do:

<note: while this specific research is slightly dated I am using it because it is the best written reflection of more recent research I have reviewed>

Whether the younger generations do not work as hard as previous ones is debatable.

A cross sectional comparison of 27 to 40 year olds versus 41 to 65 year olds in 1974 and 1999 indicated that both age groups felt that it was less important that a worker feel a sense of pride in one’s work in 1999 than in 1974. In both age groups, work values among managers declined between 1974 and 1999 (Smola & Sutton, 2002). Both age groups were also less likely in 1999 to indicate that they believed that how a person did his or her job was indicative of this individual’s worth. In 1999, both age groups were also less likely to believe that work should be an important part of life or working hard made one a better person (Smola & Sutton, 2002). Furthermore, older employees had a less idealized view of work than younger workers did.

Indeed, it was postulated that after witnessing the lack of employer loyalty toward employees, the latter consequently developed a less idealized view of work. Other sources of evidence do not support the claim that there is a decline in work ethics among younger generations.

For instance, Tang and Tzeng (1992) found that as age increased, reported work ethic decreased, indicating that younger workers reported higher work ethics than older workers.

——————-

Once again, I tend to believe most issues in today’s workplace have nothing to do with young people or any skills they may or may not have, it is more about the older folk and their attitudes and behavior and perceptions. And because of that, circling back to the beginning of this piece, we promise one thing and manage to another.

Look.

We’ve all been the givers and receivers of broken promises. In life and in business no one can say that they haven’t let someone down. But this ‘promise one thing manage to another’ is important. And I don’t even believe most older managers even recognize they are breaking promises.

And it not only bleeds into the work place attitudes & culture, but it bleeds the organization of its lifeblood.

Work ethic is a tricky thing to discuss.

Research has shown that work ethic varies with education level, whether a person works full-time or part-time, income level and marital status.  The lower the level of education of an employee, the higher their work ethic has been found to be. People with full-time jobs were found to be less likely to endorse a protestant work ethic than people with part-time jobs; and people with low incomes and those who were married tended to report stronger protestant work ethic (Tang and Tzeng, 1992).

The perception of how hard one works may also be associated with how individuals themselves approach tasks as well.  For instance, boomers have often been characterized as being process-oriented, while younger generations, as being results-focused, irrespective of where and when the task is done.

While younger workers focus on high productivity, they may be happier with the flexibility of completing a task at their own pace and managing their own time, as long as they get the job done right and by the deadline.

—————————–

So … while we wring our hands and bitch & moan about ‘these young people today’ with other older business folk, if we could keep our pie holes shut for a minute or two and listen … REALLY listen, we could hear the dismay and despairs of the fall of their dreams.

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

“From where you are you can hear their dreams. The dismays and despairs and flight and fall and big seas of their dreams.”

Dylan Thomas

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

We older folk <managers & leaders & parents> are so focused on outcome that we are losing sight of our future generation aspirations, hopes & dreams. Even on a practical sense of those words.

If you look at the typical path of life for most people, maybe about 90% of the journey is spent working toward achieving various goals and only maybe10% in the actual results <and I am most likely skewing the results number high>.

Yet.

In the business world we invest 90% of our energy focused on result analysis <and rewards & such> and only 10% on the journey. And … please … please don’t tell me this doesn’t affect how the young perceive how things should be done <or that it is ‘good lessons for them to learn’>.

Because we are teaching them not only the wrong lessons but also ones they do not believe in. and the risks are high <for our future> By the way … our outcome focus also further widens the gap between the haves and the have nots … for different reasons:

–           outcome orientation for middle/upper class means ‘do whatever it takes’ to achieve outcome type attitudes … that includes bending the rules, cheating & plagiarism <at its worst> or simple manipulation of the system to my benefit at its best …

–          outcome orientation for lower middle/lower class means ‘give up’ <lose hope> because (a) they do not have the resources to compete with middle/upper and (b) they have an inherently lower probability of attaining the success middle/upper does so why put the energy in <and put the energy elsewhere instead>.

But that is a separate rant.

Anyway.

Research is loud and clear. If you don’t model values <or something other than outcome>, verbalizing, even enthusiastically or passionately, may not help in the short run. And in the long run verbalizing is less effective than doing while saying nothing at all.

People often believe that character causes action … well … when it comes to producing a young moral business generation we need to remember that action also shapes character. Our behavior, this relentless pursuit of outcome & results, builds or unbuilds the next business generation.

In the end.

This ends up being a large complex issue of changing attitudes & behaviors … of older business people not younger business people. Or maybe even on a larger scale … older people and not younger people.

This also ends up meaning some troubling self reflection.

Maybe all of us older folk need to take a step back and as the psychologist Karl Weick says:

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

“How can I know who I am until I see what I do? How can I know what I value until I see where I go?”

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

Maybe the better question is:

“how often do I make promises on hope … and manage behavior by fear?”

We created this outcome generation and some of us cannot wait to ‘unmake it’ so that young people don’t live in constant fear of “am I generating outcomes” and instead build businesses of substance & value beyond simple transactions & outcomes. Ponder.

====

“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.”

Plato

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

“A person who can think differently and truly on his feet will always find it difficult to sit and fit as an employee in a workplace, for his attitude & approach towards the work will often hit the ego of most co-workers.”

Anuj Somany

===========

“If u want to work in Corporate, then u should know how to play Chess.”

honeya

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

Ok. I was asked recently about a past job I had where I had struggled to be successful. After hemming and hawing a little <I have never really been sure what hemming or hawing was> I answered “the position required a dedicated navigator with navigator skills and I am a sledgehammer with some navigator vision.”

<note: I didn’t understand that until actually into the role & assumed responsibility>

Yeah.

I am a sledge hammer. Always have been and I assume I always will be.

I respect navigators, but they are too slow for my tastes, far too often worried about political correctness and always too skewed toward what is important politically versus ‘what is the right thing to do.’

Ok.

Let me explain navigators and sledge hammers.

In business, there are just some people who see office politics <which all organizations have whether you like it or not> and they have the skills and vision to navigate them to get shit done <they also tend to benefit personally with this skill>.

In business, there are just some people who want to get the right shit done and believe if it is right then … well … it is better to just say ‘damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead’ rather than screw around with navigating people’s feelings and politics.

Now.

That doesn’t mean that sometimes a navigator isn’t more effective and that a navigator, which is tightly associated with someone who can play office politics, is always a corporate whore.

That also doesn’t mean that there aren’t navigators with good moral compasses because there are a shitload of ‘navigator managers’ who are skilled organizational politicians who do not showcase questionable behavior or even distasteful ‘sucking-up’ behavior.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that pretty much any leader worth a shit takes a realistic approach to managing around workplace politics. This does not mean they are ‘political’, per se, or want to play the political game it’s just they understand that you have to navigate competing interests, whatever resources may be available, the nuances of what is viewed as authority <and who has the authority which is most typically “enough to hang yourself’>, the bendable organizational rules and whatever information is available.

And, to be clear, the best of the navigators have a sledge hammer in their tool box <and use it on occasion>.

And, to be clear, the best of the sledge hammers have either some navigational skills or, at minimum, navigational vision <i.e., they can ‘see’ the politics and organizational rubble affecting your path>.

Me?

I am a sledgehammer. I like to get shit done.

Always have and always will.

Okay. I like getting smart shit done. And I really like getting smart ‘right’ shit done.

The nuance between that stuff is clear because if all I did was get shit done, smart & right being set aside, politics and navigating would become almost irrelevant. Because then you are simply a doer <not a thinker or a thinker/doer>. But even as a sledge hammer you recognize that whether you hate it, admire it, practice it or avoid it, office politics is a fact of life in any organization. And, like it or not, it’s something that you need to understand to insure not only your professional success, but the success of the good shit you want to do.

Yeah. Sure.

“Politics” certainly has a negative connotation. It most often refers to strategies people use to seek advantage at the expense of others or the greater good. In this context, it often adversely affects the working environment and relationships within it.

<and sledge hammers abhor this type of politics bullshit>

I hesitate to suggest there could ever be something called “good office politics”, but some organizational expert asshats believe that is the kind of crap you do which helps you fairly promote yourself and your ideas <they call it networking and stakeholder management – I call it the ‘necessary bullshit you just have to suck up and do in order to get good shit done’>.

As a sledge hammer I realized that there were some things that a navigator was good at and I should learn if I wanted to be a more effective sledgehammer.

About the only thing I truly value in a navigator is “social astuteness.” This is the ability to read and anticipate situations – allows you to prepare, adapt and tailor your behavior based on the people and conditions around you.

In my words this is being aware of the people and what they believe in combination with understanding the context and the situation and, ultimately, bending all existing resources to the situation at hand.

Let’s just call this “360degree context” <at least that is how a sledgehammer views it>.

Now.

Being aware is different than acting upon it. Being aware meant that it prepared me, and my groups, to manage the carnage or consequences of slamming your way straight thru a maze.

As a sledge hammer it pays to understand the real map, or maze, of the organization. I believe we all know that internal politics, more often than not, has little to do with the real organizational chart they give you when you sign on. Informal networks are usually the engine, the real power, that makes any organization work.

Someone outlined this important crap to be aware of really well:

    Who are the real influencers?

    Who has authority but doesn’t exercise it?

    Who is respected?

    Who champions or mentors others?

    Who is “the brains behind the organization”?

As a sledge hammer I realized there were absolutely some things that were in my control as I bashed my way through the middle of the maze getting to where I believed an idea, or the business at large, should go.

But, as a sledge hammer, I also recognized I needed to manage my own behavior <this lesson took some time … and learned thru some painful trial & error>. Through watching others and some painful trial & error you learn what works in your organization’s culture.

But you learn really fast … as in REALLY fast … that as a sledge hammer you invest exactly 0% of your time and 0 energy on:

• Gossip & spreading rumors: you learn to shut up and even when you hear something you wait and assess the credibility
• Interpersonal conflicts – you avoid “like/dislike people” discussions and certainly do not get sucked into arguments
• Integrity above all: this is a sledge hammer mantra … be professional, do not cut corners, do things right and always remember the organization’s interests
• No complaining: a sledgehammer accepts it will not be easy and you don’t whine about the tough path you have chosen <because it is the path you have chosen>
• Confidence: a sledgehammer is assertive not arrogant, proactive maybe edging on aggressive without ever sneaking into aggressiveness
• Never personal: a sledge hammer has only one thing in focus … the good of the organization and business outcomes <it is NEVER personal>
• Transparency:  assume everything is gonna be seen anyway so you may as well share it all

Look.

Here is what I know.

When you are a sledgehammer and everything goes right it is not only the best in the world for you but organizationally everyone kind of goes “whoa, that was something.”

<which is kind of cool and makes it all worthwhile>

I will admit.

Being a sledgehammer is a lonelier way to conduct business than being a navigator. It isn’t that you are not liked nor does it mean you aren’t viewed as a team member at the table, but navigators, I tend to believe, are just more social human beings & employees.

But sledge hammers have one thing in common — we are all homesick for an organization where we can not think about anything but getting good smart shit done.

===========

“I am homesick for a place I am not sure even exists.

One where my heart is full. My body loved. And my soul understood.”

(via lipstick-bullet)

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

===========

“For our own success to be real, it must contribute to the success of others.”

–

Eleanor Roosevelt

======

“The way to achieve your own success is to be willing to help somebody else get it first.”

Iyanla Vanzant

=========

Business, as businesses should, think about how to improve their business. The good ones balance effectiveness and efficiency, the poor ones triple down on efficiency. But. 95% (I made that # up) of businesses focus on customers, service, process, systems and “best practices” — in their pursuit of efficiency (with head nods to effectiveness). This means 95% typically think of people as interchangeable pieces who can deliver all the service, process and outputs. All the systems are designed to ‘output’ and people simply make the systems ‘go.’

I would argue this is at the root of why organizations begrudgingly train employees. I would argue this is not only a bad ‘grudge’ if you really want to improve your business, but it is also stupid.

I always made a promise to anyone who ever worked for me – “if you ever leave this job I promise you will be well prepared to do well at your next job.” I’m not sure I was particularly good at preparing people for life, but I always said if you had a title/job responsibility with me you would be able to do that title/job responsibility wherever you went.

3 reasons:

• I knew people outgrew jobs & organizations and often organizations sucked at meeting peoples ‘grow’ needs. In other words, there is an incredibly high likelihood a current employee would become an ex-employee. I felt a responsibility to prepare them for their next job believing I/we would benefit for as long as they stayed where they were.
• Word of mouth is the most powerful recruiter. If you give, you get. The more people I sent out to build successful careers of their own, the more people recommended new employees to me or past co-workers sent people to me.
• I didn’t care about training per se, I cared about preparation to do jobs well. That may sound like semantics, but I think its important semantics. I believe businesses get hung up on “training people and receiving benefit.” And they may be right because, if you view training as simply training, you will most likely will not reap any meaningful benefits. On the other hand. If you look at maximizing an individual and enabling someone to do their job well, you will not only build individual strengths & potential, but also receive the direct benefit of them doing the job well. Choose wisely.

Regardless of your own view on this topic, the bottom line is a decision to invest in a person. Not some nebulous, often vapid, “invest in your people”, but rather ‘a person.’

I, honestly, can’t figure out why this is so difficult for businesses to grasp.

Is it lack of trust in people?

Is it a leadership ego thing?

Is it simply a misunderstanding of culture as a ‘we’ thing .. that you can enable & empower individuals and still be a ‘we’ culture?

I don’t know, but I do know any lasting change or effect in a business is not organizational or on systems or even on some broader cultural narrative. People leave, therefore, if your modus operandi is to enforce or impose (this includes ‘best practices’) systems, I can guarantee you that enforcing or imposing is not motivating nor long term effective (nor even optimizing short term effectiveness).

Truly lasting change & organization effect is within people themselves. Effectiveness is emergent. And because it is emergent it is something they not only embody when within the business, but also take with them outside the business (in life, family, community and other jobs). Therefore. To effectively lead people you actually need to view people beyond the limits of the organizational boundaries. This may sound odd, even inefficient. Its not. It doesn’t ignore the job that existing responsibilities demand, but it also enables individual potential to cross and bridge normal divides & barriers. Or, as Peter Drucker said, ‘business is of the community and the community is of the business.” And that is where true benefits reside. We far too often discuss ‘getting out of your comfort zone’ when instead we should suggest there is no zone or even if there is you should just push out on the limits and boundaries and give people the freedom to grow (and the business will grow). When a person is engaged as part of who & what they are they have the ability to engage to their fullest potential.

“Why do you, or they, or anyone get to determine my limits?”

Veronica Roth

Simplistically this is investing in people, not an organization. This leads me to the eternal question in business: “why train employees (people) if all they are going to do is leave? (and someone else will benefit by my investment).”

This is a valid, and important, topic.

At its core is, well, business’s decision to make business better. It’s like believing if you plant healthy seeds they will bloom here, there and everywhere and the entire forest grows.

Believing this demands we view a business in a non traditional way – you don’t ‘push down’ beliefs, behavior, responsibilities, etc. because, honestly, any time anything is ‘pushed down’ the world shudders to a halt as the people who are actually doing the work take the round peg senior leadership has created and try to figure out how to put it in the square hole of reality. In order to do so, most times, instead of convincing leadership they actually need a square peg, the teams design a mish mash version of a round peg that will fit into the square hole.

“In our consumer culture, we are encouraged to assume roles that aren’t truly authentic to who we are. In a way, this culture is its own kind of simulation, one that requires us to make more and more purchases to maintain the integrity of the illusion.”

Stowe Boyd

To be clear. I am not suggesting a ‘bossless’ organization. And while I do believe business has become more complex than in the past, I have always believed maximizing an individual maximizes the business. What was true then is exponentially true as business becomes more complex.

Stowe Boyd said “We’re in a time of rapidly expanding insights about human motivation and connection, but meanwhile our companies continue to be run with a perspective on human psychology and sociology circa 1970.” I slightly disagree. While, as a generalization, it may be true, I would suggest some people have always known this is the best way to maximize an organization — its just that leadership doesn’t trust it to be done that way.

Of course I believe discussing new organizational models is important and, in some cases, a business should have a new business model. But at the core of any organizational discussion it really isn’t about models but rather “how do you think about individuals?”

Because until you answer that question autonomy, empowerment, self management, is all irrelevant. If you do not believe in people, than you do believe in control. Period. Full stop.

If you do believe in people, than you will stop talking about leaders, and what makes great leaders, but instead talk about resource management – how can we get the proper resources into the proper hands at the proper times to maximize each individual and group of individuals.

This expands the business by expanding the individual. Therefore leadership isn’t about direction or control, but rather managing/optimizing expansion. Ponder.

………. if your efforts suck … the universe will configure around your suckedness …

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

“Happiness makes time move too fast.

Unhappiness makes time move too slow.

Yet, time, is indifferent to what you want and moves the same pace all the time.”

Me

======

‘How long do projects take’ and ‘is that enough time to get something done’ are possibly the most discussed topics in business conference rooms around the world. “More time” is possibly the most used phrase in those meeting rooms. Which gets me to “100” and what was known as Napoleon’s Hundred Days campaign to point out how much shit can be done in 100 days as well as how precarious effective doing can be.

Oh. First. History. After kicking the crap out of almost every country and general for over a decade or so Napoleon abdicates his throne and on May 4, 1814 Napoleon is exiled to an island no sane person had ever heard of <Elba>. After kicking around on this miserable little island for a while Napoleon realizes that retirement ain’t as cracked up as people made it out to be and in February 1815 he says “the heck with retirement … I miss the whole leadership thing <that I was pretty darn good at>” and scrams off the island.

March 1, 1815: Escapes Elba, Napoleon returns in South France

March 7, 1815: Napoleon rallies the French army

March 20, 1815: King of France, Louis XVIII flees, Napoleon takes control, begins “Hundred Days” campaign.

What happened in the 100 days <the cliff notes version>:

Napoleon did what he always did when he was in trouble and what he was <frankly> great at, he went on the offensive. With his newly raised army of around 75000 troops, he attacked Belgium, where the British and Prussian armies were camped. His hope was that he could separately destroy these armies before the Russians and Austrians arrived. The British army was commanded by the Duke of Wellington and the Prussian army was commanded by Marshal Gebhard Blucher. The French army engaged the Prussians first at Ligny, on June 16, 1815. The battle was either a slight win for Napoleon or just relatively indecisive <although imminently winnable by Napoleon should a domino or two fallen his way> and both sides regrouped.

Napoleon decided next to attack the English, then at Waterloo, a village near Brussels.

On June 18 1815, the British and the Prussians defeated Napoleon. The British/Prussian victory signaled the end of a more-than-ten- year period filled with war <and a boatload of Napoleon victories>. At Waterloo, Napoleon had 72,000 troops, Wellington commanded 68,000 troops, and Blucher 45,000 <this becomes relevant later when I point out that “they” had more resources than “he”>. Suffice it to say there were a boatload of good and iffy decisions made by both sides, but maybe the biggest was because the ground was muddy on the day of the battle Napoleon made the critical decision of waiting for the ground to dry before attacking Wellington’s forces in the afternoon. This delay allowed Blucher’s forces to reach Waterloo in time to make a difference in the outcome of the battle. While the French made assault after assault on the British, they were slow to make progress, and Blucher’s Prussians advanced against the French army’s eastern flank.

Marshal Ney, one of Napoleon’s best commanders <called ‘the bravest of the brave’ although, in general, he wasn’t the most thoughtful general>, orchestrated a combined attack of soldiers and artillery, and came very close to breaking Wellington’s line. However, Napoleon could not reinforce Ney’s attack, since he was forced to divert a large number of troops from fighting the British, including his crack Imperial Guard, in order to face the Prussians.

Now. Second. Let me try and make several points relevant to business and projects.

100 days.

A shitload can happen in 100 days if you know what you are doing, are a good leader and have a great support <management> team. In fact you can gather almost 100,000 personnel and the materials needed to sustain them and move them hundreds of miles and get them to perform at the highest level if you really have your shit together.

My first point. 100 days is a lifetime if you use it well. Businesses can dither around and make excuses, but if you cannot get something done in 100 days you should probably be looking for some other business to conduct. If someone <Napoleon> can swing almost 100,000 men into action and in a span of three or four days of battle at the end of 100 days almost win a victory when outnumbered and outresourced, it seems pretty logical that we in business can certainly make a widget in 100 days.

My second point. 100 days doesn’t have a huge margin for error when doing something big and important.

Everything has to happen fairly efficiently and everyone has to be aligned. It helps when you have a tried & true team in place. The right people at the right place at the right time. Not just the workers,  but the management too.

In today’s business this is the trickiest.

100 days is a lifetime if you have the right team.

100 days and you can still have victory <not just show up or ‘get it done’> if you have the right team.

100 days never seems like enough if you lose … ponder that … because I see too many times when it doesn’t end well that a business will sit around and say “if we only had more time!” and suggest 100 days was not enough.

Bullshit. It wasn’t the time. It was the team <or the system or a combination thereof>.

Which leads me to maybe my most important point.

The importance of the <management> team:

It seems rarely mentioned but Napoleon not only glimpsed victory at Waterloo … it was his to be had. I will let all the military experts tear apart the minutiae in the decisions made that day. From a business perspective the key to the loss <to me> was simple. Napoleon didn’t have his tried & true chief of staff, Marshal Berthier, on this campaign. Napoleon sorely missed the legendary Marshal Berthier as chief of staff, and Marshal Soult <his replacement> was a good, but not as good, substitute.

Oh. And there was a domino effect on the entire management team as people shifted to assume slightly new roles.

Napoleon was the master at making on field decisions and yet permitting independent decisionmaking — empowering his best to do their best. And, let’s be clear, Napoleon possibly built the greatest team outside of the 1927 New York Yankees <murderers Row>. By Waterloo several stood on the sidelines, were dead or were managing from a different role than they were accustomed to. But. Napoleon’s management team, his marshals and generals below the marshals, were the best of the best.

Now. It is possible Napoleon should have shifted his management style to accommodate the shift in the personnel, but that is speculative thinking <because if he shifted his style who knows how that would have affected everything else>.

100 days would have been nothing if the team was in place.

Whoa. So I am suggesting one person … and not even ‘the leader’ can make that big a difference?

You bet. In business this chief of staff person is:

<a> reviled by the young employees as old, conservative and an order taker for the leader,

<b> loved & hated by middle management as they love the fact this person deciphers the vague, but inspirational thinking of the leader and gives them the specifics on what to do, but hates that this person is not the most creative thinker in the room and is always bitching about why you cannot have the resources you claim you need to do the job you are being given, and

<c> appreciated by the leader because this person can decipher what you are really thinking, get people to do it and while maddeningly conservative <versus the leader> they have a tendency to stop the leader from doing something too incredibly stupid <or risky>.

This person is key to the success of a great leader and an organization. Napoleon saw things on a battlefield that no one else could ever see. He could see things before they happened. But that kind of person <as a general or in business> needs someone to coordinate and corral the incredibly talented independent thinkers & managers who will actually implement the vision. And it takes a while to learn how to decipher a truly visionary leader.

Soult was a good general, but probably a novice decipherer. In addition by shifting Soult into chief of staff all the other marshals began assuming different roles & responsibilities.

You get it. You need someone to decipher as well as you need someone to implement and in a 100 days it helps if the people who know what to do are in familiar roles.

How a leader is judged:

Yes. This matters in getting things done because, well, if you lose you are a loser and are inevitably second guessed.

Napoleon was arguably the greatest general in history <if you want to be nitpicky you could say the greatest offensive general in history>. I am probably wrong, but I struggle to think of one battle in his history that Napoleon had more resources <men & artillery> than his enemy and yet he constantly drove on the offensive … and won.

No leader has ever done more with less than Napoleon.

At Waterloo he had just won a phenomenal battle at Ligny two days before, after one of the greatest blitzkriegs ever mounted. During his lightning advance, he had managed to separate two major armies who knew he was coming, and inflict simultaneous defeats on both of them. At Waterloo two of the greatest commanders in all of history faced each other. Wellington, master of defense, was in an entrenched position that he had chosen, and counted on the arrival of Blucher. Napoleon considered the Prussians under control by Grouchy, and had von Bulow not arrived in Napoleon’s flank and rear, the French would undoubtedly have won, and we’d be reading about Napoleon’s finest victory, Ney’s brilliant attacks etc.

Oh. But he lost.

Winning and losing is often defined by the slimmest of margins. Sometimes even by chance. But most likely it is defined somewhere within the organization and how the organization, and its people, take action.

That is somewhere within the dependence upon solid visionary direction and independence to react to the situation.

101 days wouldn’t have given Napoleon a victory. It wasn’t time <or the lack of it>. It was more likely the management team <or possibly his lack of effectiveness in communicating what he wanted to a new management team>.

Napoleon is typically judged by his two historical losses … Russia and Waterloo. Geez. Can’t a great general <leader> get a break?

Answer: Nope.

Leaders typically get defined by how they end and not all the good <or not so good> done inbetween. If you want to get things done, this is the burden in doing so.

Anyway.

100 days is a good reminder of what a great leader can do in 100 days as well as how slim a margin moving quickly gives you between victory and loss. But, please, please don’t tell me something can’t get done in a 100 days.

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

“Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but of playing a poor hand well.”

—-

Robert Louis Stevenson

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

Whew. This quote is often used and used with such a tone and inflection that does more damage than good. What I mean is that in discussing Life with someone, particularly in reference to their Life <business or personal>, if you are not careful how you use these words it can either:

<a> come across as condescending,

<b> come across as blatant ignorance as to someone’s situation, i.e., it is often used toward people in low income, low education geography as ‘inspirational words of wisdom, or even

<c> come across as flippant tripe.

Regardless.

I imagine it is a Life truth that pretty much anyone can play a good hand <or at minimum be less likely to screw it up>. Unfortunately, pretty much no one ever <or rarely> gets dealt a perfect hand. Almost everyone gets dealt some bad cards and some people just get dealt shitty hand after shitty hand. What I will say is that the institutional systems are clearly not equitable and simply working hard and playing an incredibly poor hand you are dealt well does not guarantee success, but, you gotta play the hand you are dealt.

That said. Suffice it to say playing a poor hand sucks.

But just because you are in a situation you don’t want to be in, well, in Life you really can’t fold. You need to work with what you have.  Sometimes you, if you are really good, you can take a poor hand and play it out much better than someone with a much better hand.  You are just more clever or smart or thoughtful & industrious.

Anyway.

Rather than discussing Life in general I want to use this quote to talk about business. Because, frankly, business is very rarely a matter of holding good cards, but rather of playing a poor hand well. If you are worth even half a shit in business you can play a good hand <and, in fact, you learn to not waste a good hand>, but if you are worth even half a shit in business you also know you very <very> rarely get a good hand.

Pretty much every hand you get dealt is flawed in some way and, in fact, often it is a poor hand.

Almost every successful person I know has been dealt some bad cards in their business lifetime. Sometimes some really bad cards. Cards you simply want to toss off to the side in disgust. But you don’t toss them. You keep them in your hand and think about what the fuck you can do with them. These people figure out how to take those cards and use them to put together a victory. They don’t give up when others thought their hand was unwinnable. They found ways to use those cards for the benefit and growth of the business.

They owned the hand and figured out how to win. By the way, that is business in a nutshell.

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

“We are all dealt a hand and we have to decide how to play it.”

Voltaire

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

We all go through things in our business life that we don’t always like.

Things that we have no control over.

Things that others have in place that we have to deal with <and can’t change>.

Things that put us in a place and position we can’t change.

All that said.

You can’t fold.

We have to play the hand that we were dealt. You have to choose progress over waiting for ‘the perfect hand’ <which – sorry to say – does not exist> or even waiting around for a better hand to be dealt.

I am writing this because while I have found many business people use great cards to increase the chance to win the hand I have also seen that it doesn’t really guarantee them a victory.

In fact <part 1>, more often than not, having a less than desirable hand doesn’t mean you automatically lose. There are other factors that go into winning <or finding some success>.

In fact <part 2>, I would suggest that more often than not, a less than desirable hand wins.

The best business people know you don’t get to trade cards with anyone else or pay extra to upgrade your hand so they work the hand they have as well as it can be played.

Look.

Each of us is dealt a hand when we come into work every day. I say that because it is important to remember most of the circumstances around you are out of your control, you don’t decide what circumstances you walk into every day and it does no good to complain about them or expect that they will determine your success.

That said.

<1> Many people think that a great hand, good circumstances, will guarantee their success <and increase the likelihood of happiness>.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

<2> Others will use their less than desirable circumstances as a crutch for why they don’t succeed. They take a look at the hand they were dealt and fold immediately.

They are foolish.

The hand you were dealt cannot be changed, but the way you play it can.

When you go through shit as we all do we all also have the choice how that ‘hand you were dealt’ is played … and inevitably you will do what you believe is best.

Or the best of the worst choices.

Or making the worst best.

Regardless.

You are simply doing what you think it right. And you know what?

In retrospect, if you line up all the choices you made, it will be difficult to see how some of the choices in the left hand column are right … if some of the ones in the right hand column are right. Why? Because you played the cards you had <which were imperfect in the first place>.

But you don’t get to do it over. Part of growing up in business is simply learning to live with regrets and choices made. In an odd way business is a little different than Life in this whole ‘play the cards you have been dealt’ thing.

You will actually find that business is made up of mostly bad choices. Or maybe better said … making the best of the less than best choices. All you really try and do is to keep your balance between them.

In addition … you will actually find that in business, versus Life, is every hand … even if it is bad … even really bad … still has the potential to be a winning hand. And because it is business … as we view the hands we are dealt … I imagine we seek some learning from the past. In other words … you will want to look at some past hands and examine how others have played them.

<note 1: often we do this to some absurd levels>

<note 2: this is sometimes called “procrastination” or “avoiding making the decision”>

Well.

Don’t waste your time.

Fundamental business human behavior doesn’t change over time. You can explore the functional and/or ethical choices <because people inevitably do get affected by how you play your hand> made by others in the past … and we often want to super-examine those made in the most extreme circumstances … but I cannot envision they were any more or less capable to deal with the situations than we are. You can go backwards and judge their decisions and you can be criticize … or applaud … their decisions.

But inevitably the questions lurking behind all that you examine is … what if it had been you? What would you have done in their shoes in that moment?

That’s it. Not their learning, but rather what you would do with those cards in that circumstance. And you know what? I do not need to go backwards in time to figure out what I would do now. Frankly, I will not be any more comfortable knowing that I am doing something that someone else did in the past or something different than someone else did in the past, I have to seek comfort in my decision and my choice.

In the end.

In business … in life … you play the cards you are dealt the best you can. No excuses.You just play ‘em.

And you know what? You will get deal another hand and you play that one the best you can. And maybe that is what this quote tries to tell us.

The last hand doesn’t affect the current cards you hold in hand. And it shouldn’t affect the way you play the next hand. And you certainly don’t get judged by how you played the last hand in the cards you are dealt. People may look at you differently but the cards make no judgment.

They simply get dealt. And you play ‘em.

In the end.

As stated earlier, in business you are more likely than not simply making the best of bad, or less than optimal, choices, therefore, business is pretty much all about playing poor hands well. Ponder that.

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

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>Originally posted in 2012

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

“I have tried in my way to be free.”

——————

Leonard Cohen

====

Ok. Occam’s Razor. You know: “the simplest explanation is usually the best one.”

Developed by 14th-century English Franciscan friar William of Ockham, Ockam’s Razor <more commonly spelled Occam’s razor>, suggests one should seek the ‘more economical solution.’ What he actually wrote <in Summa Logicae 1323> was “it is futile to do with more what can be done with fewer.”

Well.

This fabulous concept has been hijacked, twisted into a pretzel and, in general, bastardized under the insidious guise of ‘common sense’ logic.  It has been hijacked under the whole idea that ‘freedom’ is more often found in simplicity or the simplest explanations and , therefore, in a way those who use the concept in a misguided way are … well … bastardizing Life itself <and screwing up business in the business world>.

Yeah. Somehow … somewhere … someone decided that good ole Occam’s razor could be used day in and day out as ‘common sense living.’

I would point out that Ockham himself, a philosopher, wasn’t a big fan of simplistic common sense.

I would further point out that Ockham’s razor theory was based on, all things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the best one.

I would also point out that by “simple” Occam’s razor is really referring to the theory with the fewest new assumptions.

And, in fact, I would also point out that inevitably there are times when the simplest explanation for a given set of observations is, well, wrong.

Occam’s razor never claims to determine the truth or untruth of something. It only identifies the things we should logically consider and evaluate. Common sense, under the guise of simplicity, far too often strips, well, an idea, a concept, a process & a theory — of the texture & hues of which they should be judged.

The truth is that black, or white, is overrated … as in ‘this is a black or white thing.” The most interesting things and, frankly, the most effective ordinary things & ideas are neither black nor white nor even gray.

Complexity is a colorful idea & thought.

Therefore. Should we view Occam’s Razor the way skeptics use it we would find that their ‘one explanation is more likely’ not only doesn’t mean it is a common sense black & white issue, but it also tends to mean that the ‘common sense solution is not only not common nor of sense’. More importantly, common sense also commonly suggests the incorrect solution.

Skeptics <or ‘simplify or die’ seekers>, in their attempt to simplify everything, treat Occam’s Razor as if it were an actual “Law of things” and use it to enable denying any rational claim, no matter how valid, based on … well … common sense. Occam’s Razor is not a ‘law’, simply a ‘rule’ of thought or a principle for which to think about things.

Look. It was not meant to be anything associated with ‘common sense.’ Instead it was about making choices and deductions economically. Occam’s razor was never meant for paring everything down to some beautiful simplistic core of truth.

The truth is that most things are, unfortunately, difficult and messy – even complex. And, yes, I can absolutely see why someone would gravitate to the good ole razor with the intent to simplify. But Ockham’s razor was not intended to cut away anything & everything or eliminate logic it simply suggested that when everything is done, when everything has been thought of, and if all things were equal, you should look to the most economical solution as the one which made the most sense.

No, not common sense, but rather ‘the most sense.’

Or. As Tao Ching said; “seek simplicity, grasp the essential.’

Occam’s razor does not mean eliminating the essential no matter how complex or burdensome the essential it is.

Why? Well. We certainly do not want to make things more complicated than they need to be, but you also do not want to simplify so much that losing something essential ends up ‘under complicating’ things. And this is where common sense and the whole simplicity thing really screws up good ole Occam & the razor.

Pretty much any great theory, any great concept, any great idea has to incorporate what I would call ‘intentional simplification.’ That is intentionally ignoring some things <some effects or causes of things> not because they do not exist or do not actually happen, but because they do not have any impact or much of an impact on the final outcome. Conversely, this means some idiot <or a bunch of them> are going to wander around picking up all the non essential things and say “common sense suggests your conclusion is flawed because you ignored these things.”

WTF.

“I purposefully, intentionally, ignored them … as meaningless in the grander scheme of things.”

In some absurd version of their world their ‘simple common sense facts’, well, over complicate things. They use Occam to … holy shit … complicate things. Uh oh. They actually use common sense to … holy shit part 2 … complicate things.

As I said back in September 2013 when I first used Occam’s razor: sometimes what is … is … well … just is.

Yeah. That may be the paradox that ‘common sense’ struggles with – sometimes the simplest explanation is complex and maybe even ambiguous and your job is to make it understandable, not simple.

Look.

Occam does not nor should it take sides on any given issue.

Occam does not nor should it shame a complex issue out of existence.

People who ignorantly wield Occam’s Razor often seem to be unaware of this.

To wield it incorrectly is a lazy tactic at best.

To wield it incorrectly is usually a reflection of ignoring the crucial question … whether there really is a need for the questioning.

Shit. That alone is Occam’s largest suggestion — should I slice away questioning what is?

Anyway.

Where the lazy Occam users gain confidence is that Occam, at his core <albeit I did not know him personally> was a nominalist maybe even a minimalist. But even the most simplistic minimalist recognizes that analysis of anything truly worthwhile is likely to be incredibly complex — even at its simplest.

While I love simplicity, I will admit, the utility of Occam’s Razor is highly questionable. I fear that its misuse flippantly eliminates the useful by selecting over-simplified competitors. Occam’s razor is simply a heuristic or rule of thumb which should be used to guide discussion but not to offer a solution. All it does is to encourage us to favor, among otherwise equivalent theories or hypotheses, those that make the fewest unwarranted assumptions.

It is not a law.

It is not a scientific principle.

It cannot justify a position in and of itself.

It does not represent common sense.

Maybe everyone should remember only one thing about Occam’s razor that really matters — the razor analogy refers to “shaving off” or cutting from the theory those variables or concepts that are superfluous & non-essential and only create unnecessary complications. Maybe everyone should remember before they invoke Occam’s Razor as common sense that it is more important to identify ‘the essential’ as true common sense decision making.

In the end?

“I have tried in my own way to be free.”

Far too often people do so by attempting to simplify. They assume, through common sense, that less is better & less is more. And, in some ways, that is true, but not at the expense of what is essential & needed. Complexity is a Life truth. Freedom of choice, of living or almost anything is more often found in an “economical truth” and not in a ‘simplistic truth.’

Ponder that for a while.

==========

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>Originally published August 2016

——

Portuguese:

saudade

… a longing for something so indefinite as to be indefinable.   Love affairs, miseries of life, the way things were, people already dead, those who left and the ocean that tossed them on the shores of a different land – all things born of the soul that can only be felt. 

==

Anthony De Sa

———–

“He marveled at the indifference of the world, the way it kept on, despite everything.”

==

Anthony Doerr

————-

Ok. I am fairly sure everyone desires the greater intangible things in life: the things, or thing, you just cannot put words to but you know is out there and you will “know it when you see it or feel it”. Unfortunately, well, the intangible also tends to be elusive.

It is also very very difficult to clearly define or put words to it <hence many people choose to focus on some specific milestone or objective>. I would suggest the intangible is elusive because the world is indifferent to our desires. What do I mean? The world is relatively uninterested in offering the intangible in tangible form. The world simply tends to fork over tangible crap to us and it is up to us to peel it all back and bask in the intangible good stuff found within.

But that takes time and is more difficult.

Therefore. We tend to seek tangibles.

And more tangibles.

And then more tangibles.

This means that we are almost destined, despite that in our soul we deeply long for something indefinable, to settle for tangible proof that we are showing some progress.

I do not really care what the proof is … just that we settle for it.

What Is Elusive? The definition of “elusive” is:

elusive: evasive, slippery, difficult to find, catch or achieve

Speaking of desiring proof – that is why we often create deadlines. Deadlines are powerful things as we face our longing for the indefinite <and the definite>. More often than not we use the deadline to insure we do not waste too much time on something we are not sure can be easily defined. But think about what a deadline really is.

Today the term is now used, mostly, to refer to “the time by which something must be completed.” In the historical sense a deadline refers to the boundary around a prison which, if prisoners crossed it, they’d be shot by the guards. Wow. Okay. So while deadlines are everywhere in the business world and we no longer get shot it does seem like we just get shit when we cross a deadline.

Now. Psychologists have done a boatload of research on the effect of deadlines on people. Invariably the majority of people actually improve performance as a deadline nears. They explain this by something called “the Yerkes-Dodson law.” This law suggests performance increases as arousal <excitement, stress, tension, nervousness> increases. Well. At least up to a point from which performance declines as the person, and senses, are overwhelmed.

Basically this suggests we become more aware of consequences of failing to complete what we want to do as time slips away and act upon that awareness <with some focus because the consequences of not meeting the deadline while may not include being shot certainly includes a load of shit>.

In addition. Deadlines tend to eliminate procrastination mostly because we dislike the unpleasant feeling of consequences of not meeting a deadline.

Note: Stick with me because this all has to do with our longing for something indefinite.

Ok. Now comes the next horrible thing that happens as we pursue what we truly long for. We have a deadline in our heads and we encounter something called the planning fallacy. We suck, extraordinarily so, at estimating how much time to allocate for things because our brains, in general, are quite overly optimistic with regard to our own capabilities. Therefore we underestimate time. In addition we do this because our brains have a nasty habit of looking back on past poor time allocation and failed deadlines and blame external causes <and yet the next time the thought will be that this time we will be unencumbered therefore meet our deadline successfully>.

All of this circles back to that ‘arousal’ consequence, which we hate, as it rears its ugly head one more time as our optimistic assumptions crash into the actual reality of the situation. I bring it back to ‘arousal’ because all that painful consequence stuff occurs WHEN YOU ARE PURSUING A TANGIBLE GOAL.

The waters get even murkier if you are setting some deadline on how much time you want to spend on pursuing this elusive indefinite thing. But. We are truly optimistic folk. Well. At least some of us are. What one person thinks of as elusive and indefinite another sees hope and opportunity. And depending on where you are in Life your feeling can change. The one consistent steady thing is that at all times there is a longing for something more, some longing for something so indefinite as to be undefinable.

So what can we do? We have to take responsibility for our lives and choices and this indefinite thing. We cannot subvert the longing and suffocate it with the tangible.

To be clear <part 1>. The longing should not dictate our lives and behavior, but it also should not play a role in our lives and actions.

To be clear <part 2>. That isn’t easy. Life can throw a bunch of curve balls and … well … some high hard fastballs. The biggest fastball Life throws at you is what I call “Life comparison shopping.” You shop your life against other lives.

In the good ole days it was called “keeping up with the Joneses” <using one’s neighbors as a standard of comparison for the consumption of material goods>. This sounds silly, but we are human, and it is hard not to notice when your neighbor buys something. But they are not the only standard of comparison. Television shows, magazines, websites, and pretty much anywhere you consume information inundates us with stories about what other people have, wear and do.

Yes. While we know we shouldn’t care mostly because, while we may not articulate it this way, we know conspicuous consumption is ubiquitous.

But.

Tangible proof is, well, tangible proof.

The tendency to compare yourself to to other people is fundamental and is going to occur whether or not we intend it. And, yes, in some cases, social comparison is useful. In the absence of objective standards of success, social comparison  helps us to evaluate and improve ourselves. And yet, at the same time,  sometimes social comparison suggests you are inferior in some aspect <wealth, intelligence, appearance, etc.> which can create some feelings of envy or ‘lesser than.’ Okay. This is where the tangible proof path absolutely frickin’ kills us on this pursuit of something undefinable.

“Lesser than” feelings erode the belief you can ever attain what you long for <I mean your head says “c’mon … if you cannot even be good enough to do that how can you be good enough to attain something you cannot even define .. all you can do is just discuss as something you ‘long for’?”>.

Then we remain on the middle path too long. We start missing out on the dreams. We shelve the longing and inevitably that which is undefinable remains undefined and that which we long for simply becomes an immature pursuit for only those who are dreamers. You justify this decision, and personal behavior, as you walk the middle path by always thinking that eventually you will get around to pursuing this longing … and eventually reach this undefinable thing that will makes you happy.

And then time is gone. And the longing, which is easily dismissed as “shit, I couldn’t even define it anyway”, is still there but the opportunity is gone.

Look. Pursuing something so indefinite as to be indefinable is tough. It is not for the faint of heart. To do so you need to accept that while some results are very tangible others are less so. The secret is to get your head straight from the outset on how ‘performance’ is to be measured then build in the means for measuring activity. I say that because I think the measurement is much more important than setting a deadline.

I mean, well, how can you set a deadline on something you cannot even define? <someone smarter than I would have to figure that out>.

In the end I use this quote:

====

“A rat race is for rats. We’re not rats. We’re human beings. Reject the insidious pressures in society that would blunt your critical faculties to all that is happening around you, that would caution silence in the face of injustice lest you jeopardise your chances of promotion and self-advancement. This is how it starts, and, before you know where you are, you’re a fully paid-up member of the rat pack. The price is too high.”

Jimmy Reid

=====

Part of being a human being is this inherent longing for “something.” Maybe it is captured in that one word:  saudade.

“all things born of the soul that can only be felt.”

I am not suggesting we shouldn’t do the day to day stuff that needs to be done nor am I suggesting that deadlines aren’t quite useful for some day to day shit, but I am suggesting that stuff shouldn’t be done at the sacrifice of our longing for “all things born of the soul that can only be felt.”

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

“Things which matter most must never be at the mercy of things which matter least.”

Goethe

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

What is the most important thing?

What is the one thing I should know about you?

What is the one idea (or word) that captures your brand?

If you could tell me one thing about your business/company, what would it be?

<fill in your own here>

I reject all of those questions.

Yes.

This is my rejection of the one thing.

Nothing truly interesting is made up of one thing, but worse, once things get reduced to one aspect it becomes not ruthless simplicity, but rather a terrifying simplicity.

One thing degrades life by its very simplicity by making all activity subservient solely on the motives of the one thing.

One thing encourages a fanaticism about the means employed to reach a simplistic objective of uncertain wisdom to attaining a larger objective whether it be profitability or some greater good.

One thing devolves thinking rather than evolving it. Thinking, in the absence of freedom, will inevitably arc toward whatever fulfills the one thing at the expense of many of other things that could not only add value, but be OF value.

It is intellectual weakness.

Institutionalizing ‘one thing’ means institutionalizing lack of thought or non-responsibility. The one thing becomes the default for any, and every, decision. Creativity and freedom of thought is suffocated by the majority of non-risk taker, CYA people lurking in every hallway. People have no responsibility to anything but things in service of the one thing.

This institutionalizing reduces reality to one thing and one thing only. Everyone knows what to do – whatever produces that one thing; and you know what to avoid – whatever reduces the one thing. There is no confusion on the issue in any discussion of whether a particular action maybe conducive to a greater well being or moral aesthetic or cultural enrichment.

Having said that, one thing certainly fits perfectly within a ‘quantification world’, But it does so at the expense of appreciation of qualitative differences (and value). Measurable but of limiting, reductive, value.

This is a primitive world this ‘one thing.’ It is a reduction of reality under the guise of ‘quality’ while it is actually a tool of ‘consistent quantity.’ One thing is the industrialization of thought.

Yes. Sure. A number of people will stamp their feet indignantly and say “oh no, we do a lot more than that one thing (to a grander benefit than that one thing).” Familiar claims I know. Some justified, some not. Ok. Mostly not. Those ‘things’ (outside of the one thing) can be seen, if you look closely, to be bolted on to the ‘one-thing’ organization as exceptions, not the rule.

** note: while I may be a little harsh on well-intended activity I would note that bolts rust and the first things jettisoned are not the one thing but the things used to soften the one thing.

Regardless.

At its best, it is inefficient precision.

At its ‘not-worst, but bad’’ it creates a fragility to the business.

At its absolute worst it harms society in its pursuit of the one thing at the expense of other meaningful objectives (note: profit is the easiest business example of this).

The strength of one thing is its terrifying simplicity.

It suggests the totality of a brand, a business, a life, can be reduced to one aspect. And while the brand, business, life may be interested in other aspects – perhaps goodness, integrity, greater good, or even truth – as business people you concern yourself only with the one thing. You have no choice but to do so. Not being concerned with the one thing makes you, and your work/thinking/energy have a dubious ROI in the eyes of, well, the people in power and the “one-thingers.”

I reject one thing. We are an abundance of things and the highest value is achieved when not only embracing that multitude but articulating it well.

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

author’s note:

Of course there are exceptions, but, they are exceptions. Choosing one thing as a filter, not a destination, can have value if you seek coherence instead of consistency. I would point to Dr. Jason Fox’s “Choose One Word/Ritual of Becoming” programme or John Grant’s view on brand molecules/New marketing Manifesto as examples.

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

“The way we got out of the caves and into modern civilisation is through the process of understanding and thinking. Those things were not done by gut instinct.

Being an expert does not mean that you are someone with a vested interest in something; it means you spend your life studying something.

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

—-

Brian Cox

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

 “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”

—–

Martin Luther King

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

I seem to find myself in more arguments and debates and discussions with regard to common sense, gut instinct and actual “learning” <knowledge> than is most likely healthy for me.

My sense is that I am not the only one.

To be clear.

For those who care to research it, in general, our instincts suck.

For those who care to research it, in general, common sense is most typically not that common <or representative of reality & truth> nor does it make sense <unless you are looking back at what has been done and not forward thinking about what could be done>.

For those who care to research it, in general, learned people <either formal knowledge gathering or informal incessant curiosity knowledge seekers> tend to be more right more often and less right less often.

For those who care to research it, in general, sincere ignorance has reached plague proportions.

I sometimes feel like we, in America, mistakenly wandered back into a cave. And in that cave we can find shelves filled with sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity available for anyone to take.

Now. We do not lack for excuses for not knowing shit we should know or investing some energy to gain some well needed knowledge. The conventional excuses are time, distractions, overwork, hectic lives, alternative facts, “I already know”, etc.

The list is fairly long and quite accessible to the everyday schmuck.

So while they may be representative of sincere actions they are also representative of sincere purposeful excuses from the strenuous job of thinking.

From an intellectual standpoint this means we remain in a continuous doom loop of Hegelian Dialectic, in fact, never leaving the loop which means ignorance is always at hand and reality is always out of reach.

From my perspective this doom loop encourages us to stay in the cave we are in and just believe what we believe and use our energy for anything other than thinking because we need energy for anything other than thinking.

What you believe to be true, is it true?

Or do you just believe that it is true because you were taught that it was true and you never looked any further?

 

This is sad. It is sad because we seem to have lost the ability to think. It may be even sadder that we have purposefully decided to abstain from thinking. And, overall, it’s sad because where we should see thinking and thoughtfulness we only see faux intellectualism and random absurd theories. It is sad because all of this suggests our mental limits are some simplistic tripe soundbites and clever labels <which I would suggest are poorly understood heuristic propaganda tools>.

We seem to have forgotten that what most likely got us out of the cave was, well, enlightened conflict. And when I say conflict I mean ‘what you think versus what I think’ & ‘what you know versus what you could know’ because all the rest is simply trappings and ego/identity/power crap.

For it was within the conflict of ideas and debate in which the people in the cave learned, and unlearned, which inevitably got all of us people to leave the frickin’ cave.

As I have written before there is certainly a battle going on with regard to being an expert <and believed> and certainly anything associated with ‘intellectual’ is poisoned in everyday households.

   =============

“An intellectual? Yes.

And never deny it.

An intellectual is someone whose mind watches itself.”

Albert Camus

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

I could argue we stay in the cave for a variety of reasons, but today I will suggest that true thinking has taken a back seat to greed and self-interest <which is less about thinking and more about outcomes>.

The effect of this is that a shitload of people really have no knowledge of their own. And that leads to a mind & thought process almost solely grounded in common opinion.

Well. If thought is a commodity, than from that point on the objective of greed & self-interest isn’t about thinking it is simply about playing the game well <and winning>. The problem with this is that in any game there are winners and there are losers <even though everyone hopes to win>.

Uhm.

Games are for winners and losers.

Thinking is not a game.

Life is not a game.

Using popular numbers in today’s rhetoric t make my point, in a winner-take-all game, the top 0.1% win, the winners share some of their winnings with the 2^nd and 3^rd place winners <let’s call them the remaining people of the top 1%> and 99% are losers.

I imagine what I am suggesting is that a system that rewards only the top 1% winners ensures that everyone else loses which creates a sense that 99% of people just cannot think effectively  <I am not sure how that is good for the emotional well-being of a society>..

Well. I purposefully highlighted the Hegelian doom loop earlier because in that scenario we can think about how to break this doom loop cycle.

And, yes, this takes some <gulp> thinking.

In my simplistic mind I focus on benefits. What I mean by that is in today’s world no one sees benefits in thinking and only seeing benefits in not thinking and playing some game.

We need to reprogram that which has conditioned us into this fixed and, frankly, limiting mindset.

Here is the simplest thing I can point to – reality.

Reality 1: If everyone, 100%, thinks and debates and creates new ideas and adapt status quo to new realities … well … 100% has a chance to win. And even the 99% who don’t really “win” tangibly will win by being part of the progress <this is not conceptual mumbo jumbo … this is what any business leader with half a brain knows and does with their employee base>.

Reality 2: If everyone, 100%, doesn’t think and maintains the way we do things now … well … 1% truly has a chance to win.

Oh. And once you enter the winners’ circle you actually increase the odds you will win again.

Oh. And once you become a 99% loser you actually increase the odds you will lose again.

I have to tell ya.

Lay this out like that to people and I am not so sure a shitload of people are gonna like option number 2.

Let’s face it. We have become a “non-thinking” society as we have become, as a society, less people and more & more labels of some objectified economic relationship like producers and consumers, buyers and sellers, service providers and service users.

In fact. If you do not have one of those labels, you are an outcast.

Now. In America that ‘outcast’ group is relatively small. Almost all of America participates in consumerism. Globally only a relatively small percentage of global population is participating in consumerism. The majority of population is struggling to meet the very basic requirements of life such as proper food, shelter and healthcare. That said. We have significantly increased intellectual poverty – in America and globally.

Mentally we are now back in a cave.

Mentally we are living in a state of denial and a sincere ignorance towards the fact that we have created a system where thinkers & thinking have little value and even less of a perceived potential reward to the majority of people. The result of that is the majority of the world then competes in a winner take all game in which those in power <past winners> tend create money out of thin air while owning as much as they want.

What this really means is that thinking is unnecessary to become rich.

It only requires a person to be lucky to be born into a past winner family. Which means if you are in the 99% you can be a frickin’ genius and getting rich is still more like a game of chance where the odds of ‘winning’, becoming rich, through talent are very rare.

Well.

That is fucked up.

What we need to understand is that self-interest, competition and gaining profit at the expense of others, and thinking, is not particularly fair to the 100%, but it is also not particularly helpful for any meaningful progress as a society.

What we need to understand is that we are all huddled in a cave – the 99 & the 1. Together.

We must stop following blindly the ideas of what we know but rather open our eyes to what we do not know.

Here is what I know.

If everyone is thinking, everyone is debating, everyone is questioning ‘gut instinct’ and common sense, 100% has a chance of winning and 100% will get better in some form or fashion.

In the world we live in today the thinkers are more likely to lose than some idiots who simply know how to play the game better. Think about that. Yeah. Think. That is fucked up. I want a world with smarter idiots, less sincere ignorance and thinkers to have a chance of winning on occasion.

I actually want a world where no one lives in a cave.

originally published July 2017