——–

“I don’t think that people accept the fact that life doesn’t make sense. I think it makes people terribly uncomfortable. “

David Lynch

——-

“Compromising dreams for the stunning reality of life. 🙁 “

mnmsnickers <twitter>

——-

Well. I almost called this ‘playing the game.’ Shit. I almost called this ‘scaring the world.’

“Scare the world: Be exactly who you say you are and tell the truth.”
The Shock of Honesty

When I think about this I think about hollow spaces and empty people.

Why?

Well. Compromising the wrong way, playing the game as it were, is all about filling a hollow space with empty people <or an empty job or an empty anything>.

But let’s step back a second.

Once you know what you are good at, maybe even have a clear sense of what attaining your ‘dream’ would be, you kind of have a tendency to think all you have to do from that point on is to sort out the finer details.

Compromise?

Play the game?

Those words never enter your head.

Unfortunately, we soon discover that life has other plans for us. I say that fairly sure that most of us do not grow up truly believing they could have it all — all as in a great job, a viable bank balance, a perfect relationship. But I do believe all of us grow up thinking ‘big things’ for ourselves.

Call them dreams.

Call them simply being better <or going farther> than our parents.

Call it hope for a good Life.

And no matter how we grow up I tend to believe all of us find that reality is very different than what we imagined or hoped. This is where we learn the concept of compromise. Learning to compromise is okay if it brings you back down to earth, but not okay if it means compromising how good you can be.

Somewhere in-between those two things is Life, or, “the game.” Yeah. The difficult part comes in trying to play the game.

What do I mean?

Well.

You take a job because you have to.

You take a job because it ‘gets you in.’

You say something like this … ‘doing this isn’t something I would have considered before … but I have to believe that I’m bettering my chances.’

Ah.

‘Bettering your chances.’

Playing the game.

Managing your hope.

I will say from personal experience that after what seems like a zillion psychological tests in interview processes and maybe more zillions of seemingly endless resume ‘revisions to customize to specific companies and perceived needs’ and managing hope after what may seem like an eternity of unsuccessful job submissions, I have figured out all that really matters is the core. Core as in who you are and telling people what they are gonna get.

But that’s me. I won’t play the game.

Ok. How about there are certain things in the game that I will not play.

Look. I do know that research shows that compromising early on <maybe when you first hit the job market or maybe simply as you enter adulthood out of teens> when hopes are in their most nascent and fragile form, they can easily be trampled upon with devastating consequences to our self-confidence and self-esteem.

Well. It takes on a mutated form in older adulthood.

It doesn’t attack the formative stages, it actually kills healthy esteem and confidence cells.

Maybe worse? It attacks your belief not in yourself, but in society and the structure you have prospered in up to this point.

My fear in today’s business world is that in seeking employment or even working within an organization we are constantly asking ourselves what we can do without and becoming masters in what I would call ‘psychological constructive compromise.’ Unfortunately, it is actually destructive compromise. It destroys how good you can be.

Maybe better said it destructs real expectations of yourself.

Real expectations, the ones colored with some Life experience which are not sky-high and tainted with any sense of entitlement, are being challenged intellectually, financially or emotionally as now being thought of out of reach.

Huh? Out of reach? Being who you are and being good at what you do?

That is crazy.

And therein lies how ‘playing the game’ is simply a destructive game and one which I am surprised businesses and other ‘game managers’ allow to be played.

Let me be specific <because this is what got me thinking about this>.

Customizing your resume as you apply for a job.

I know it sounds reasonable from a 40,000 foot perspective. But <and I will talk about odds later> most times we are customizing in ways that take a square peg of information and place it into a round hole of perceived need.

That’s playing the game.

Mostly because most employers are too lazy to see anything but ‘something that fits the round hole I have.’ And the prospective employee is simply thinking ‘once I get in I can be the fabulous spectacular square peg that I am.’

Simplistically you are playing the game to get in the game.

This is ludicrous. It looks ludicrous even as I type it.

Look. We all need to be taught to keep expectations in check. But in doing so we need to be sure … really sure … that our compromising isn’t simply a dismissal of our dreams to play the game. A dose of reality can be like a slap in the face. Uhm. Ok. Maybe more like an uppercut to the jaw. But sometimes you have to learn to take the punches.

And maybe give a couple back.

But you have to make some choices.

Hard choices.

No matter what anyone tells me I just cannot see how customizing your resume or ‘saying the right words’ or, well, whatever you are being told to do to get a job or get the dream actually increases the odds.

In fact I would suggest in the end it decreases the odds of getting what you really want <longer term>.

Well. The bottom line on anything to do with ‘odds’ is that the odds suck.

Bottom line.

The odds suck.

Why? Life is playing its game <even if a business or other people are trying to ‘game the system’> and you have to figure out which player you are truly playing against. I am not suggesting you should avoid considering anyone who is actually in the game. Just who is more important than another.

Why? Because you need to ask what is at stake in the real game’.

Because the one and only answer is you. Or what some people call ‘the authentic you’ <strip away the authentic bullshit and it just being true to yourself in a genuine way>.

——-

“Authenticity is a collection of choices that we have to make every day. It’s about the choice to show up and be real. The choice to be honest. The choice to let our true selves be seen. “
Brené Brown

 ——–

The “authentic you”. I just call it ‘me.’ No fancying up with adjectives. You sometimes have to draw a line with regard to ‘me.’ And, yes, this line drawing comes with consequences.

But all line drawing does.

You just have to identify what is non negotiable, i.e., what are you not willing to compromise on? In other word, find the pieces of your life vision & your character … that you want beyond all certainty. These are non-negotiable features you are not prepared to give up for anything.

While I am certainly a dreamer type, or maybe it is that I love hope, I will admit that this exercise can incorporate some foundational basic life aspects. Things beyond ‘being passionate with what I do’ <which I actually believe is useless tripe> like being a loving mother or father or traveling regularly or checking something off on your adventurous things to do on your list of things to do.

That said.

Compromising in this type of thinking invariably comes down to what you don’t mind forsaking in return for having something else. And, in general, we suck at this type of assessment. We are typically to hopeful or ‘positive thinking’ in our assessment.

“If I take this job I can show them I actually deserve this other thing.’

Yeah. Well. It typically doesn’t work that way. The whole idea of negotiating or compromising on a dream or ‘how good you think you can be’ is a challenging reality. And it is even more challenging when you incorporate the concept that I strongly dislike … the term ‘be realistic.’

I am not overly materialistic so I can focus on other things <and everyone needs to think about that aspect>.

I have at least a thread of altruism so I am okay with pursuing some self desires <and everyone needs to think about that aspect>.

Therefore. It kind of seems to me when thinking about playing the game — why should I compromise being the best I can be when some people don’t even seem to be trying to be the best they can be <for themselves or for others>?

To be clear on being as good as you can be. It is not simply waking up every day, stretching, looking at yourself in the mirror <possibly with fist raised in the air> saying something like “I know I want to achieve adventure and fulfillment in everyday life.” Optimizing your potential takes work – hard relentless work.

My own vision for life is fairly clear. And I admit that it has changed and evolved over time. And I imagine that is quite similar to most people. I also admit that it seems to get clearer every day as I figure out what’s important to me.

I know that I challenge myself to be even better. Every day as a matter of fact.

Yup.

Every.

Single.

Day.

That’s because being better or the best you can be is a work-in-progress thing. As for compromising or ‘playing the game’? I know the type of organizations and people I want to be a part of and to surround myself with. I will not apologize for how I choose to survive.

“You never need to apologize for how you chose to survive.”
Clementine von Radics

Oh. And by survive … I don’t mean putting food on the table … I mean character. A lot of people will argue with me on this topic.

A LOT.

They will suggest <with some truth by the way> I am not being realistic. And you know what? They may be right. But it is the line I have drawn for myself.

I don’t want to hollow myself out in some empty job. And that is what empty jobs do — hollow the guts out of you. Strangle your soul and character bit by bit. I would rather starve my body than starve my character.

I would rather “scare the world … and be exactly who you say you are and tell the truth.”

The stunning realities of Life force everyone to do several things.

Everyone needs to learn the line they will draw.

Everyone needs to recognize where compromise is done and ‘me’ is defined.

Ponder.

===

“Automating labor ultimately unlocks less value than augmenting it to create something new.”

Erik Brynjolfsson

===

“By ‘augmenting human intellect’ we mean increasing the capability of a man to approach a complex problem situation, to gain comprehension to suit his particular needs, and to derive solutions to problems. We do not speak of isolated clever tricks that help in particular situations. We refer to a way of life in an integrated domain where hunches, cut-and-try, intangibles, and the human ‘feel for a situation’ usefully co-exist with powerful concepts, streamlined terminology and notation, sophisticated methods, and high-powered electronic aids.”

Douglas Engelbart, 1962

===

When thinking about the future I encourage people to think along the lines of augmentation (maybe I am an augmentation futurist?). What I mean by that is I just don’t view most things that could happen in the future as ‘this or that’ or ‘this will replace that’, but rather view innovations and even what some people may deem as disruptive inventions as stepping stones of behavioral augmentation.

Now. Being an augmentation advocate is a tricky place to reside. Being an augmentation futurist means I help people think more strategically, creatively, and effectively about the future, yet, that future resides neither in 100% change or 100% non-change destinations, but somewhere in between. For example, in 2009 I created an online children’s education idea anchored by what I called “education missionaries” (teachers) who could travel anywhere – from remote villages to local libraries. I got hammered. I got hammered by edtech people, “online is an environment which the student facilitates their own learning” and the traditional education people (“classroom teaching is important for learning and sociological reasons”). Yeah. Hammered. Hammered despite the fact I was offering a pathway to, well, augmenting what existed so more children could learn.

Which leads me to quantum mechanics.**

“Quantum mechanics describes an utterly bizarre world, where nothing is certain and objects don’t have definite properties until you measure them. It’s a world where distant objects are connected in strange ways, where there are entire universes with different histories right next to our own, and where “virtual particles” pop in and out of existence in otherwise empty space.”

Chad Orzel

Tucked in quantum mechanics is the idea of complementarity: the idea that two different ways of regarding reality can both be true, but not at the same time, so in order to describe reality we must choose between the two because the internal validity and coherence of one would interfere with that of the other. Augmentation, in my mind, is owning the liminal space between two realities. In the business world I can guarantee in any given meeting both of those realities can be articulated, defended quite dogmatically and even measured, and, yet, neither truly represents the future. but they will be argued as certainty to be ignored at your own peril. Here is where I step in. Just as particles and waves offer complementary perspectives on the reality of light, augmentation offers complementary perspectives on the reality of whatever topic you are addressing. The other interesting aspect of complementarity is the idea that the collective output is greater than expected by simply adding up the individual parts/ability/output. This could be called synergy, but I will call it augmentation benefits which are either multiplicative or exponential in nature. How can I be sure of that? Complexity scientists have crafted a number of statistical models to assess different ways that individual parts can combine to create different collective outcomes, but that is a different topic for a different time. The point here is that augmentation is often the pathway to creating a synergy between existing parts to generate a more productive whole which can thrive in the future.

** note: The roles of synergistic interactions and complementarity are relevant beyond team performance to a wide range of issues – from our understanding of how drugs combine to treat disease, to how proteins function, to how monkeys manage conflict in their societies.

Which leads me to, well, AI.

The hottest topic in augmentation, or any futurism, is the role of AI and automation and who will become redundant and what tasks will no longer need a human. The consequences of an ever-improving technological world quickly slips into a complementarity discussion, i.e., two realities: it substitutes workers in particular tasks, decreasing demand in these jobs and it also complements them in others and increases demand for them in these jobs. The future of human work resides in the inbetween and, practically speaking, it is incredibly difficult to know now whether a technology will complement or substitute people. And this is where I slide into the conversation. Why try to identify it? Why not simply assess how to best augment people? I start here because all the wacky features of value creation are sensitive to the dynamics of the context and the market and the single best value creators in the world are, well, human beings, so just make them the best value creators possible. This kind of thinking becomes even more important if we begin to think about society. AI concentrates power and wealth. Left to its own devices, increasing returns of AI will go to smaller and smaller numbers of people, if not specific businesses. And where economic power gravitates, political power is not far behind. We cannot expect AI to stop this pattern, only humans can. And the only humans who can are a community of everyday people optimized through being augmented who decide to steer the swarm of wealth and power away from the few and toward the many.

Which leads me to augmentation.

I, personally, have proposed a business model using AI to prompt thinking and attempt to have personalized augmentation to make everyone attain their highest potential ***. There are a number of organizational technology tools being developed that could, if used well, augment the human organization. All that said. The future, in my mind, resides in augmentation. To be clear, if I am right, or wrong, it will be a loopy road getting to where we want to be. What I mean by that can be found in the numerous examples I speculated my way through in “who owns the future.” Basically what I suggest is business, and consequently society, doesn’t really have a good governor on its adoption engine and prioritizes efficiency over what is best for humanity so it is likely we will go overboard in some bad ways before we locate the optimal augmentation sweet spot. But, in the end, augmentation navigates complementarity. Like it or not the future is unwritten and the reality is there are multiple realities; even in the present. It seems fairly logical to me that effective augmentation is a way to thrive in a business world which will take on many characteristics of the quantum world: “an utterly bizarre world, where nothing is certain and objects don’t have definite properties until you measure them. It’s a world where distant objects are connected in strange ways.” Ponder.

“Augmentation is fundamentally a matter of organization.”

• ** I have most likely mangled quantum theory.

• *** An organization, no matter how far down any “digital transformation” (or any technology transformation) vector is, at the end of the day, is no more or no less than people serving people. Technology may enable this service in some form or fashion but, as I have said too many times to count, technology is nothing without people using it. Technology can enhance the Conceptual Age organization, it can enable a Conceptual Age organization, it can even augment human conceptual emergence, but, in the end, the conceptual age is about people doing things for other people. (source: McTague, The Conceptual Age Organization)

—-

==

“There are times in life when people must know when not to let go.

Balloons are designed to teach small children this.”

Terry Pratchett

————–

Well. I have written about how difficult it is for people, in business & Life, to let go of things so much I am not sure I can find any new words to share on that topic.

In fact if you google “reasons to not let go” you get nothing. Nada. You get jack shit on the topic.

All you get is page after page of ‘reasons to let go.’

And, yet, there are certainly times to know when to not let go.

To be clear, a purposeful ‘not let go’ is a different difficulty for us. While not letting go is something that is mostly based on some version of fear or doubt, knowing when to not let go of something seems to be more about our difficulty in discerning what is important, or good, and what is unimportant, or bad.

In fact. I think part of the ‘not letting go’ difficulty resides in how we learned to hold on in childhood <the balloon thing>.

We learn very early on that when you let go of something good it floats away never to be seen again. So we have learned to hold on a tightly as possible to anything that could be construed as good <note: even if it is really a crappy balloon>.

We have become so good at it we are almost proud of not letting go. Therefore the problem isn’t our ability to actually hold on … it is choosing what to really not let go of.

Not letting go is a complex decision compounded by the fact we are complex people.

Why does the complexity matter? Because there is no formula. No ‘rules of not letting go.’

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Some things are obvious. The self stuff, the character stuff, the ‘who you are as a person’ stuff you don’t let go of. They are good balloons. But if you are not careful, after a while, you have so many balloons you can’t discern the good ones from the bad ones. Which leads me to suggest I sometimes believe the ‘what not to let go’ choice is an acquired intuition thing.

Yup. I just typed acquired and intuition side by side.

I like to remind people that you are not borne with good intuition. You may be borne with a good intuition muscle, but experience strengthens the muscle and it takes some time & experience to ‘acquire’ the intuition necessary to ‘not let go’ of the right things.

Regardless. I suggest intuition because unless one of the balloons has lost all its air and has sunk to the ground you are choosing amongst a shitload of balloons that maybe all look pretty good to you.

This may sound crazy because balloons float above you and should seem obvious at all times, but the connections to many of the balloons in your life are actually like links of a chain underwater.

==

“The moment of truth, the sudden emergence of a new insight, is an act of intuition.

Such intuitions give the appearance of miraculous flushes, or short-circuits of reasoning. In fact they may be likened to an immersed chain, of which only the beginning and the end are visible above the surface of consciousness.

The diver vanishes at one end of the chain and comes up at the other end, guided by invisible links.”

Arthur Koestler

==

You see the balloons. Okay. You see some of them.

But the strings get all tangled up and you cannot tell which string to let go of <because you are not sure which balloon will go away> and which one to hold on to. Some of the choices you make as you look at the strings are intuitive. And given some time and experience I imagine the string feels a little different in your hand as you pluck it out from all the others. That is this version of intuition.

So. One of the things I admire most in people is consistent great intuition and how they manage what to not let go of.

It is an interesting characteristic to assess when you meet people and is fairly easy because you can just look up and see the balloons they carry with them.

So, in the end, maybe the balloon metaphor is bad, or maybe I simply overused it, but suffice it to say that while there is a lot of free advice on ‘letting go’, there isn’t a whole shitload of advice on ‘what to not let go of.’

I think it is obvious that there are certainly some ‘be yourself’ characteristics that you should never let go of <although figuring out what to not let go of as you try and improve yourself is not easy either>.
What is less obvious is the other stuff in your life. Experiences, knowledge, even people.

I don’t have any answers today. Just questions. And maybe some prompting that this is something we should think about a little more.

Most letting go advice online is vapid and a waste of time <albeit with good intent>.

I don’t have any advice for ‘not let go’ other than think about it. We all learn to hold on to balloons because they represent freedom and hope and good things waiting above us. Paradoxically, despite the fact it may appear like they should be let free so we can benefit from them, it is actually those that should be the things we hold on to and not let go of. Ponder.

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

“When we first met … you asked me a question to which I gave a stupid answer, you asked me whether I wanted to live and I said “Yes.“

Actually, Miss Page, I want more, much more. I want to create, to make something big out of something little.”

Boris Lermontov

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

Ah.

Maybe I am cynical.

Maybe I am simply becoming a curmudgeon.

Maybe I am actually right on this topic.

I think pop psychology makes us lazy with regard to how we view life. We are encouraged to ‘be positive’ and ‘live life to its fullest’ and be happy we are alive. Pretty much nice sounding pabulum. And pretty much useless advice.

I am not suggesting we should all be pessimistic, but all the positive thinking shit establishes some fairly unrealistic expectations.

Which leads me to what you should expect.

It is also sometimes suggested that Life is big & full, therefore, living it fills up so much space and time that if you do just that, live it,  you should be satisfied because, what the hell, there isn’t a whole lot more room for anything else because it is so big & full just by living it. This seems to suggest that simply living life, and making it through life, is some achievement in and of itself. I will not argue that simply surviving can be a skill, but that’s kind of like at the bottom of the Maslow expectation in Life pyramid.

Well.

Maybe we shouldn’t look at Life, in itself, as something so big & full that there isn’t room for anything else.

Maybe Life is littler than we think. Little moments. Little experiences. Little people. Little lies. Little truths. Little color. Little things that make up what we call our current Life.

Maybe we should want more.

No. No maybe. We should want more … much more.

We should want to create. Create something. And I don’t mean make something, but rather create, fashion, something big out of something little.

This is probably the one place in our sometimes self indulgent world where I wish more of us actually weren’t comfortable with what we have … and wanted more.

Instead of settling we want more.

Instead of settling for what is we want more of what could be.

From our little space in the universe we shouldn’t settle for little but seek some big impact or contribution.

Oh. About “little.” The truth is most of Life is made up of little things. Therefore, if you don’t do anything else but live it, well, in the end i imagine you live a little life. That may sound harsh so let me soften it a bit. If you don’t do anything but live Life, the Life you live will not be as big as it could be <that’s kind of like optimizing its potential>. That said. I’m fairly sure no one wants to purposefully live a little Life so maybe we should desire to make something big out of something little.

Maybe we should embrace the thought we are all architects of our own lives.

Maybe we should purposefully seek to build something big.

Maybe the pursuit of “what could be” is Purpose in and of itself.

Maybe ‘much more’ isn’t things but rather doing things that make little big.

Maybe, just maybe, you should want more … much more.

===========

 “To be or not to be is not a question of compromise. Either you be or you don’t be.”

Golda Meir

===========

Compromise. It is a tricky thing. Tricky concept. Tricky discussion.

Type ‘art of compromise’ into google search and you get about 37,800,000 results <in .31 seconds>. Sometimes it seems like we are faced with compromise choices about 37,800,000 times every 31 days.

We face compromise every day, if not every minute.

We face it in the meaningless minutiae — ‘I will slow down to let that asshole pass me’ — to the important — ‘I believe this is the right thing to do, but …’

If you spend a minute thinking about it, we face compromise after compromise after compromise after, well, you get it.

But.

Where do we draw the line? In fact. Do we draw the line often enough?

And where the heck do we draw the line so that our lives are not completely defined by compromise? <which, if you did, would mean you stand for nothing>

“To sell your soul is the easiest thing in the world. That’s what everybody does every hour of his life. If I asked you to keep your soul – would you understand why that’s much harder?”

Ayn Rand

It is a Life truth that not everything that matters can be counted and unfortunately many of the most important things rarely are.

This is troubling because in the world of exhaustive compromise we need to be able to not only count, but count on, the most important things.

I say that because Compromise is sly. Sometimes it is cleverly insidious.

In a ‘group think’ consensus environment where, compromise takes a death grip on decision making, everyone is at risk of being led into that empty abyss of unthinking acquiescence and the inevitable downward spiral of individual and collective compromise dragged down by a lack of independent thought will inevitably lead to a gray personality, ubiquitous conclusion wrapped up in a semi-blurry moral compass.

To me Compromise is the enemy of individuality.

Yup.

I said it.

And a bunch of people are not gonna like me for typing that.

But Compromise seems to be mostly <at least in today’s world> about compromising principles and diminishing individual responsibility in the mistaken belief that the short-term advantage of a larger group harmony inevitably leads to a long-term satisfaction of a ‘greater good.’

Well.

If you ever wanted a definition of ‘middle of the road’ living <personally or in business>, there it is. More importantly <to individuality> it appears that invariably the consequences are some form of damaged personal integrity <if not some bad decisions>.

In my eyes we are far too often advised to “choose your battles.”

Unfortunately, that suggests we, individually, should know which issues are worth fighting for and which aren’t really important.

Note: This is a fantasy.

The logic is that you should save your strength for the things that really matter.

That also assumes that EVERYONE recognizes the things that really matter.

Note: This is a fantasy.

This latter point I just made, i.e., EVERYONE, is especially important because if ‘everyone don’t’ then you end up simply being stuck in a consensus driven group environment where compromise dictates just one more short term decision.

That said, let’s face it, not everyone is good at recognizing the things that really matter. In fact … most of us suck at it.

Look.

I understand that not all conflicts have clear winners. In some instances there may be reasonable but contradictory claims. You can go ahead and fight it out, but no one person will really ‘win.’

I also understand In some situations we must be able to compromise.

But. Where do we draw the line? Because I feel like we are not drawing any lines.

Compromise is far too often simply a different version of hell.

“Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one–the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.”

C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

Compromise is sly.

So I will say this. If you need to compromise, the one ‘truth’ I believe you must never ‘lose’ with regard to the discussion is you must never lose sight of ‘yourself’.

You have core needs and beliefs. Do not relinquish anything that you feel is absolutely essential  <understanding that you must be willing to accept something ‘unessential’ to you that will inevitably influence how you feel and ‘how you look’ – in the mirror and to others>.

Compromise never feels perfect because, more often than not, it isn’t. In fact in more cases than not it is distinctly imperfect if not wrong.

Decide where you are willing to bend.

Be willing to give up something in order to gain something significant.

In the end.

Even if it is associated with a business decision, compromise seems to be about bargaining with life.

And maybe we should spend a second thinking about what we are bargaining with.

“Compromise is but the sacrifice of one right or good in the hope of retaining another – too often ending in the loss of both.”

Tryon Edwards

Oh, speaking of losing ‘both’, I have a couple of words I want to use: Integrity and Self. They are inextricably linked and cannot be de-linked under the guise of compromise.

Look. What is ‘right’ is often not only a moving target, but also can be found in degrees within a variety of solutions and answers.

What is not a moving target is one’s integrity and sense of Self.

Oops. This can end up being a little tricky because you yesterday is not you today and certainly not the you tomorrow.

Self, in and by itself, is a constant work in progress <oops part 2: this sounds like one of those trite philosophical thoughts for which I apologize>. And your judgment is influenced by personal beliefs <what principles you embrace> and what you know as of the moment.

In all situations requiring careful judgment, especially compromise moments, we are influenced by our own biased personal beliefs. And that is where Integrity places you firmly in the path of Compromise. Firm ground on which to stand and say ‘stop … you do not pass this place until we have talked.’

“Don’t compromise yourself; you’re all you’ve got.”

Janis Joplin

Or … as Golda Meir states … ‘either you be or you don’t be.’

Compromise is sly & crafty because it tries to confuse you between ‘you be’ and ‘we be’ in terms of priorities.

Well.

In my mind there is far too much compromising while getting nothing in return <we are stuck in the middle>.

In my mind there is far too much compromising for short term gain <and short term decision making>.

In my mind there is far too much compromising at the expense of fostering individual thought <and individuality>.

Maybe it’s time you put a line in the sand.

Maybe it’s time you put a stop to the the onslaught of compromise.

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

“Theory is good; but it doesn’t prevent things from existing.”

—-

Jean-Martin Charcot

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

“We must live in the best way this existence that has been given to us, embracing the flow of events. It is up to us to try in every moment of our life to do our best.”

—

The Branches of Time

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

So. A better business world. I imagine everyone feels this is an important objective, but:

• Not everyone would define better the same
• Not all better is created equal
• Not all businesses believe a better world is the way to become better

In fact. On the third point I would suggest this is where ‘business improvers’ (consultants, gurus, futurists, etc) step in and play a role. The majority of business fixers fall into one of 2 camps:

1. The “let’s make your business run more efficiently” people. They’ll discuss process, simplification and digital transformation. Yes. They’ll couch efficiency in some nice fluffy narratives, but in the end they are simply suggesting the machine isn’t running as well as it could and needs to be finetuned or rebuilt. They see behavior as the be all end all.
2. The “people potential” people. They’ll discuss, well, people. How to get people to work better together, how to build an environment in which they are engaged (with caring AND process/tools/digital) and how to foster a healthy culture. They see attitudes as important as behaviors.

That said.

Ask any business leader and they will:

(a) always believe something in the business could be better &

(b) always be seeking to make things better.

Period.

I do not know one leader who is completely satisfied or, on the flip side of the coin, believe a business is maximizing its potential & opportunities.

Here is where different ‘betters’ start coming into play.

Most leaders address a desire to be better transactionally (albeit they may, on occasion, frame it as a ‘structural organizational betterment’). Yet, “better”, when one views it from a ‘world’ perspective, demands addressing structural elements. This includes engagement (which far too often business people think of transactionally).

Ah. Engagement.

Everyone knows the key to maximum productivity and maximizing business potential is engagement. Always has been and always will be. I would note that ‘engagement’ fans always focus on ‘people’ (working together, understanding vision, embracing meaningful work). but engagement, in a business eyes, often expands out to engagement with process, engagement with technology, engagement with machines/production lines, engagement with ‘system tools’ of which people are often the most critical aspect, yet, business will measure engagement “with” something, not “by” someone. That phrase distinction may be one of the most important thoughts I will share today. Ponder it.

But let’s go back to the people/human component … and transactionally. Despite all the discussion around culture (which is when people decide how they want to behave on a coherent fashion) the truth is most businesses try to ‘create engagement’ (which is a problem in & of itself) through transactional methods (which is a problem). Carrots & sticks.  Incentives. “Bribes” (free lunches, ping pong tables, flex times, laptops, etc.). Not only is this not effective (at least in terms of creating long term systemic behavior), but it also shows a lack of understanding in what people truly care about.

All that said.

The business world knows it needs to change. I would suggest younger people feel more strongly about structurally addressing this then older business people who have learned to suffer/live in the business environment & therefore feel more like transactional things are the most pragmatic ways to ‘change it.’

The issue is that the gap between ‘knowing’ and actually ‘doing’ is a real sonuvabitch to cross.

I would suggest the key to crossing this gap is not in the ‘specialists’ or the experts in how things are already being done, the key exists in people who know enough about some specific skill to lay a pragmatic foundation and have the ability to see a new way to build to possibilities. I would suggest there are a number of these people out there who embrace that idea – Daniel Mezick, Perry Timms, Gustavo Razzetti, Neils Pflaeging, Edwin Van der Geest, the Corporate Rebels folks.  While each of them may approach it a little differently, the business world needs more of these type of ideas/people if it truly wants to get better. We need more connectors, aligners, maybe call them the chiropractors of a better way of doing business and a better world.

Look.

Better business needs a structural change. Period.

Better business needs a vision, not transactional changes. Period.

Better business needs an attitudinal adjustment (toward organizational structure, toward how people skills can be maximized, toward how productivity is viewed, toward what businesses role in community/society is). Period.

Now.

I have hesitated to use Purpose because I believe (a) it is used improperly 90% of the time and (b) it is actually better to focus on engagement & contribution and Purpose/results will be an outcome. Purpose is the reason for which something is done or created, the reason for its existence, its use, and its usefulness. Usefulness to others is the mechanism of purpose’s well-documented positive individual and organizational effects. When individuals and organizations think and act with their use to others at the forefront, they’re being purposeful and making their unique contribution (source: Zach Mercurio).

—–

“When purpose is embedded into an organization’s culture, it constantly reorients people to focus on contribution.”

—–

I often translate for all my business leader friends who see “purpose” and panic that it is some nebulous ‘save the world’ bullshit:

“if the people are engaged and focused on contribution they will be more productive, generate more high quality output, be brand ambassadors, be innovative (yes, they will want to contribute ideas to the business itself), be more effective in their behavior (service, customer interactions, vendor relationships, communications) and, you know what? … you’ll be more profitable too.”

source: Zach Mercurio

Or. As Zach shared with me:

It’s actually a basic business principle that’s been dressed up by “thought leaders:” Purpose is contribution, or if you like, “value creation.”  Purposeful organizations and their people focus first on contributing and on creating value. They trust that the effects (results) will follow. As Drucker once said, “Profit is not the purpose of a company. It’s the test of its validity.”  The more valid your contribution, the more results you’ll see.  Every “financial result” is mediated through a human being. Human beings who experience meaningfulness and purpose are far better mediators than those who just “need to get the numbers up!” Frantic leaders (i.e. traditionally-minded business leaders) focus first on producing results, but the problem is you can’t have get an effect without a cause.  You can’t have a result without a contribution.

Anyway.

I will say this entire ‘better business for a better world’ topic is fascinating.

While we credit Millennials for the refinding of our business soul (its partially whatever we call Purpose, but its mostly a simple recognition that something is wrong in the way business is being conducted and there has to be a better way) the truth is that this has nothing to do with age or some generational labels. Mary Parker Follet in early 1900’s. Drucker in the 70’s. Toffler in 1985.

They told us this is the way to do business, but when we chose Friedman (with a good dose of Gordon Gecko) business started down the slippery slope of dollars over contribution & responsibility (not Purpose).

The issue now is, as we all know, getting off a slippery slope is hard (you cannot climb back up off it, you need to jump off and restart or get pulled off by a helping hand) so those on it are, well, on it. i find while we suggest it’s a love of the status quo more often than not most business leaders know they are on a slippery slope and can’t get off it.

I am not a Millennial and i have ached for changes like this for, well, forever. Drucker outlined all of this in New Realities 1990, Ewen in Captains of Consciousness 1976, & the Geckos ignored it and the non Geckos (like me) were not strong enough to fight it.

I will say that now we fight.

In the end.

A better way of doing business for a better world.

This is an incredibly difficult topic to navigate. A business first & foremost needs to be successful to survive and its objective is to do things to survive/thrive. And, yet, the path to do so is actually to NOT think about business, but rather think about people, attitudes & maximizing their potential. There is a delicate balance of two truths – a business needs to be in the business of doing business and people are at their highest engagement when they are doing things not because it is business but meaningful. therein lies the paradox. and within that paradox resides the potential.

But. There has to be a better way and we know there is.

Drucker clearly knew this.

Simplistically, while engagement is the key to productivity, contribution is the key to the future of business – a better way of doing business for a better world.

If people contribute, feel like they are contributing and the business, itself, contributes to the greater world the highest level of value (contribution) has been achieved.

I would argue in doing so the business itself will also attain its highest level of effective productivity, solid efficient productivity and consistent profitability. I am not sure what more a business could desire. I am also not sure how that isn’t better business for a better world.

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

“A boss creates fear, a leader confidence.

A boss fixes blame, a leader corrects mistakes.

 A boss knows all, a leader asks questions.

A boss makes work drudgery, a leader makes it interesting.

A boss is interested in himself or herself, a leader is interested in the group.”

—–

Russell H. Ewing

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

This is not about threatening employees about making mistakes <i.e., ”you are gonna get fired if you fuck this up”>, but rather threatening employees who are exhibiting behavior that isn’t what you want from them. This is also less a thought about managing individuals, but more about managing a culture and groups of individuals – exploring systemic behavior issues.

Now. I have to tell you.

Having managed a shitload of people there has certainly been some point where I wanted to threaten my employees if not just strangle them <and I am sure the feeling was mutual on occasion>. Most of us just take a deep breath. Maybe close the door of their office and throw something. And then calm down enough to realize that most employees’ actions & behaviors are derivative of our own leadership.

As a corollary to that thought, if the actions & behaviors reflect a more systemic issue and not just some random individuals, well, you know it is reflective of your own leadership <or lack of leadership>.

Ah … “most of us.” Well. Not “all of us.”

Management by fear is the go-to tactic of the old generation of business leaders. They were also the ‘benevolent dictators’ <sort of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Men of Hitlers> as well as the dickheads who treated everyone like shit except the ones who did exactly what they were told to do.

Once again, about the only business people who believe in this type of management are:

<1> those who have never run a larger organization which demands cultural alignment for effectiveness,

<2> managers over the age of 55 — mostly white ones,

<3> weak leaders, or

<4> narcissistic arrogant dickheads.

=========== 

“I suppose that leadership at one time meant muscle; but today it means getting along with people.

Indira Gandhi

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

Threatening employees with forced confidentiality agreements, law suits, sweeping statements of firing a shitload of people, and even “you are either with me or against me” type threats is not only stupid but it is less than effective.

That doesn’t encourage the best behavior, which is self-motivated, but rather all this does is create ‘forced behavior.’ Now. I am no behavior expert, but even I know if I am forcing a certain type of behavior and, ultimately, that behavior is never absorbed as ‘self-affirmation of what I believe and like”, well, the first chance an employee gets to ‘unforce themselves’ they are gonna do it.

Here is what most of the good leaders know.

You can never, and I mean never, absolve yourself of the behaviors of your employees. You are either complicit or encouraged or simply an enabler. You are, whether you like it or not, responsible for your employee’s actions.

What does that mean?

If they do things that piss you off you, most likely, have pissed them off.

If they show you little respect, you, most likely, have shown them little respect.

If they show you lack of loyalty, you, most likely, have not earned their loyalty or shown behavior that deserves loyalty.

If you do not recognize anything I just wrote as truth, you, most likely, just threaten your employees every time they do something you don’t like.

Look.

I have absolutely talked to an individual employee about their expense reports.

I have absolutely spoken to an individual employee about their behavior in the office.

I have absolutely sat down with an individual employee about what they should, or should not, be saying to people outside the office.

But, more importantly, I talk with the accounting department, the HR department and department heads to find out about what the organization is systemically doing with their expense reports, behavior in the office and talking outside the office before I speak with any individual.

I don’t think I was a particularly great leader, but even I knew that systemic behavioral issues were my issues — not their issues. I also understand that threatening employees, or even the trite ‘carrot & stick’ thinking, was ineffective if you wanted to build a culture where individual employees didn’t cheat on their expense reports, didn’t do stupid shit in the office and didn’t say the wrong things about the company outside the office.

A leader knows threats are stupid if you have any desire to build a long term culture. You set expectations, provide a vision that people can be proud of and the reward is not anything individual monetarily or even ‘keeping your job’ but rather the employee looks around and sees solidarity – the prize is being part of a team aligned on an objective.

Some leaders don’t see that. All they see is bad behavior and offer threats to seal the cracks in the system. All that does is mask the problem not solve the problem. All that solves systemic organizational bad behavior is good leadership — not threats.

Fear, despite what some may suggest, is not a particularly great motivator in business.

 ====

“The art of communication is the language of leadership.”

—

James Humes

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

“The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.”

―

George Bernard Shaw

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

We have all said stupid things.

We have all said the wrong thing.

We have all said, despite having searched for the right words to say, a poor choice of words.

That said. In the business world many of us have a responsibility to communicate by planning, preparing and managing the words we say.

No. We still do not always get it right, but we still practice the best practices of effectively good communication.  Well. I imagine I could say … many of us use best communication practices and treat communication as a privilege and not something we are entitled to.

Outside of those who respect communication a healthy dose of communication malpractice occurs day in and day out. Suffice it to say I see communication malpractice all the time and everywhere in almost every business scenario.

And I have a prime example for today.

As everyone knows I have a variety of gripes with Trump, but the one that most likely cuts me to the professional core the deepest is his communication malpractice <although his business philosophy of ‘winning is all that matters … not how you win” is fairly close>.

And while he is certainly not alone on this issue … he is clearly the poster child for communication malpractice.

I admit. It is quite possible I penalize Trump more because of the position he is in, but I tend to judge people like him, who have attained that success and that responsibility, more harshly & critically <just as I judge myself harshly with regard to effective communication>.

We should demand better things from certain people because of their roles & responsibilities.

Sorry.

That is a Life truth.

But let’s talk about communication malpractice.

If you can ignore some of Trump’s heinous ideas you could quiet easily be critical of:

• his communication ‘split personality’ flow, and
• his narrative juggling, and
• his lack of logic construct, and
• the overall maddening needlessly complicated structure of his overall communication.

Overall he leaves more unanswered then answered and by the conclusion you will find you haven’t been able to even find your way back to where he started.

That is a broad overview of communication malpractice.

Look. I have my own communication problems.

I lose sight of my pronouns.

Sometimes I lose sight of my pronouns and say an “I” when I mean a “we” … or a “you” instead of an “us” … crap like that. Anyone in the communication business knows that this kind of stuff can not only confuse the listeners <on occasion> but more often it can create an impression of ‘me’ being more important <or egoist> than the greater good.

It is a bad thing to do <even when not intended> and it creates more issues than it is worth.

I can interrupt.

Sometimes I interrupt someone <although in my head it is “interjecting a thought”>. Mine is most typically not to stop or course correct but rather to accelerate. Accelerate the thought being said and accelerate to a conclusion or accelerate to, well, you get the thought.

Still.

No excuse. It can be aggravating.

But.

I prepare.

I map out thoughts.

I plan an overall narrative.

I pay attention to construct <box in thoughts and triangulate logic> within a narrative.

I think about individual words.

I am intentional.

Trump does not appear to do any of those things. Well. He may with regard to teleprompter speeches, but in non teleprompter speeches and speaking moments he does not appear to do any of those things.

That is communication malpractice.

Every leader, worth half a shit, understands the serious consequences, the dangers, of taking a lax approach to communication.

Every leader, worth half a shit, understands the practices of effectively managing the words that come from their lips.

Every leader, worth half a shit, understands that words do matter and a solid rational approach is at the core of any good communication.

Every leader, worth half a shit, understands that even if everyone wants change that actual change management is best led by a calm hand, some steady logic and more than some vague “eliminate bad” without suggesting what the actual “good” would be that replaces it.

This would suggest that Trump is not worth half a shit with regard to communication, but is constantly full of shit as a common practicioner of communication malpractice.

But all those things are simply lazy aspects of communication malpractice.

It is on my next point in which he belongs being sent to communication purgatory as the poster child for communication malpractice.

He wastes a good idea and thought. Absolutely wastes them.

Hidden within his absolutely horrible speeches and debate monologues and interviews he actually offers a number of viable ideas & valid points all scattered randomly within whatever he says.

Look. He doesn’t even have to do a “3 take-aways” that the media & public could conclude <and share> — because if something is worth a shit people will inevitably talk about it – but for god’s sake could you stay on the issues you do want discussed?

Time & time again he fails even within the first 15 minutes to effectively communicate the important shit which makes anything worth a shit that comes afterwards almost irrelevant <and certainly not discussed>.

It makes me question whether he knows how to close a deal.

And here is maybe the craziest thing. He commits communication malpractice whether he is prepared or unprepared.

Consistently he shows a lack of understanding for the complexity of the job and he certainly shows a lack of understanding with regard to communicating the complexity of what need to be done.

That is communication malpractice.

And to make my point I will even show some good communication practices highlighting how he could coalesce the random logical bits of his thinking into some semblance of a real thought.

Triangulating: so people can see the space within where they would benefit.

As I have noted before … imagine if he said: when asked about how to keep jobs in America, he said: I would lower business taxes to make it more lucrative to stay, I would reduce regulations to make it easier to stay and raise import taxes on those who do elect to leave to make it less appealing to leave.”

Boxing: so people can see the space in which they, and their idea of a country, would prosper.

Imagine if he said … in a globalized world it is imperative America embrace its greatness because the number one thing America exports is not just its products, services, ideas and ingenuity but rather the heart & soul of freedoms. Our country needs to secure its borders not just for security but to energize who and what we are.

Decrease illegal immigration and increase legal citizenry to maximize current American citizenry.

Decrease wealth at the top 1% and increase wealth in the middle class.

And within the borders we will not bring back jobs but instead create a new economy which will be the future state for the rest of the world.

Everyone wins, everyone has opportunities and everyone is part of what makes America great.

As it was, as it is and as it will be.

Our country needs to nurture the spark of what exists within our borders … the people, the opportunities, the infrastructure and the jobs in order to burn brightly as a beacon of what should be globally but also to light the way for opportunity globally. That is why we need to secure borders, have legal citizens, increased.

<note: he is too stupid to notice but if he did this the likelihood of terrorism decreases and security increases as prosperity stretches into a larger legal citizenry>

More from less: so people can see efficiency supporting effectiveness.

Imagine if he said … “have a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce that workforce through attrition, exempting jobs in the military, public safety and public health … and require that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated … and institute a five-year ban on White House and congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service … and have a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government … and have a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.”

Oh. That last one. He did say that. But we missed it all because he committed communication malpractice with regard to focus.

Lastly.

The other communication malpractice he consistently exhibits which eliminates the necessary link between words & listeners.

This would be his ignorance with regard to the context of the communication.

Yeah. Where you are matters in communication. Some people suggest this is pandering to the audience. I would suggest it is, at worst, “pandering to the moment” and at its communication best practice concept it is “understanding context for your words.”

For example … if I were speaking at Gettysburg I would industriously avoid self-reference. The location and the context of what happened there demands nothing about “I” and instead demands reflection of “we-type sacrifices” for freedoms, for country and for the costs of getting it ‘right’ as well as getting it ‘wrong.’

Would I be willing to center a communication around “restoring honesty, accountability and change to Washington?”  Yes. For Gettysburg is a dark example of what happens when Washington gets it wrong.

Would I be willing to discuss “rigged”? No. Because that is a distorted view of what the Confederacy could have argued and I would rather focus on ‘together better’ than ‘house divided.’

That is communication best practice.

Anything other than that is communication malpractice.

Here is the thing <of which I assume is my larger point with regard to communication and why malpractice is expensive>.

He sometimes has splinters of valuable things to communicate and if he put them together he could build a fairly attractive house.

Communication is, and will always be, about conceiving a message, sending it, insuring it is received properly and confirming the messages have been received. Any failure at any point in this logic flow equals ineffective communication.

In general I believe Trump does not respect words <I am not sure he respects anything other than … well … his image>.

Sigh.

And, yet, as I write about communication malpractice I find some solace in, well, words – literary words.

In a world, and politics, where everyone is shouting at the top of their lungs telling everyone what is wrong with the world and offering platitude hollow “there is no other right way to do this” solutions let me share some words of thought:

1. Caution when hearing the solution prophets:

Do not fear ashes, do not fear curses,

Do not fear brimstone and fire.

But fear like the plague the man with the rage

To tell you, “I know what is required!”

Who tells you, “fall in and follow me

If heaven on earth’s your desire.”

<an unsourced Russian ballad>

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

I know. I know. We have all seen and heard thoughts like this and I believe we all know in our heart of hearts that we agree <although we may not discriminate as well as we could & should>. But I liked this because it had a slightly different twist.

The twist? Do not fear passion. I liked it because there are a bunch of smart people out there who know that something needs to be fixed or “tuned up” with regard to America <and they love America while knowing it>.

These people may not be able to offer specific solutions and they acknowledge so. Yet, with some brimstone, fire and curses they make people take note of the issues at hand. They practice the best of communication practices with good intentions. And that is their role in the situation.

It is those who speak with the rage of solution certainty we should fear or at least view with a jaded eye.

These types of speakers are appealing because in today’s world we seem to be seeking the infamous ‘plan to make America great again.’

Well … folks … I got news for you. We can certainly have a plan and I can guarantee you that both parties have a plan <just as both are concerned with debt & unemployment & all the important issues just as equally>, but everyone seems to lose sight that part of solutions is ‘adaptability.’

Great organizations, businesses, succeed because of a well articulated vision <which both Republicans and Democrats share – just not the tactics to attain the vision> and the ability to adapt to the situation as it occurs <because, trust me, if anyone believes solving any country’s issues is a straight line solution than they belong in a loony bin>.

I believe it is communication malpractice to unequivocally state “I know what is required.”

Communication best practices suggest you have to effectively communicate a plan that has the ability to adapt to the challenges they will inevitably face.

2. Caution with the silence and inaction of the majority <masses>

===

“The mouse dreams dreams that would terrify a cat.”

Armenian proverb

===

“Insurrection is a machine that makes no noise.”

Trotsky

===

Metaphorically the bulk of a population, or employee base, are the mice. Sorry. I know that doesn’t sound good, but you get the point. I hesitate to call it the 99% <because the 99% is not all the same>, but suffice it to say the 1 to 5% who lead and guide, and misguide, are the cats.

And they pretty much all look the same because, well, they are cats.

Beyond that silly notion is a non silly thought. We mice dream of things the cats cannot envision (despite the fact I keep on hearing that they think they do).

These politicians, and many business leaders, often live in La-La land. They have the best intentions and I do believe they have some specific solutions which will help us and the country.

But they have no frickin’ clue what keeps most of us awake at night every frickin’ night we go to sleep. They have no frickin’ idea what we are thinking as we slog our way through the day. And they are absolutely clueless as to what we feel as we sit at the dinner table opening up our pay stub on one side and all the bills we have to pay on the left side.

They say it … and I think they believe it … but … they have:

No.

Frickin’.

Clue.

And that leads me to the second quote from Trotsky. As the leaders tell everyone what they are dreaming and stand there talking and talking … and well … talking … the possibility of insurrection is occurring with little or no noise … uhm … okay … it is <I actually wrote the ‘little or no noise’ back in 2012 … one of the few futurist thoughts I kind of got right>.

The point is that insurrection tends to gain momentum without warning.

Now. I am not using insurrection as Trotsky actually did, and was involved in, but the point is the point. When people <the mice> get fed up <or fired up>. When they stop being satisfied with simply dreaming dreams <which would terrify the cats> they do something.

And that is called ‘insurrection.’

All that scary stuff said, I typed all of that because while I do think it matters who wins US elections what really matters to a new president is that the mice are pissed at the cats.

And we need someone who doesn’t commit communication malpractice because when mice are pissed logic & words truly matter.

Partisan politics doesn’t need to cease, but there has to be a compromise. Or, in the end, there will truly be some type of insurrection. Because, in the end, that is what democracy is about … people <the mice> … and what they want.

While elections bring out the best, and worst, of the everyday people’s opinions in the end all they really want is something to be done.

Ok. Things done that are well crafted and not compromised into ineffectiveness through partisan politicking.

Insurrection is a quiet machine. And it demands leaders who choose their words wisely and respectfully and logically … and … uhm … honestly. I do not care if we are talking about a country or a business communication malpractice is a blatant unacceptable irresponsible act at any time and a grievous act in times of angst and need.

People will argue with me on this last point <and they have>, but where communication malpractice rears is ugliest head is in vision.

I can choose fear or I can choose hope. Simplistically those are the two paths a leader navigates in communication. And, yes, these are the two choices (not hope versus pragmatism).

Hope wins out over pragmatism because the reality, which a certain % of the American population will realize, is that whatever “plan” is presented will be torn up and have to adapt to a changing environment anyway.

A leader always recognizes that more needs to be done, but they also do not diminish the fact that things have been done.

I like hope and I always believe it should be linked to the building blocks that help us attain the hope.

Aw.

Let me correct that. I love hope <and the building blocks>.

And I think any leader who discards hope as part of their communication is performing an aspect of communication malpractice.

I want a president, or a leader, to communicate to us the light at the end of the tunnel for god’s sake.

Anyway.

I used Trump to discuss communication malpractice because he is an expert practioner of malpractice. And while, on occasion, I worry a little that his malpractice has larger repercussions for the country and while I believe he implements communication malpractice on a daily basis and while I believe he is oblivious to the larger unintended consequences of his irresponsible communication behavior, I do believe in one very important thing.

Free speech.

Amendment I.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

He lives within the same constitution you and I do. Therefore, if this asshat wants to speak whatever venom toward our democracy during the election as well as during his presidency … well … he has that right.

And, you know what? I believe he should speak loud and long (no matter how painful, reckless and corrosive it may be). Because the 1^st amendment is part of a larger document <some call it the Constitution> which suggests that the whole is stronger than the parts and that empowering the parts inevitably makes the whole stronger.

And maybe that is my larger point.

Great organizations outlast individuals who perform communication malpractice.

Sure. It can create angst and it can create conflict and it can create friction … all of which inevitably creates the spark from which the greater good, the whole of an organization, rises up to become a beacon for something better.

Do I believe Trump is creating damage? Yes.

Do I believe it is mortal damage? No.

America is bigger than one person. And the constitution provides clear boundaries for what we shall accept <even if we don’t like it> and what we shall do moving forward.

In the end.

It is communication malpractice to not acknowledge effort, and doing, and dreaming and what we can do together.

It is communication malpractice to not offer logic.

It is communication malpractice to not offer ideas in a cogent fashion.

And it is absolute communication malpractice to waste good ideas in poor communication.

Trump has taught us a lot over the past several years – mostly bad.

Ok. Lots bad.

But he has reminded us of a lot of things, in this case,  communication malpractice. Communication takes work. You have to be diligent with regard to the words you use and how you protect, and project, your ideas.

As I close in on my 3000th post I wandered back to my 1,500th post on enlightened conflict <this one>.

At that point I had written an estimated 2,026,749 words. I am now almost to 4,500,000 words <Michener would be proud>. I thought I would repost because, well, my thoughts are exactly the same <albeit I may actually feel even stronger about the thoughts> and rather than re-write and update the # of posts & # of words I thought, what the hell, here is what I said.

—–

Yikes. Over 2 million words represent, and represented, my thoughts on, well, anything. I have always not wanted to do one thing and am happiest when I am everywhere at once. My site, my thoughts, my words … are a reflection of that basic thought.

—————

“Whenever anyone has ever asked me ‘what is the one thing you want to do if you could only do one thing’ I have always answered with about 6 things.

I honestly want to do and be everywhere. And it works for me.

Drives some people crazy.”

=

Bruce McTague

————–

“How is it that one day life is orderly and you are content, a little cynical perhaps but on the whole just so, and then without warning you find the solid floor is a trapdoor and you are now in another place whose geography is uncertain and whose customs are strange?

Travelers at least have a choice. Those who set sail know that things will not be the same as at home.

Explorers are prepared.

But for us, who travel to cities of the interior by chance, there is no preparation.

We who are fluent find life is a foreign language.

Somewhere between the swamp and the mountains.

Somewhere between fear and sex.

Somewhere between God and the Devil passion is and the way there is sudden and the way back worse.

=

Jeanette Winterson

—————

“Life isn’t divided into genres.

It’s a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel.

You know, with a bit of pornography if you’re lucky.”

=

Alan Moore

——————-

1500 posts.

I think I am now qualified to suggest after 4 years and 1500 posts that I have learned a shitload about not just me but Life by writing.

I think writing almost every day on whatever topic grabs you that day almost demands you grasp & grapple with many life lessons.

I would suggest in reflecting pragmatically, with some hindsight, on a variety of experiences <actual & observed> make you realize “oh shit … I wish I’d done something very different” is a common everyday experience. I think in recognizing that it has permitted me to offer up some ‘life truths’ reflecting the overall complexity of Life in a world where ‘experts’ expound upon simplicity.

My blog is not in the Life lesson business; it is in the ‘thinking about Life’ business. And it has certainly been a ‘thinking about my Life & experiences’ business.

At 1500 I know I was reminded that in April 2010 I wrote something called “everywhere at once.” I don’t want to do just one thing in Life. And I don’t want to do just one thing well. And I also believe that Life truths can be maddeningly contradictory as a reflection of some of the maddeningly contradictory complexities in Life.

What have I learned the most? Context.

What is right today, even ‘now’, may not be right tomorrow … shit … it may not be right an hour later.
Life lessons fit right into that thought — what you do in that moment may not be what you would have done in a different moment. And maybe that it what I have learned the most, it ain’t always about what you do <because more often than not you will not do exactly what you should do> it is more about what you think. And your attitude.

That said. Some attitudes for Life thoughts.

–      We are all in the selling business.

Ok. Maybe not ‘selling’ per se … but it behooves each and every one of us to hone our communication and rationale skills if you want to share a point of view. Many people not in sales mistakenly believe they aren’t in sales.

In reality, if you work, live, or interact with others in any way you are always trying to communicate, if not convince, people to think about what you think <or how you think about something>.

That means you are in sales.

I am not suggesting everyone learn & practice sales techniques <that would be aggravating> but we should all at least recognize we are in the selling business <in Life & in business worlds>.

Sell or be sold … that may sound harsh but the world can be a harsh place if you don’t make a stand for what you think.

–      We are all in the unlearning business.

Learning, enlightenment, call it what you want, we are always either unlearning or increasing knowledge.

==

“Our whole life is an Education — we are ‘ever-learning,’ every moment of time, everywhere, under all circumstances something is being added to the stock of our previous attainments.

Mind is always at work when once its operations commence.

All men are learners, whatever their occupation, in the palace, in the cottage, in the park, and in the field. These are the laws stamped upon Humanity.”

Edward Paxton Hood

==

The more you learn, the more you unlearn and the more smarter about what is, or was, and will be … you become.

As for Unlearning? Get used to that thought. Whether you decide to unlearn or not … it is gonna happen.

If you decide to not unlearn … well … oops … just stand there and watch your knowledge begin disappearing as new knowledge, new technology, new ways of doing things, new realities, or a thousand other new shit come along — all of which can unmake your knowledge basically making it useless, ineffective or incorrect.

What do I know? Make an active and concerted effort to continue learning and you will actively be ditching shit you thought you knew and replace it with new learning <that is called ‘unlearning’>.

Be aware. This learning & unlearning thing is fraught with peril. The internet makes both ongoing learning easier <through easy access to real experts, expert information and gobs of so much additional information your head may explode> … and more difficult because discerning useful, accurate and correct knowledge is harder than ever before <and many “experts” are not ‘real experts’ and have no clue what the fuck they are talking about>.

Remember. Unlearning is actually learning. Go figure. Suffice it to say your attitude with regard to Life improves significantly if you decide you are not in the learning business, but the unlearning business.

—————-

“As long as your ideas of what’s possible are limited by what’s actual, no other idea has a chance.”

Susan Neiman

——————–

Unlearning shit can make a difference in how you think … and, remember, your perspective can be a world of difference.

–       We are all in the follower business <and yet that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be in the ‘think for yourself’ business>.

I will begin with the positive thought. Think often and think differently.

Now the harsh truth.

We cannot all be leaders or in the lead, but that doesn’t mean you should always defer leadership possibilities or decline to put yourself in a leadership spot in something at some point in time.

Pick your time and place if you want to lead. But the truth is the majority of the time the majority of us are … well … following. That sounds shitty, but it really isn’t. In fact. It comes with some perks.

——

“Penalty of leadership: Leaders have to act differently than the others.”

Unknown

————

Regardless. Act differently … act the same … it doesn’t matter as long as you think and think often.

Most of us are simply smart followers in Life.

–      We are all in the ‘playing the Life game’ business.

Play or be played.

Sounds harsh, but, well, it is not always harsh. Uhm. But it can be if you are not careful.

Most of us don’t want to consider Life as a game and even if we do we balk at ‘playing this stupid game.’ But like it or not, to quote Game of Thrones … “we never stop playing.”

Life is difficult for a variety of reasons but maybe the part that makes it the most difficult is that you cannot relax. Even if you stop playing the game, the game still goes on. Quit balking … quit bitching … but don’t quit playing. You can affect the outcome of the game. Oh. You will affect the outcome of the game <whether you play or not>. Your actions, or inactions, affect the game.

That said.

If life is a game … you may as well play.

–      We are all in the “light” business.

Suffice it to say … whatever movies try and depict and however many articles or books you read … darkness, or badness, is neither more focused nor stronger than light or goodness.

In fact I could argue based on my experiences that even a fragment of light or doing what is right & good has the power to overcome even the largest most solid sheen of dark & bad in the world.

That said. Somewhere at some time you will need to put down your own doubts and thoughts of despair and fears of ‘what you perceive’ and put forth a little light. In other words ‘do something good’ or ‘do what is right’ <even in the face of all that suggests it will not matter> because someone else will need it to get out of a hole or because they just need a glimmer of hope. I can guarantee it will happen at least once in your Life if not several times.

“Whoa … Bruce … once in an entire Lifetime and you are suggesting we are in the ‘light’ business ??!!??”

Yup. You can train & prepare your entire Life just for that one moment and you can be sure that one moment will create ripples and will echo in eternity.

Carry some light wherever you go. You will never know when you need it.

–      We all have to decide whether we will carry the burden or just be burdened.

Being yourself is a burden. It is ‘your weight.’ And no matter what anyone tells you … even if you accept yourself unequivocally … it is never as light as a feather. There is a weight associated with the choice to be yourself.

==

“Let people feel the weight of who you are and let them deal with it.”

John Eldridge

==

The weight of yourself is one you choose to carry <and how you carry it is another completely different thought> or one that slows you down as a burden. This is one situation in which weight is not a bad thing. Maybe because losing it is bad. Lose the weight and you lose yourself. You only feel lighter because you have given a significant part of yourself away.

People make that choice. I don’t understand why they make that choice but they do.

Oddly <maybe this is a paradox> while shedding the weight they actually are now burdened with that choice.

All I really know is that you choose to carry this burden or just be burdened by it. Don’t let anyone tell you that the choice of ‘who am I going to be’ is easy and don’t let anyone try and tell you that choice doesn’t entail some burden.

But this is good weight. This is good burden.

Carry it … or just be burdened. Your choice.

–      We all choose whether we want to follow a star or catch stars

This may sound esoteric or too philosophical, but it is actually grounded in some good ole pragmatism.

There are destination & objective people and there are roamers & collector people. Me? I have come to appreciate multiple paths and destinations as well as differences and distinctness. To me the sky is full of stars and I am happy with any of them … and all of them … whether they are bright or dull. Some people’s DNA doesn’t work that way. They have to choose a star and aim for it. I admit I would be content gathering and catching as many as I can catch.

Now. Chasing, gathering and catching stars is not for the faint of heart.

But. I have found because there really is no preparation for Life you just have to have the right attitude whichever ‘star objective’ you select.

Explorers are prepared. But for us, who travel to cities of the interior by chance, there is no preparation. We who are fluent find life is a foreign language.

The right attitude means accepting or the understanding you will be an explorer … whether you want to be or not … and you will constantly be placed in … well … places <situations> in which the language is foreign.

Despite all that I continue to have a desire to be everywhere at once.

It can make like challenging and rewarding at the same time.

But I also believe that being everywhere at once gives you the opportunity to fight ignorance, despair and doubt dispensing a little bit of hope here & there. And I like that. And I also like it because this attitude gives me a home wherever I go … because there are stars everywhere.

———–

“We are all strangers in a strange land, longing for home, but not quite knowing what or where home is.

We glimpse it sometimes in our dreams, or as we turn a corner, and suddenly there is a strange, sweet familiarity that vanishes almost as soon as it comes.”

Madeleine L’Engle

————-

I am not really sure where home is except maybe somewhere in my words & in my head.

It is a strange land and everyone speaks in a foreign language.

“We who are fluent find life is a foreign language.”

That is Life in my mind.

No real destination type home; it is everywhere at once … where you are constantly trying to learn the language.

But.

That’s me. Just as many people, if not more, find strength in home and being able to seek out one special star and dream & focus & strive & work using that star as a focal point.
The path to success and happiness is not just one … but many. And each path is distinct and different and lined with struggles and beauty.

I have come to appreciate any and all paths. I have come to appreciate different destinations.

But, suffice it to say, you either decide to follow a star or catch stars.

That’s it.

That concludes 1,500 and now I begin thinking about the other 50 or so thoughts already in my head aching to be written down.

I love being everywhere at once and Enlightened Conflict permits me to do so in a thoughtful way.

And, yet, as I think about it <and, yes, I did think about this particular post a lot> while I am comfortable being everywhere at once; maybe it is because I have a lighthouse to guide me – that lighthouse remains, and will always remain, my grandfather.

Completely different temperamentally than I … different career wise than I … a completely different man than I … and, yet, he still remains character wise the destination I hope to reach one day. The greatest man I have ever known.

To conclude. I will continue writing as long as people continue reading. And I will continue to write as if I am everywhere at once.

==========

“There’s nothing worse in the world than thinking you have a chance when you really don’t.”

–

Meredith Grey

========

Ok. This is mostly about business <but certainly offers some Life thoughts>. This is about motivation, risk and discerning reality from wishful thinking (which is actually a management skill).

First.

I do believe if you ‘play’ … you should play to win.

Second.

I also realize that sometimes in Life, and in business, we play … and play knowing we don’t have a chance in hell of winning.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Someone will point out the times where someone was given no chance and they won. I will then point out that it is just like the ‘poor to rich’ examples — they are exceptions. Few & far between. Unfortunately, the majority of time if you have no chance (seriously: you really do not).

Now. For some reason when someone starts talking about ‘no chance’ the phrase “playing to win or playing not to lose” rears its ugly head. And while it sounds good to say “you’re playing to win” in your business, what exactly does that really mean?

We can dance on the head of this pin all day long if you are not careful.

Some suggest playing to win means playing all out, as in, going for it all and holding nothing back.

Some suggest that playing not to lose means holding something back, at its worst ‘being conservative’, and at its most prudent ‘making sure if you don’t win you have something left’ <or minimize losses>.

First of all.

Every good business person does both. Playing to win isn’t always about resources … it’s more often about effort & attitude.

Think about it. I can hold reserves back and tell the ones attacking to ‘go for broke’ and they actually play harder because they know there are reserves if they falter. Technically that puts you in the ‘playing not to lose’ category and technically that is shit.

Regardless. This is where ‘no chance’ comes into play.

There may be nothing worse in business than thinking you have a chance when you don’t have an ice cube’s chance in hell. This mostly sucks because at the conclusion, for the leader, it makes you second guess whether you are a good judge of ‘chance’ or if you are a shitty leader or it makes you second guess your people <”are they good enough? … because we sure as hell had a chance”>.

This can suck the life out of a manager.

For at the conclusion, for the worker people, who tend to be thinking in general on most projects and initiatives “why the hell are we doing this because it has no chance of working” anyway … it simply becomes confirmation that most initiatives have no chance.

This can suck the life out of an organization.

Look. Thinking you have a chance is normal. In fact, it is so natural to think it you almost have to convince yourself that there is no chance. Society, and crappy managers, are constantly seeking ways to convince you that the latter is simply signs of pessimism or lack of ‘positive thinking.’

In addition, we all ache to not be mediocre and for some reason ‘not having a chance’ is directly linked to ‘not good enough’ and can very quickly, and very stealthily, slip into thoughts of mediocrity.

Well. That is shit too. No chance is … well … no chance. It doesn’t necessarily mean not good enough nor does it have to suggest mediocrity.

Simply: no chance is no chance.

In fact, I would suggest a sliver of a chance is still no chance. Note: this always reminds me of Dumb & Dumber:

—–

Lloyd Christmas: What do you think the chances are of a guy like you and a girl like me … ending up together?

Mary Swanson: Well, Lloyd, that’s difficult to say. I mean, we don’t really …

Lloyd Christmas: Hit me with it! Just give it to me straight! I came a long way just to see you, Mary. The least you can do is level with me.

What are my chances?

Mary Swanson: Not good.

Lloyd Christmas: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?

Mary Swanson: I’d say more like one out of a million.

[pause]

Lloyd Christmas: So you’re telling me there’s a chance… YEAH!

—-

Yeah, yeah, yeah … once again … people are gonna come out of the woodwork to point out the times the sliver of a chance became reality.

But.

Life, and in particular, Business is about making choices on where to invest energy. Investing energy in ‘no chance’ situations and initiatives are a drain — individually & organizationally.

In addition, those incredibly rare ‘no chance wins’ take on a Life of their own which most leaders and managers mismanage by encouraging overall belief rather than encouraging ‘we beat the odds which is an exception <which creates exceptional moments>’. Managers need to teach & coach employees to honestly assess chance.

Shit. Managers need to get better at ‘not thinking there is a chance’ assessment.

Shit. Businesses, in general, just need to admit they have no chance when they literally have no chance.

I am certainly not suggesting this is easy. Having been in dozens of painful business meetings where everyone fights to NOT admit we don’t have a chance because, well, it absolutely sucks to have no chance let alone admit you have no chance. While I noted earlier it is bullshit to associate this thinking with mediocrity we all inevitably dance with this ugly feeling at some point in this discussion.

But what sucks more? Thinking you actually have a chance when you do not.

In the end I believe what I am suggesting is that a successful life, personally and in business, incorporates some pragmatism. I say that as an unequivocal “hope” guy. But hope needs to be treated well in order to treat you well … abuse it and you lose it.

So … remember.

Hoping you have a chance is significantly different than thinking you have a chance. And maybe it is within that distinction that most of us just suck at thinking.

But we should all take solace that even in our suckedness there is good. It is good that everyone hopes they have a chance and it is good that all of us dance on the thought of having a chance. It is a beautiful heartening uplifting soul sweeping dance which all of us should learn the steps to.

That said.

We should just know when to leave the dance floor.