Words matter. Definitions matter. Details less so. I am not saying details don’t matter in execution, but rather definitions matter in terms of strategic direction and getting things done with progress in mind, rather than simply doing.

Simplistically, details are about ‘what to do’ and definitions are about ‘where to go.’ The former dictates control, the latter embraces freedom. This is actually about control, trust, freedom, adapting and destinations versus achievements. I would also argue this is actually about reality versus perceptions.

What we gain by making a term more narrow (details), we regain manifold by clarifying what I am actually talking about (definition).

The devil isn’t just in the details. It’s in the definitions. (The Listening Society, Freinacht). And, most of all, it’s in the analytical distinctions: in the ability to tell one thing apart from another, one thought distinctly from another. To not mix up things by following detail but rather seek clarify through definition.

Think about “scaling.”

Every business desires scalability. The implication is “something done well, replicated, will create not only efficiencies, but expected exponential value output.”

Scale gets discussed this way:

That’s detail. Details get replicated on a continuum. It implies controlled growth.

Here is what scale actually looks like:

That’s where definition comes into play. Details get convoluted, progress diminished as people realize the details lose value in new context. Definitions provide adaptability & some agility to maintain progress toward a vision, yet, the ‘details’ can adapt contextually.

When people understand intent, definition with clarity, it creates a coherence of actions & behavior with lily pads of consistency.

Definitions, instead of details, offer two main advantages:

• “Corrective measures were taken immediately”: organizations are typically horrible at disseminating responsibility to the outer edges of its organization. This is most typically exhibited in, well, ‘detailed instructions.’ A well articulated definition permits those closest to the opportunity, or problem, some freedom to do what is right <even if it may not exactly math the details>.
• Uneven progress: business has an unhealthy relationship with evenness. “Let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves” is often code for (a) losing control & (b) missed opportunities. Let’s be honest. We all know windows of opportunity can close fast and sometimes to jump thru it you need to worry less about whether it fits the details, but rather does it fit the definition

Suffice it to say, details, tied to consistency, erode value as contexts multiple, definitions find new value in coherence as contexts multiply.

Look. I am not against details, but I am more for definitions. What I have found is if things are well defined then people are more likely to actually do the details you want within the context of their skills, abilities to contribute, context of the implementation and toward a vision/objective.

I would also suggest the world, and business (creating, selling, buying) revolves around one thing: People. People perform better when they are cognitively attached to what they are asked to do.

Details tell, definitions involve.

Think of this as stories. Yes. I believe definitions are a version of stories.

Details are a way to rush through thinking and avoid giving the whole story. I will state, in general, we are far too often guilty of taking a headline thought, or a thought out of context, and reapplying it to some specific details simply to get people to do the details.

In other words. I take a generalization and apply to some specific thought, attitude, opinion and even a behavior to get people to do specific tasks details>.

Truth, more often than not, resides in the full story.

Facts, more often than not, resides in the full story.

That is why the full story matters. With only half the story, or maybe just the headline of a story, I miss out on half the story to maybe even 90% of the story to maybe even the entire point of the story <definition>. What I do know is that fortune cookie wisdom thrives on half stories.

Regardless. Here is what I know about why the full story matters.

The search for truth lies somewhere within the full story, not ‘halfisms.’ If I do not embark on the search and end up settling for half the story, I then end up with something less.

Less than the full story.

Less than the full truth.

Less than the full conclusion.

Less than the full facts.

In other words, just more details.

Suffice it to say it is something “less than.” It is ‘halfism.’ Worse? Its dangerous. Details is not wisdom, it is halfism and I need ‘wholism’ in a complex world.

Business demands more than details, soundbites and fortune cookie wisdom.

People, and humanity, demands more than soundbites and fortune cookie wisdom.

Yeah. The full story matters.

Yeah. Definitions matter.

==========

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

(Latin) “after this, therefore because of this” is a logical fallacy that states “Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X.”

The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection.

===========

“I believe all suffering is caused by ignorance.

People inflict pain on others in the selfish pursuit of their happiness or satisfaction.”

—-

Dalai Lama

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

Human behavior, natural inclinations and how bad leaders manipulate what many people naturally feel.

I thought about this because every time some terrorist does something, particularly if they are Muslim, it stimulates a response. That is the basic stimulus response reaction we all have.

The basic response we have is actually twofold … there is the Reptilian knee jerk response and then there is the more thoughtful responsible response.

By the way, both are viable thoughts <which everyone should think about before they call someone’s response silly, naive or stupid>.

One is basic reflexive survival instinct. One is filtered through reasoned response. And, as with almost anything in Life, truth in the proper response resides in the balance. But while balance is the desired objective for most of us  that doesn’t mean if someone shouts something out in the aftermath of some conflict or event that appeals to our Reptilian instincts we will not pay attention.

In fact, whether someone admits it or not, that initial knee jerk reaction sounds legitimate and worthy of consideration because it appeals to our “flee or fight” instincts.

Now. Far too often everyday people, in today’s world, suggest the Reptilian response is the ‘common sense’ response. And, as so often true, there is a big grain of truth within that thought. The trouble is that while stimulus response is a linear truth <in a brain way> … in the real world cause and effect is not always linear … and, yet, is still true.

A terrorist act is not a larger reflection of danger to overall safety & security <we are more likely to be killed by a fellow citizen than a Muslim or a refugee or an immigrant>.

A terrorist act is not a larger reflection of some majority ideological danger <this is a small small minority acting upon a sliver of a truth>.

A terrorist act is actually a reflection of how a significant small minority can impact a significant large majority of an opposite view <this is also called the minority majority paradox>.

And, yet, asshats like Trump actually respond to the events, and our Reptilian brain, almost in sinc with the Islamist terrorist fanatics themselves.

They feed off each other in a Reptilian way.

Their knee jerk responses focus on vindicating the initial Reptilian brain reflexive response. And, unfortunately, it does vindicate what many, maybe most, people feel initially.

That is how our brain works and that is what these assholes play to.

====

After the Bataclan atrocity his captors would be scanning social media and celebrating: “‘We are winning’, they’d say. They will be heartened by every sign of overreaction, of division, of fear, of racism, of xenophobia; they will be drawn to any examples of ugliness on social media.”

Words from Nicolas Hénin, a Frenchman who survived being taken hostage by Isis

====

Our Reptilian brain wants exactly what a terrorist wants. Attention and reflexive action; not responsive action.

Uhm.

But there is a reason we do not live our lives solely by following our Reptilian brain.

Any marketing person will tell you activating the Reptilian brain is powerful, but people desire more. Most of us do not succumb to our Reptilian brain or ignore the cortex and limbic system because most of us understand nuanced responses tend to mesh better to reality than simplistic ‘fight or flee’ responses. In fact. While a Reptilian response feels good <instant gratification>, the greater value <sustained gratification> is more often found in thoughtful responses.

====

The Brain Response Mechanism:

• Cortex: handles learning, abstract thought, imagination
• Limbic system: deals with emotions (structures between birth to 5yrs old)
• Reptilian brain (brain stem/cerebellum): instinctive, needed for survival and reproduction

 ====

Now. The American Reptilian brain is a little different than other country’s citizens. It gets driven by what Clotaire Rapaille called “the American Culture Code.” Using the words of Nike one can boil the American agenda down to three simple words: “Just do it.” Our champions are athletes, entrepreneurs, police officers, firefighters, and soldiers – all people who take action. Americans celebrate work and turn successful business people into celebrities. Donald Trump and Bill Gates are celebrities. Stephen T. Covey, Jack Welch, and Lee Iacocca are mega-selling authors. Our best-sellers include The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People and Good to Great.

We may respect thinkers, but we don’t celebrate them nearly as much as we do our action figures.

When our forefathers came to America and discovered a huge undeveloped land, their first thought wasn’t “let’s have some tea” … it was “let’s get to work.”

In fact. The American Culture Code for work is WHO YOU ARE. We seek much our personal, and country, meaning in our jobs & work <note: this is not particularly healthy & has some societal issues>.

That said.

That means when a terrorist event happens, well, we want to go to work. We want to be champions and ‘just do it.’

That is our Reptilian brain kicking in.

So. Why did I decide to share this?

Well. Because when Trump or any populist sends out a tweet <and media amplifies it on air> he is appealing to our Reptilian Brain <which we all have>. He encourages us to think our natural reptilian instinct, our reflex action, is the right thing to think. Luckily, most of us slowly slide by the Reptilian reflex and shift into a more thoughtful response.

But a significant minority stays right there in the Reptilian thought and, well, shout common sense! And I can live with that <although I will do everything in my power to explain why it is not>.

What may aggravate me even more is that people smart enough to know that isn’t the answer start suggesting the Reptilian reflexive response is the smartest most common sense response. There is no excuse for that … or them.

To be clear. There is a time & a place for reflexive Reptilian behavior, but you cannot, and should not, live your Life that way 100%.

And maybe that is my gripe with Trump <beyond some of his divisive ideas>. He seems to live in a 100% Reptilian world themselves and want to demand the general population to live the same way.

Uhm. That is no way to live.

That is assuming basic survival is the best level and not the ground level. He seems to be suggesting one of the simplest mistakes almost every one of us does which is to look at an outcome as an outcome of a sequential list of events.

And, well, that is the fallacy of if this then this.

Life is rarely that simple. The world is certainly not that simple. And I seriously doubt a terrorist act is that simple. Terrorism, and the roots of terrorism, is not a linear problem nor will solving it require a linear solution.  We will not find simple cause & effect reasons nor will we isolate the desired ‘if this then that’ which would explain everything easily.

Look. Once again I am trying to share some fake pseudo intellectual argument that while it is tempting to think of someone like Trump’s rhetoric with regard to immigrants, refuges and Muslims <criminals and terrorists> because it appeals to our Reptilian brain – we are better than that.

Smarter than that.

We can ‘survive’ smartly.

We can ‘survive’ without being devoid of values to our fellow humankind.

We can ‘survive’ without sacrificing some of the founding freedoms which we offer to anyone who elects to come to our country.

We can ‘survive’ by maintaining one of the core distinct differences USA has versus other countries — “innocent until proven guilty.”

<which, to date as far as I can tell, has not undermined our country by being overrun by criminals and terrorists>.

Of course we should be vigilant.

Of course we should take smart proactive steps to address radicalization.

Of course we should aggressively prosecute those who are truly guilty.

But assuming guilt simply because Reptilian brain suggests it?

C’mon. We know better than that.

Let the asshats speculate. Sometimes they will be right and sometimes they will be wrong.

The rest of us should await the facts and in doing so will always be 100% right.

“If you’re nervous, it means you give a damn.”

=

thatkindofwoman tumblr

—

Ok. I almost called this ‘giving a damn’ , but, this is about the relationship between nervousness and giving a shit about something. Here is the basic equation <logic flow>:

==

–      Giving a damn means you are thinking about something <because you can’t give a damn about something you aren’t thinking about>.

—

–      Thinking is good <especially if it is on something you give a damn about>.

–

–      Being nervous CAN be good <but pretty much all of us get nervous when we give a damn about something>.

==

Bottom line on being nervous and nervousness.

All are aspects of giving a shit.

All of which are also aspects of worrying.

Yup. Worrying.

Worrying about being good enough or ‘having enough’ or just ‘doing as well as I can.’

Ok. Here is a Life truth <beyond the fact everyone gets nervous>. Despite what you may think about yourself … and despite the fact you worry, the truth is, more often than not, you do a lot of ‘right’ <right things, right decisions and right thoughts>.

Despite that Life truth we do a lot of navel-gazing <and worrying> when it comes to thinking and ‘having enough’ when it matters.

Oh. About that ‘what matters’ and when we get nervous about having enough thought.

To me it often feels like we’re having too many conversations about things that don’t matter and not enough about things that do. This translates into getting nervous, if not even investing energy, towards a lot of things that just do not matter.

We have gobs of incredibly smart, resourceful, creative thinking people in today’s world and, frankly, I wish we would spend more of our precious attention, energy, and ideation skills solving meaningful things that mattered.

In addition. I also wish more people accepted they had ‘enough’ to deal with all the shit that matters. This also means we just need to accept that being nervous is just part of the gig.

Anyway. Let me share two aspects of nervous and giving a shit.

First.

Nervousness is just a reflection of the fact you recognize that there is something to lose when you care.

Now. This isn’t ‘caring about losing’, but more about ‘losing if I care.’ Some people have this equation out of whack in that they simply believe losing any time is bad. It is out of whack because, simplistically, we care about some things more than others. The winning or losing isn’t, and shouldn’t be, tied to the outcome but rather the ‘level of caring.’

==

“The more you care, the more you have to lose.”

Harry Potter

==

In my mind your nervousness should be used more often as a platform for discussion or thinking or even level of caring. But, please, … please … don’t make nervousness based on some fear of doing the ‘wrong things.’

Just figure out what you care about, and, accept the fact that if you care that the outcome matters more, and, accept that if it matters more you will be nervous.

<this equation is quite effective in deductive thinking about yourself and things about yourself>

Second.

Nervousness and anger. Beyond being tied to caring or level of caring … nervousness is absolutely tied to anger.

===

“My anger at the world coils inside of me. It’s a directionless seething, there’s no name or face to aim at.”

The Sky So Heavy by Claire Zorn

==

Nervousness always has a direction.

That is why I get aggravated when someone says ‘I just don’t know why I’m nervous.’

Well. Being nervous always contains an aspect of some … well … anger. You get angry that a world demands so much of you and you get nervous that you cannot <or may not> meet what the world demands.

This doesn’t mean that you are not capable nor does it mean that in some form or fashion you do not enjoy rising to the occasion. What it means is that you get a little angry just being put in the position <that makes you nervous>. Just think of it this way … your anger coils inside you and comes out externally as nervousness.

But … you know what? Some anger is quite productive.

Some anger motivates you to action and stepping up rather than stepping back <or not stepping at all>. But this also means that some anger translates into being nervous.

Anyway.

I am fairly sure everyone gets nervous about things <in general>. But I am absolutely positive everyone gets nervous about the things that matter to them.

I imagine I wrote this because people just don’t like being nervous.

They don’t like the feeling.

And my fear is that maybe in avoiding being nervous … maybe they avoid things that matter.

Look.

Accept the burden of nervousness.

You have to.

If you don’t, then most of the things you do will … well … not matter. Suffice it to say that Life is too short to not do things that matter so, go ahead, be nervous.

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

“It is perhaps the misfortune of my life that I am interested in far too much but not decisively in any one thing; all my interests are not subordinated in one but stand on an equal footing.”

–

Søren Kierkegaard

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

“I wasn’t much of a petty thief. I wanted the whole world or nothing.”

–

Charles Bukowski

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

So. Last night I had a little time before I shut down my computer to scrounge around some of my favorite websites for some thoughts, quotes and images. I don’t really believe in serendipity but within 15 minutes on three different sites I gathered the three quotes that anchor this piece.

………… restless thinking one big adventure ……..

I sat back after copying them and I realized, well, it is perhaps the misfortune of my Life that I am interested in far too much.

My misfortune is that I am incessantly curious, a relentless contrarian to existing thought & thinking and a restless thinker in general. My misfortune is that I see restless thinking as one big adventure.

I sat back after copying them and I realized I am not satisfied being a petty thief … I want the whole world.

And as I sat back I also thought a little about how I got to this place.

Growing up I remember hearing a lot of “maybe you should be more realistic” type advice. I remember it chafing.

It made me think … well … I should think smaller.

That chafed.

I am sure the ‘safer’ aspect … aiming toward more achievable things and not stretching too far possibly felt okay … but I chafed on the whole thought of not getting what I thought could be achieved or what could be done.

Shit.

I still do.

Going small just seems … well … small to me.

And, yes, there is a price to pay for thinking this way.

Ok. I will point out two prices you pay.

The first price is restlessness.

Oh. And restlessness can make people feel uneasy. It makes them uneasy because you are not easily slotted. People want you to present them with a peg and they can put it in some hole and thinking about it and look at it.

People, like me, who have the misfortune of being interested in anything and everything and not satisfied with one thing are more of a box. And while boxes represent some symmetry and some tangible aspect for people to grasp, at the same time, … sigh … it is not a peg

The second price is wins … as in quantity of wins.

Even I, probably a more pragmatic aspirationalist, don’t aim toward some truly realistic things on occasion. That means not getting done what you want to get done, not getting where you want to get to and not getting, in general, the largeness you desired. In other words you didn’t get a win while someone who aimed lower or accepted something smaller did get a win.

Does that matter? I mean life doesn’t really give out trophies, people do.

Yeah. It does matter. Watching others win when you don’t does matter to some extent. And you would be lying if you didn’t admit that.

Aiming for it all, or something bigger <more broad> than something smaller <more focused>, and not getting it can make you start thinking smaller. And why do you do that? You want a frickin’ win.

And that, well, that can affect how you think and what you do.

It does so because many of us are willing to compromise some fairly important things to win on occasion.

Shit. Even more of us are willing to compromise a lot of fairly important things <which they hadn’t even tangibly decided were important to them> in order to win on occasion.

Oh. I bring up the second group because they are the ones who don’t get the ones who have the misfortune of wanting bigger things. It’s like a petty thief most likely scoffs at the master thief.

Uhm.

But those people may just call this reality <and, therefore, kind of suggesting those who have the misfortune of wanting to know everything about everything are not realistic>.

Whew. Yeah.

It is quite likely that my reality, and those whose reality is similar, fights reality itself – I mean society & culture creates lines of reality of which we get boxed in by with regard to expectations.

Umberto Eco is the one who suggested life has “lines of resistance.” This was his version of reality.

These ‘lines of resistance’ are established mostly so that we cannot say or do whatever we like with impunity. The problem with that is they also bring along some baggage … baggage like … uhm … what is viewed as pragmatic & realistic <smaller versions of shit that are achievable by many rather than few>.

Oh.

Yeah.

But, thankfully, the lines of resistance can shift.

But, thankfully, some can reach across the lines of resistance and gain access to some bigger shit which lies outside the lines of resistance.

All that said. Life, and these lines of resistance, encourage some people … mostly those who have the misfortune to be interested in far too much but not decisively in any one thing to shrink them … encourage them to think smaller and, inevitably, maybe be smaller than what they should be.

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

“Most of my life has been spent trying to shrink myself.

Trying to become smaller. Quieter. Less sensitive. Less opinionated. Less needy. Less me.  

Because I didn’t want to be a burden.

I didn’t want to be too much or push people away. I wanted people to like me. I wanted to be cared for and valued. I wanted to be wanted. So for years, I sacrificed myself for the sake of making other people happy. And for years, I suffered.

But I’m tired of suffering, and I’m done shrinking. It’s not my job to change who I am in order to become someone else’s idea of a worthwhile human being.  

I am worthwhile. Not because other people think I am, but because I exist, and therefore I matter. My thoughts matter. My feelings matter. My voice matters. And with or without anyone’s permission or approval, I will continue to be who I am and speak my truth.

Even if it makes people angry. Even if it makes them uncomfortable. Even if they choose to leave. I refuse to shrink. I choose to take up space. I choose to honour my feelings. I choose to give myself permission to get my needs met. I choose to make self-care a priority.

I choose me.”

Daniell Koepke

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

Let me be clear.

Smaller is safer. Smaller can actually be very satisfying. Smaller, in some ways, can actually permit you to live a fuller Life <although I would argue it’s not really a bigger Life>. And while small, in this case, could be construed as bad or lesser than … it is not. It is simply a viable choice for people with regard t their Life and how they want to live it.

Just as those who have the misfortune to want the whole world, well, that is their choice.

And I would argue that whatever your choice we are all aiming toward the same place … lets call it our “home.” That home within. The place within you that either sits on the favorite Barcalounger safe & sound in a Life lived well in smaller aspects or the one who wanders forever restlessly over hill & thru the dale seeking the next interest or learning or new thing.

Personally, I am the latter. I am a nomad thinker.  I want to know it all. And when I know something I want to know more. But that topic is for another day.

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

“All of life is a coming home.

Salesmen, secretaries, coal miners, beekeepers, sword swallowers, all of us.  All the restless hearts of the world, all trying to find a way home.” 

Patch Adams 

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

Today I would suggest whether you have the misfortune of wanting to know it all or whether you believe in something bigger than you or simply believe there is something bigger within you to be found by not wanting it all … your compass & your map resides within … not some external place or location which may appear to fulfill some aspect of ‘home.’

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

so far out to sea <‘restless’>

so far out to sea

     standing on impassive intensity

                     of restless possibilities

oh,

     push back the curtain

of slumbering elements

      of disordered solitude.

stir up a peace of

       desolate despair

                       drowning out a cacophony

       of restless disinterested

                           distant thoughts.

restless sun

               reflects upon the path chosen,

                      stand frozen,

      restless mind

                    wander the waves roaming

so far out to sea

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

Ok. In concept this is a simple idea, but fraught with peril in implementation.

The concept.

If your reason for being is big enough you will get noticed.

I will state the obvious behind this thought just to get it out of the way. If your reason for being is big enough there is …

–        no need to stand in the middle of a room and shout for attention.

–        no need to do cartwheels in the middle of a mall.

–        no need to run naked in the middle of a soccer match (thank god).

–        no need to wear a clown suit (unless you are a clown for a living).

And best of all …

–        no need for a dozen jelly donuts (or bagels) or any food bribery when you go to meetings.

If all that interests you then keep reading.

Let me begin by defining ‘reason for being.’

I mean what you stand for and what you say and what you do day in and day out.

I mean what you want to be seen as and ultimately known for (not something tangible … something intangible).

And while this could be about companies and business (and I may try a word replace just to see if that is true) I am gonna keep this one focused on you and I and us (as individuals).

Ok. Whether we admit it or not, we all want to be noticed.

We don’t want to be overlooked or underappreciated (for either a talent or just as a person). That is normal. And has nothing to do with ego or ‘humbleness’ or any of that type of stuff. This is just good ole self esteem and such.  This is just about receiving some confirmation that your existence matters (in normal words: ‘you matter’) and some positive reinforcement for self being.

That said. While I hate (abhor) the things on the ‘no need’ list I typed I also believe getting noticed is one of the biggest challenges people face. It is a fact that not being noticed is an obstacle to a lot of things that truly matter.

It makes it harder to communicate what you want to say.

It makes it more difficult to make an impact.

It makes it nearly impossible to change the world (change meaning small, medium, large or extra large in impact).

I say this to make the point that getting noticed does matter. And it matters a shitload.

Look, once again, getting noticed (in the right way) has never been about being outrageous. Getting noticed, like any other incredibly difficult challenge, is all about who you are.

It’s about your attitude.

It’s about becoming some color when everything else is black & white.

Its about finding your own way of being distinct.

And mostly it is about finding out what you are good at and being comfortable with who you are as a person.

And if you do all of that I can almost guarantee you that people will naturally gravitate to you (the corollary to that is if people do not gravitate to you then rather than bitch about why they don’t maybe you should begin to reflect upon yourself first).

So. Some thoughts about being comfortable with who you are (the core to being distinct individually and ultimately noticed the ‘right way’):

– Be comfortable doing what everyone else thinks is wrong.

Now.  I don’t mean all of the time.  I simply mean on things that matter. Why? Because accomplishing anything that truly matters starts with the belief that you may have to be different and its okay to be different. Oh. And not just “shades of gray” different. You have to be completely different.

Yup. Sometimes for people to know that something new is occurring (and want to be involved) you have to commit as a person to capture the essence of the ‘difference’ in what you say and how you present yourself. Oh. And “new” most often comes to life by having the ability to point out things that make people feel uncomfortable (because you are debating the status quo).

In the business world this is called ‘disruption.’ BUT.  At its core disruption only is effective if it is relevant. Being different for different sake is wrong.  That is making an empty statement. Be comfortable in insightful relevant disruption.

– Be candid. Be truthful.

There are ridiculous things happening everywhere. People’s behavior, attitudes and perceptions. It is easy to overlook the important things because … well … it is easier to focus on the ridiculous (and it is ridiculous). If you want to change the conversation and get people talking with you (as well as about you), start talking about all this ridiculous stuff.  Spend the time to create intellectual arguments that get people thinking.

– Understand effort matters.

Oh. And, in particular, effort for the moments that really matter … well … really matter.

Get it in your head now (no ifs, and or buts) that there are truly no easy get rich schemes. Believe it deep in your soul. Etch it somewhere on your body if you have to. One of the most debilitating things that can happen is a choice to make personal investments in shortcuts. No shortcut can replace effort. The same thing applies to vision and how you manage details. There is nothing to do but “DO”. That’s the attitude that you need to have. And if by expending massive amounts of effort on things that matter you happen to gain success, then absolutely enjoy it. You will get noticed for the effort on what matters.

Is this true all the time? Nope.

But consistency wins this particular game. You will be tempted by the short cuts (we all are) but deliver the effort on the things that truly matter on a consistent basis and you will get noticed.  I guarantee it. And you will be noticed for the right reasons.

– embrace (some) vulnerability.

This is the last one and the most difficult one.

Maybe I could have just written, “be human” but vulnerability is a much more powerful concept. And it takes some real kahones to embrace this one.

Why is this important to getting noticed? Well. People are flawed.  And people like people who are flawed.  Perfection scares people. And, honestly, no one is perfect.

We all have things that impact us so emotionally they, well, bring us to tears. And those are things that you need to be talking about. You need to be passionate. You need to show you actually care about something.  Care so much that you are open to getting hurt. Care so much you become vulnerable in some way. It shows that you live your life, willing to get hurt on things that matter, and are honest about what matters most to you.

So. In the end?

It all starts with you.

If your reason is big enough, your cause worth it enough, being noticed will be the least of your worries.

========

“Contagion will seep through almost any coordinated collection of people.”

——

Social Intelligence Daniel Goleman

=======

A ripple effect is a situation in which, like ripples expanding across the water when an object is dropped into it, an effect from an initial state can be followed outwards incrementally. Ripple effect is often used colloquially to mean a multiplier (economics)

=========

This is about how attitudes, behavior & culture spreads. With all the discussion about the impact of social media psychologically and behaviorally, and the impact (positives & negatives) of influencers, I am slightly surprised we don’t talk more about the 100 Monkey Theory.

I thought about this when I recently read an article called “how culture makes us smarter” which shared an idea called ‘cumulative culture.” It immediately made me think of the 100 Monkey Theory and how the internet has amplified the theory.

Then:  Islands of attitudes and behaviors

The 100 Monkey theory:

—–

In 1952, on the Japanese island of Koshima, a monkey named Imo washed a sweet potato before she ate it.  She and her fellow, Macaca Fuscata monkeys were given sweet potatoes by the scientists who studied them.  The monkeys like the taste of the potatoes, yet did not like the dirt.  Imo taught her mother and the other monkeys she came into contact with and over time more and more monkeys were washing their potatoes.

Imo’s practice catches on.

Well, the interesting observation is that after a significant minority (let’s say 100 monkeys to use a number) of the monkeys were washing their potatoes, the scientists observed that very quickly after this, all the monkeys were washing their potatoes.  Like a critical mass had been reached and now all the monkeys were able to access this knowledge somehow even if they did not come into contact with Imo and her friends.  More interesting is that scientists observed that at the same time, on other islands monkeys were also washing their potatoes.

It appears that when 99 monkeys were washing potatoes and one more joined, a critical mass was achieved and this awareness was now available to everyone (please don’t get hung up on the exact 99 or 100 numbers).

This is known as the 100 Monkey Theory.

———-

So. The foundation of the theory is when a certain critical number achieves an awareness of “something” (an attitude or behavior) that this new awareness may be communicated from mind to mind. A derivative of this idea has been called “the Cumulative Advantage.” The interesting aspect of this is the ‘island to island’ aspect.

These monkeys didn’t have internet.

Nor a classroom.

Nor any physical content.

This theory suggests that, although the exact number may vary, this 100 Monkey Phenomenon means that when only a limited number of people know a new behavior it may subconsciously reside as the conscious property of the collective people.

I actually believe it has nothing to do with subconscious, but rather that minds tend to evolve at equal paces and when a critical mass of brains accepts something as a good idea or a mode of behavior that idea is likely to be thought of & adopted elsewhere. I will suggest the internet leverages cumulative advantages like contagion.

Now. I really do not want to get hung up on the actual numbers it is fascinating to think that there is a point at which if only one more person absorbs the new attitude and changes its behavior that somehow this awareness is picked up by almost everyone. 100 monkeys (or any individuals with brains) is enough critical mass to ensure either extensive collaborative thinking or the presence of a superior individual innovative mind.  Either way the group attains the same objective – an innovative idea.

The group dynamic

The other aspect of this (with internet repercussions) is individual reason versus group reasoning. It is in The Enigma of Reason in which they posit individuals reason (but that is inherently biased and lazy), but when ‘reasons’ are encountered socially, in a group dynamic, reasoning expands.

In my own words I call this a ‘Ripple effect.’

Now: islands of information

—–

“Contagion will seep through almost any coordinated collection of people.”

Social Intelligence Daniel Goleman

—–

The internet redefines what islands are. It changes islands from physical to virtual amplifying the overall effects of learning –both useful & non-useful. In the past learning, as a result of the print revolution, was seen as an individual process shared by word of mouth and handing books from one to another. Learning as a result of the Internet revolution is an active process of communication between connected people. This can be shallow (soundbites) or it can be of substance (in-depth pieces, multiple sources).

However. Conceptually the 100 monkey ripple effect is exactly the same, just exponentially faster once traction occurs.

Which leads me to the concept of echo chambers. An article discussing internet echo chambers recently discussed the fact it is the content, not the echo chamber, that matters. I would argue it is a combination. Nothing of one thing is good – even knowledge and facts. Facts becomes stronger the more they are forged by conflict with other facts, lies, & perspective.

generational islands of behaviors

Now. There is an interesting subset of the study in which the ‘older monkeys remained steadfastly ignorant of the new behavior”:

———-

By March, 1958, 15 of the 19 young monkeys (aged two to seven years} and 2 of the 11 adults were washing sweet potatoes. Up to this time, the propagation of the innovative behavior was on an individual basis, along family lines and playmate relationships. Most of the young monkeys began to wash the potatoes when they were one to two and a half years old. Males older than 4 years, who had little contact with the young monkeys, did not acquire the behavior. The older monkeys remained steadfastly ignorant of the new behavior. (source: Elaine Myers)

———–

Adoption of new ideas is the real echo chamber. This suggests there is a resistance to new behavior the more steeped existing behavior is within an individual. Its possible connection between individuals increases adoption across generations, but the internet does not permit that experience – virtual experience is easier to ignore than physical experience.

Conceptually this suggests islands of similarly aged people. Conceptually this also hearkens back to The Enigma of Reason in that if the older individual monkeys do not interact with the younger monkeys their thinking remains biased & lazy (retaining the status quo).

Conclusion:

Trying to explain behavioral transition from specific tactics is very difficult – and it aggravates me when people try to associate specific expenditures or activity to create behavioral activity. This whole idea with 100 Monkeys is about doing things, real behavior, creating enough critical mass so that it gets recognized and absorbed in some subconscious way which inevitably creates the behavioral change desired.

I believe any one even remotely interested in creating cultural change should invest some time thinking about this theory. Instead of needing dollars to create change or wacky ideas to affect attitudes or investing energy trying to create “a wave of change” someone can focus on “the 100.” Creating change by focusing the few. Gosh.  Sure would make life a little simpler huh? (some people, like me for an example, call this creating an influencer base to influence mass behavior).

—————

“Where religious values might be relative, intellectual values fleeting, moral values ambiguous, and aesthetic values dependent upon an observer, the existence of any thing is infinite.”

John Gardner

———–

The last aspect is the lack of limit identification.

100 Monkeys clearly outlines the genesis. But what about the limits? Is contagion finite (beyond the age/generational aspect)? Or is contagion theoretically limitless? Is the existence of any thing truly infinite?

I would argue an idea, psychologically, has few limits. I would also argue behavior does have limits. In other words, anyone can think about doing something but not everyone can, or will, do something. it is within that discussion in which a business discerns the true potential of an idea.

Regardless.

You may not buy it.

You may not think people are related to monkeys.

You may think 100 isn’t enough (on islands or the internet).

But you should think about this because idea & thinking traction is pretty unpredictable but what I do know is that all ideas & behavior don’t arise from nowhere so 100 monkeys, and people, seems like a good place to begin.

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

“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.”

Stowe Boyd

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

My quick response to the “No Boss, no Thanks” piece. I believe there is some misguided thinking (central authority is necessary, buck stops somewhere dependent upon one person, democratic decision making is inefficient/slow), but it was this particular part that galled me:

“Third, while technological miracles such as the internet, cheap and reliable wireless communication, Moore’s law, miniaturisation and information markets have induced sweeping changes in manufacturing, retail, transportation and communication, the laws of economics are still the laws of economics. And human nature hasn’t changed. The basic problem of management and business – how to assemble, organise and motivate groups of people and resources to produce goods and services that consumers want – is still the same. Since the industrial revolution, entrepreneurs have been organising extremely complex activities in firms that are neither completely centralised nor completely flat. Imagine the complexity involved in operating a national railroad, a steel mill or an automobile assembly plant in the 19th and early 20th centuries. These were all ‘knowledge-based activities’ and were conducted in teams organised in various structures. Are things so different today?”

First.

Yes. Things are ‘so different’. The uthors have completely missed what is the same and what is different about today’s business. I would suggest they read my piece, Distribution Revolution,  on what I believe is functionally the same and it also outlines what I believe is different.

Second.

I would highly recommend the authors pick up a copy of Toffler Future Shock, Third Wave and even Powershift, if they have the time, because they would find the answer to “are things so different today?” in books written in 1970 & 1980 if they cared to look. In fact. Part of my whole aggravation with this article is I feel like we have been debating the same ideas Toffler offered us since 1970.

Anyway.

If you ignore everything else I write, pay attention to this. Maximizing people’s potential doesn’t mean doing away with managers; it just means you maximize the potential of people AS managers. I am not naïve enough to believe we will do away with titles and experience based ‘management’. But. People are managers and managers are people. Period.

Anyway.

Let me use some Toffler to point out where the authors of the article went wrong.

context: accelerated world

Solving business challenges can be complicated, but business itself is complex (& always has been). Business people cannot afford to confuse complicated and complex. Now. What technology did is accelerate the complexity. The business atoms were placed into a supercollider. In fact, it accelerated business dynamics beyond the structure of a hierarchy or even centralized “buck stops somewhere” managers. That said. I think we confuse speed and acceleration all the time to the detriment of organizational design and behavior. Organizational design almost seems to inherently have a desire to decelerate to permit some sense of “its okay, you can feel comfortable with the speed of business” where I think we would be better off addressing the larger issue Toffler outlined: overstimulation. Acceleration tests our attention, cognitive skills and ability to discern what is important and what is not – which is actually a ‘speed’ versus velocity discussion. The article, by suggesting the basic business world is the same, ignores that, in a grander context, it is not. In fact, the article is incredibly misguided because it would appear to encourage insular cocooning rather than suggesting the challenge is to fully engage & manage overstimulation. I am not suggesting acceleration & overstimulation is not an issue, but I will suggest it is a reality and hierarchies (centralizing overstimulation) is not the way to increase the likelihood of business success. If I were to choose one aspect I wish organizational psychology would address, this is it.

Which leads me to connectedness.

everything is connected with everything

When I read simplistic tripe like “The basic problem of management and business – how to assemble, organise and motivate groups of people and resources to produce goods and services that consumers want” I can understand how hierarchies have been so resilient to a better way of doing things. In the past it was arranging lego blocks, now it is arranging molecules. Toffler discussed this in a variety of ways, but the most interesting was “porous organizations” in which teams assembled, and reassembled, in order to meet specific challenges. He outlined this in 1970. Nowhere in that concept did he discuss no bosses, but he did suggest in 1990 (Powershift) that the biggest challenge to this idea would be power. The new business normal faces two dynamics: power & interconnectedness. Needless to say, they are connected.

Which leads me to connecting.

the world as a merry go round

We seem to ‘design’ organizations on the playground then demand it to jump on the merry go round. Or, worse, leave it on the playground and suggest business is about plucking opportunities as they spin ‘round the merry go round. The best organizations will jump on the merry go round with the resources they have on hand and meet the demands of the business. The truth is the centrifugal force of the accelerated merry go round demands different configurations at different times. This will demand a variety of ‘bosses’ (albeit I dislike that word). Management is contextual. Unless you happen to have a Swiss army knife person (they exist but are fewer than most businesses have) this means everyone will lead & manage at some point. If the authors don’t understand this I fear they don’t understand today’s business world.

Which leads me to untidiness.

discomfort with untidiness

Businesses inherently love tidiness and hate untidiness. They associate predictability & certainty with being tidy and inefficiency & failures/mistakes with untidiness. Unfortunately, for business, mediocrity (or even slippery slope to irrelevance) resides in tidiness and spectacular success resides in untidiness.

While we like to think of organizations as a ship sailing into a tumultuous sea it is actually a fleet of smaller ships being pushed & shoved by tides and waves through storm & calm all trying to go in one direction together <without crashing into each other>. Each smaller ship has a captain and a crew <often skilled in managing that particular ship if needed>.

The ‘No Boss’ authors seem to associate ‘building a dynamic organization’ or even ‘motivating employees’ by inevitably suggesting one big ship making progress in some direction (although they give a head nod to a matrix organization). If you don’t like that metaphor just accept this: the “No Boss” authors seek tidiness. They are wrong.

I say all that because you invariably need to grow your business unevenly. Yup. Sorry. A business isn’t, probably shouldn’t be and most likely cannot be <and be successful> ‘even.’ Or smooth. Or without any ragged edges. It needs to be grown unevenly <which is actually a natural growth rather than some manufactured growth>.

“Sureness will always elude you.

The detective will always circle around what he wants, never seeing it whole. We do not go on despite this. We go on because of it.”

—–

Claire DeWitt

Which leads me to freedom.

discomfort with freedom

Business, for decades & thru hierarchy, has always been built around selective freedoms – maybe ‘controlled freedom.’ Business people, in general, are much more comfortable building stop signs than they are highways.  Toffler spent almost an entire book outlining how technology will create a freedom ‘shock’ (Future Shock) and an entire book on the shock to the power structures (Powershift).

“No Boss” reflects a fear of freedom & loss of power. Period.

Which leads me to belief.

belief.

Unfettered freedom CAN lead to chaos. So we come up with a number of behavioral & motivational tricks to attach to versions & steps to implement aspects of distributed leadership mostly because we ignore what we know about individual behavior and we have a healthy skepticism toward managers & management in general.

Gamification, carrots & sticks, incentives, milestones are all derivatives of hierarchy thinking trying to adapt to a relentlessly uncertain world. They are attempts to build in some certainty. Yet. Behaviorally we know the most powerful motivation has nothing to do with ‘defeating’ a system/objective/goal, but rather it’s about ‘belief.’ Defeating is someone wins, someone loses. Belief is like hope. It draws people toward it.

That said. It’s a twofold belief challenge.

Business owners, managers as such, need to believe in people. They need to believe if given the opportunity to make choices, do the right things, the arc of people behavior (driven by intentions) will bend toward productivity & profitability. Note. This means business community needs to embrace a lack of output smoothness (a perception & reality challenge in & of itself).

========

“I don’t exactly know what I mean by that, but I mean it.”

The Catcher in the Rye

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

As a corollary. People need to believe in people (themselves). While we may innately know we can make decisions, assume responsibility & do the right things, the business world has not encouraged people to think that way. In fact. It has often penalized us for thinking that way. Many people almost don’t believe they should have responsibility or that they will not benefit by doing the right things. If we can align belief, than construct, as it currently exists, falls apart naturally (as not conducive to the belief) & people will inherently access their potential because barriers to believing they have that potential are stripped away.

Yes. Some of the ‘tricks’ may be useful but looking at the gobs of absurd articles & books with regard to organizational psychology it appears we have missed they are all means to an end and maybe we should seek to identify the end and encourage managers and people to believe in the power of belief.

I ended with Belief because at the core of “No Boss” is a belief that control, in some dimension, is necessary. I wrote in my “Purpose of Business is to benefit People” piece   that this is a reflection of not believing in people. I don’t blame the authors here because, well, there are a shitload of business thought leaders who not only do not believe in people but don’t believe “belief” is enough to guide people.

In the end.

The “No Boss” article is exactly what I hear from 50somethings holding onto the existing business construct with ragged claws.

Self-governing organizations are nothing new, even the Greeks were big fans, and Toffler began the vague outlines of how technology would widen the cracks in what we already knew – hierarchies were standardization models and people, and business, tend to thrive when non standardized. All that said. “No Boss, No Thanks” is tripe. Business drivel. Stowe Boyd called it “misunderstanding the nature of management” ; I call it just another example of fear of freedom couched in some poisoned fortune cookie wisdom. It ignores the most basic principles laid out in Toffler’s Future Shock & Third Wave that business normal was being shaken like an etch a sketch. And, in particular, it ignores Toffler’s third book, Powershift, by thinking power will always reside within some aspect of centralization & centralized thinking. It will not. They confuse centralized thinking with coalesced thinking. Centralized is inside out and coalesced is outside in where it is a reflection of, as Stowe suggests, ‘everyone is management.’

I’m certainly not as smart & insightful as Alvin Toffler, or Stowe Boyd, but even I know this “No Boss” article reflects not only a misunderstanding of distributed leadership but, more concerning, a misunderstanding of ‘business normal’ as it exists today.

Postscript:

I encourage everyone to revisit the Toffler trilogy. He shares a number of interesting thoughts:

• The Electronic Cottage: where remote work force becomes integral part of organizations
• The New Worker: where responsibilities become agile & diverse

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

“Sometimes, the bravest thing you can do is to never look back.”

—

Anonymous

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

Forward progress, in the mind, is almost a mandatory for success.

Forward progress, in practice, is great theoretically.

Forward progress, in theory, is big business.

For the latter, well, just see the gobs of information and quotes online with regard to “if you aren’t moving forward you are standing still” … “don’t look back or you’ll miss what is in front of you” … “don’t look back you are not going that way” or some fortune cookie wisdom like that <as if no one knows that movement, and progress, is good>. I call this the ‘forward progress theory’ business <I have noted elsewhere Life, like chess, is about facing the entire board and obstacles & opportunities which lie all around you, not just in front of you, & you can move in a variety of directions with progress in mind>.

That said.

With regard to progress, the bravest thing you can do is to not look back. Why do I say ‘brave’? We make it really hard to not look back. Really hard. Day in and day out everything around you pounds on you for ‘what did you learn’ and how are you applying it and ‘if you don’t know learnings from the past how can you be sure that is the right thing to do?” <crap like that>.

Okay. Semi useful thinking crap like that. But what it really means is that anyone truly desiring to move forward, intent on progress, keeps getting dragged back time and again to the past. What, or who, is the main culprit of this almost unhealthy relationship with the past?

“Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to make the same mistakes.”

Christalmighty. “Doomed.”

No wonder people are afraid of some risk or hesitate to move forward keep looking backwards. Doom is never a particularly desirable objective if you care about your career <or anything for that matter>.

====

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

(George Santayana)

“I’ve got news for Mr. Santayana: we’re doomed to repeat the past no matter what.

That’s what it is to be alive.”

Kurt Vonnegut

====

The ‘doomed’ aspect <which older business people toss around like confetti in meetings> means we are almost demanded to not only invest energy in the past but, in some cases, encouraged to hold on to past learning with ragged claws. That said … I will go back to the bravery aspect because I could argue the truest bravery, in this sense, resides in two places:

• Not looking back once you have decided to move forward.
• Not looking back when you purposefully stand still.

Yeah.

First. Move. There are actually times to just go. Go and do. I do not mean ‘go’ as solely leaning on instincts <I call this ‘decision faking by intuition‘>, because research tends to show instincts are less important than experience, but lean on your experience to guide you through the context of your progress. The truth is that the past cannot show you all the shit you need to know as you move forward. It only shows aspects of shit you should be aware of. And, worse, the past has  nasty habit of not encouraging you to reflect on the context of all the aspects just the aspects themselves. Therefore history is truly only important in parts and not the whole.

This means you have to grab the scraps of what you need from the past and create a new whole in moving forward. That is where bravery steps up to the plate. More often than not you are creating a new whole … a slightly different version of what was. Yeah. That is different than the past <it s actually something new>. Yeah. Everyone is actually a creator, a discoverer albeit we don’t like to think about that. While this point is a generalization … if you know your shit … once you have decided to go … to move forward … don’t look back. Bravely face the new world ahead.

Yeah.

Second. Stand still. There are actually times to stop. Stand still. Even amidst activity. Even amidst a crowd which seems like it is moving forward <albeit sometimes all you see is the movement>.

Stillness, strategic stillness, is possibly one of the scariest things anyone can ever do. When everyone and everything is moving you feel like you are ding something wrong in standing still. And, yet, by purposefully doing so you may be adding to the progress rather than taking away from it.

Here is what I know about purposefully standing still.

You have to accept the fact you are offering the type of energy that no matter where you are and no matter that you are still & not moving you are actually adding value to the space and time and progress to that which is around you. I can promise you that this takes a version of bravery.

Anyway.

The entire ‘Forward progress Theory’ is difficult. Difficult in the mind <attitudes> and even in practice <behavior>. I could argue that it is so difficult because our natural instinct is to try and use the past to define what the future will look like. That is slightly crazy when you think about it. While the arc of time suggests the future will most likely replicate the past, well, that is the arc and not the details. It’s kind of like discussing strategy versus tactics. The strategy may remain the same or similar, but the tactics will vary in the context of time & situation.

Progress does take some bravery, some courage. Mostly because the future will always contain something you have never seen before or faced before. In other words … it will not be the same as it was.

I don’t think I am particularly brave but I certainly don’t look back once I decide to go … and I have no qualms with standing still amidst movement. I tend to believe it is not bravery but rather experience.

Ah. Experience. Maybe you need to be brave to gain useful experience?

Ok.

That’s another post for another day ……..

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

“Sometimes people let the same problem make them miserable for years when they could just say, ‘So what’.

That’s one of my favorite things to say. So what.”

Andy Warhol

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

===========

“You’re beginning to dislike me, aren’t you? Well, dislike me. It doesn’t make any difference to me now.”

―

W. Somerset Maugham

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

Paying attention.

First.

The world is indifferent to you. To anyone in fact. It chugs along doing what it does and forces you to jump on the roller coaster and hold on or forces you to decide to create your own experience.

Second.

That means you cannot be indifferent to the indifferent world or you will never make a difference (big, medium or small). More likely you will just get steamrolled by indifferent Life.

Third.

Not being indifferent means you have to pay attention. This is where it gets tricky. It gets tricky because Life squeezes you between events & people. Events happen and you have to keep your head on a swivel to not only see what is happening but try and get a sense of what is coming. People are, well, people. You actually don’t have to keep your head on a swivel because it is more like people just bounce off of you whether you like it or. Even worse? Someone you don’t even know who has made some decision in some place you weren’t even invited to is most likely creating something you need to be paying attention for.

Fourth.

So now we get to people. You can’t be completely indifferent to people, but you also can’t always let people make a difference on you. In Life we learn this lesson fairly early on <as soon as we walk into a grade school>. In business we get blindsided. We get blindsided because you think a lot of the school bullshit will not happen in the business world.

I could write a book on this topic but suffice it to say my message to the good people, the ones who want to play fair, maintain integrity and conduct business with dignity:

Someone will always find something nefarious in what you are doing.

Yeah. This sucks.

I will not call this conspiracy thinking but, in general, a business culture more often than not breeds a sense that <a> everyone is out for themselves and <b> there is no such thing as a truly altruistic business motivation. And while it would be naïve of me to suggest that avoiding those two thoughts as ‘stupid & untrue’ it is a little sad that those beliefs pretty much underlie every organization.

Please note, once again, the people aspect in everything I have noted. You may want to avoid things but you will find your destiny along the path you have chosen strewn with a shitload of people crossing your path uninvited and many unwelcome.

I say that because that is your career.

So let me suggest something <maybe a little contrarian>.

I would suggest that Life is best lived by not ignoring shit and avoiding shit but rather stepping into the world an deal with it. Sometimes that may mean side stepping some of the shit you don’t want to deal with and sometimes that may mean bludgeoning your way over and through some of the shit you don’t want to deal with but if you do this you actually have some control over your own destiny. I say that because the problem with trying to maintain your Life on a parallel track, and knowing that inevitably it will be crossed by people & shit you had been purposefully avoiding, is that you will always be reacting to the bullshit rather than proactively facing it.

Look. While you may not care about business or business politics my point is my point you cannot avoid the world to conduct yourself in the ways & means you want to conduct yourself. You are stuck with the world, and in the world, whether you like it or not.

Oh.

The other thing you are stuck with is the fact whether you stay on your road of ‘how I’m gonna do things right’ engaged with the world or take another road to try and avoid the world you don’t like, well, you will meet your destiny.

The world is indifferent to the road you choose. So you should probably choose to not be indifferent and at least choose the road you want to be on rather than be stuck on one not of your choosing.

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

“The only real valuable thing is intuition.”

–

Albert Einstein

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

Well.

Einstein is usually smarter than this. He is slightly off the mark here. Uhm. Well. Maybe he did get it right because he also seemed to have said this.

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

“Intuition does not come to an unprepared mind.”

—–

Einstein

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

Okay.

Maybe he was smart <note: tongue in cheek statement>. More likely … Einstein simply never said half the crap that people said he said.

Regardless. Management and decision making by instinct or intuition has reached what I would call a ‘crisis level’ in business today. Let me explain.

First.

Knowledge is good.

Second.

But knowing what to do with it? Let’s call that ‘intuition”, well,that is gooder. Let’s say even excellent. Uhm. But that’s a combo meal. Main entrée is knowledge and the side item is intuition. Don’t like that metaphor?

Knowledge is the science and intuition is the art.

That combination is often called ‘decision making.’

Here is the challenge in today’s business world <and possibly Life>. The gap between what our intuition says and what data & facts actually say is growing wider. What I mean by that is computers and data have the ability to uncover correlation between facts that almost defy common sense or, at minimum, simply make us scratch our heads and say ‘what?” <or “really???”> and that discomfort will inevitably lead to a desire to indulge our intuition <as being better than facts>. Pleasse note I do believe we need to lean in on judgement but shouldn’t confuse it with intuition. When we do it leads to what I call ‘Decision faking.’

Here is where I struggle with intuition.

It’s becoming more and more clear to me that facts are less important to many people. Feelings make decisions, then, and only then, are facts brought in as back up. That’s mixed up. Its the wrong priorities for good decision making.

Yet. It is becoming a common business scenario in which intuition-made-decisions create situations where you end up pulling the trigger first and ask the hard questions later. Yes. This is possibly a general critique of American society, not just business.

Regardless. Think about this.

Thinking and feeling and intuition is actually a business formula. Without doing any research or deep thought … I would suggest great decision making is maybe an 80/20 Pareto rule. 80% thinking & knowledge combined with 20% feeling or intuition creates a great decision. Sure. Statistics and facts can lie. But so can intuition and feeling.

In fact. In business studies the data suggests our instincts & intuition <in business> or ‘going with your gut’ suck. We make bad decisions when based on this. Great thinking combines all the potential lies and sifts thru it all for truth.

Yet. When I look at the business world we seem to have forgotten the difference between thinking and feeling, and worse, we seem to believe feeling is more important.

You feel like you are doing the right thing so you do it.

You feel like it is the best idea so you go do it.

You feel like something is okay because someone told you to do it.

You feel like everything is okay in the end if you can show that why you actually did something was because your feelings were genuine.

You feel like acting on your feelings begets forgiveness for actions and bad decisions.

Well. I feel that’s a bunch of bullhockey.

Intuition is a grown skill. It is not really something you are born with. Well. Maybe better said … people can be born with a good intuition muscle, underdeveloped and awaiting to be strengthened, but no one is born with a well-developed intuition muscle. Therefore you must have the desire to focus on strengthening it. The gym will not come to you, you must go to the gym.

I have also found that business decisions guided by impulse and emotion tend to incorporate a high level of politics and political calculation at exactly the same time.

How will it look?

Who will like it?

Will I benefit?

I imagine taking some time and asking the hard questions won’t alleviate the political aspect, but possibly some time tempers the influence politics have on it. At minimum it shifts the dial slightly away from ‘individual benefit ‘ politics intuition to more ‘group benefit’ intuition.

The debate in business is always on which is better:

• to rely on intuition <feeling>, or
• rely on deliberate thinking while making decisions.

The fact is in some cases it’s better to rely on feeling and in some on deliberate thinking and the trick is to know which to choose when. But in either case you are using both simply relying on one more than other at the end.Intuition should open us to thought not define the thought. Or maybe it could be used a deterrent to avoid things.

Regardless. You should always value what your head & gut are telling you. But it’s the combination, knowledge and intuition, which reaps the highest returns.

Here is what I feel <pun intended>.

We need to defend decision making made through knowledge and thinking.

Why?

Because true thinking is innocent. The deck is stacked against it but in its naiveté it believes if it simply does the right thing <be itself> it will win.

Truth believes if it remains good and just goes out and attend meetings, go to schools, sit down at the kitchen table, go to church and not give a shit about politics and political correctness and just live their lives … well … it will all work out. Truth will win.

Well. Not so much. It won’t.

Thinking needs to be protected. It needs to be protected from intuition as the way to do things. Or maybe we just need to protect ourselves in business from ‘decision by feelings is more important’ type attitudes.

This is not as an easy thing to do nor am I saying it flippantly.

We battle common sense <because sometimes it really doesn’t make sense>.

We battle real knowledge and data <because sometimes it doesn’t look like it makes sense>.

We battle ourselves <we don’t really know what we want>.

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

“Ours is a world where people don’t know what they want and are willing to go through hell to get it.”

Don Marquis

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

Well. We do know what we want. We want our decisions to ‘feel right’ when we make them and sometimes it seems like we are willing to go thru hell to feel that way.

Here is the point about facts and thinking. We have gobs of theories we espouse in business hallways almost ad nausea but the truth is if you have enough facts the correlations are there <if you look and think>.

Even if the correlations don’t seem to make sense, or even meets common sense, the knowledge is there to be plucked from the information available. The difficulty is that, well, two things I imagine

<1> We are constantly bombarded by information therefore we seem to seek refuge in intuition clinging to some ‘gut feeling’ that seem to make the cluttered world of information available clear, and

<2> we like to make hasty decisions under the guise of ‘we cant waste our time overthinking this.’

The trouble is that our gut is infamously consistent in that it is often biased by stereotypes and generalizations and, frankly, experiences <good and bad … or ‘quantity of’ versus ‘lack of’>.

I say that because while some young people may have good natural instincts they will inevitably have great instincts when older if they hone it through experience. The corollary to that is some older more experienced business people will have great instincts and absolutely better instincts than a younger less experienced instinct muscle.

Experience absolutely hones a natural intuition. Heck. Knowledge hones a natural intuition.

Look.

I’m not suggesting you should ignore intuition. Just that real information and real thinking and the rigor that comes along with the ‘real’ versus instinctual ‘feelings’ is first & foremost the key to great decision making.

In other words. If you make intuition your main criteria to making a decision, you are simply decision faking.