Well.

Be prepared. I almost always open with a quote but today I open with a sentence … a 198 word sentence written by Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr <father of US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.>:

—————————

Many times, when I have got upon the cars, expecting to be magnetized into an hour or two of blissful reverie, my thoughts shaken up by the vibrations into all sorts of new and pleasing patterns, arranging themselves in curves and nodal points, like the grains of sand in Chladni’s famous experiment,—fresh ideas coming up to the surface, as the kernels do when a measure of corn is jolted in a farmer’s wagon,—all this without volition, the mechanical impulse alone keeping the thoughts in motion, as the mere act of carrying certain watches in the pocket keeps them wound up,—many times, I say, just as my brain was beginning to creep and hum with this delicious locomotive intoxication, some dear detestable friend, cordial, intelligent, social, radiant, has come up and sat down by me and opened a conversation which has broken my day-dream, unharnessed the flying horses that were whirling along my fancies and hitched on the old weary omnibus-team of every-day associations, fatigued my hearing and attention, exhausted my voice, and milked the breasts of my thought dry during the hour when they should have been filling themselves full of fresh juices.

——————————–

So.

When I read this sentence <read it several times in fact> I thought of “filling up” and “emptying out.”

Huh?

Oliver Sr. was no dumb shit. His brain was filled with more “kernels of knowledge sand” than most of us will ever be filled with. And, yet, he outlines how the knowledge works best when emptied of structured thinking and any specific destination but rather when “without volition” new thoughts are unharnessed by old learning rearranged.

Couple lessons in that:

• New thinking is almost always simply a new way of looking at something everybody already knows.

• In an age of instant gratification, smartphone access to any answer you would ever want and a belief that the fastest answer is the best answer it is good to remember that thinking is like baking. You have ingredients and you need to properly bake them to arrive at something special.

This isn’t to suggest that there is no hurry but rather you use the allotted time in the best possible way.

I worry more about the latter than I do the former in today’s world.

I worry about it because thinking is more often like what someone referred to Emerson’s writing as “a chaos full of shooting-stars, a jumble of creative forces.”

That is thinking.

Thinking doesn’t pretend to follow rules, enact some methodology or even use the words it is ‘supposed to use.’

—–

unharnessed the flying horses that were whirling along

my thoughts shaken up by the vibrations into all sorts of new and pleasing patterns, arranging themselves in curves and nodal points, like the grains of sand

fresh ideas coming up to the surface, as the kernels do when a measure of corn is jolted in a farmer’s wagon

—-

And more often than not, in an attempt to be more efficient in a time constrained world, we try and micro-structure our thinking.

It seems like as the world became more enlightened by mass media, structured education systems and “college for all” we have become … well … more sensible in our thinking.

Which brings me back to my opening sentence.

It breaks all the rules of not only how to write but how to think.

And, yet, it captures the essence of thinking … it certainly captures the magic of thinking … and, unfortunately to the thinking methodology Nazis, it certainly captures the practicality of freedom in thinking.

Our world today is strewn with catchy incorrect memes, rewritten history, faulty logic and misleading statistics all offered to us out of context.

The internet, while offering us a boundless offering of truth & facts, has only encouraged sloppy, lazy thinking.

It should be enlightening us but, far too often; it actually encourages some fairly absurd unenlightened thinking.

Thinking, and I mean real thinking, can cure this unenlightened cancer. The cancer is not social media or this absurd love of brevity … it is us and our thinking.

In thoughtful moments I tend to believe people know this. They know social media and smartphones and the internet is not the problem … it is us. Yeah. All those things make us susceptible to these wacky conspiracy theories, false statistics and alternative facts but they do not live unless we breathe life into them.

Look.

I do worry about thinking on occasion. Shit. I have even written about how I cried about thinking in today’s world.

I have a number of friends who send me memes and out of context quotes to make a point and ask me my view.

I probably send more time fact correct and making people aware of truth than I do sharing my own opinion. That worries me. in fact this is a direct quote from me:

======

But here is what really worries me.

If you, not a dumb guy by any stretch of the imagination, can truly believe even 75% of what you shared with me then what does the everyday schmuck believe?

That is what worries me.

=========

Thinking does take time and some space and … well … even some work <even if that work is to find empty space and not working>.

And, even then, the problem is that you can search the internet far and wide without finding a clear repudiation of some falsely stated, good sounding piece of untrue crap.

In fact.

If you do spend some time researching something you will more likely find a massive gap between public belief and expert knowledge.

There is often such a delusional gap between reality and “belief” it often seems absurd … and absurdly difficult to bridge the gap.

We need more thinking today than ever before. And, sadly, we need more thinking on simpler things than ever before.

Oliver Sr. was thinking on big things and big thoughts. And we need people like that.

What worries me is that in today’s world we need more people doing more thinking on the kernels of corn, the grains of sand and the horses themselves.

I worry about that because if we don’t have more people doing that kind of thinking all we will end up doing is rearranging unfortunately misguided untrue kernels of corn, fake grains of sand and unicorns not horses.

I imagine my real point today is that effective thinking is dependent upon tow things:

• insuring we have lots of “true grains” of sand in our heads <not alternative facts or falsehoods>

• insuring we have some time to properly jostle the kernels of corn <or grains of sand if you don’t want me to mix my metaphors> to rearrange them in new configurations

I don’t believe the world, society or any business wants us rearranging lies, fake and unicorns in order to form a better union.

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

“The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.”

—

Isaac Asimov

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

“So I don’t want to paint with too broad a brush when I say that you were warned about this man—and you ignored our warnings.

We were right; you were wrong.

The masses, it turns out, sometimes are asses.

Sometimes the people who actually pay close attention to politics know more than the disgruntled populists and nationalists who are willing to gamble on the future of this great republic—and on the reputation of a conservative philosophy that goes from Aristotle to Burke to Buckley—in order to boost a reality show host.

You elected your guy, and look where it got us.”

—

Matt Lewis <Republican Conservative>

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

Ok.

I probably get in more heated debates over Trump voters than almost any other topics discussed these days – with both Trump voters and non-Trump voters.

I even know why it happens … we generalize and we label.

And in generalizing we force a Trump voter to defend other Trump voters, who most likely voted for Trump for some other reason than the one they are defending, and the non Trump voter paints all Trump voters with the worst of the worst attributes <the truly deplorable aspects>.

This is crazy.

No.

This is stupid.

The majority of Americans don’t have a label attached to them other than “get up and go to work and get shit done” people.

People rarely self-identify as a CNN watcher or Fox watcher or MSNBC watcher … or a republican or democrat … or any fringe group when you meet them.

We apply the label on them … we generalize for them.

But most people are labeled by … well … community, family and what they do to earn a living every day.

Sure … elections force most of us to take some stand but most of us embrace that stand with some unease. We would rather be defined by what happens in our day and lives than by whom we elected to vote for.

Most of us have our own imperfections and flaws without having to explain, or be defined, by some imperfections and flaws of someone who we voted for.

Most of all the label stuff is crap.

And maybe what is worst about labels are they suggest most Americans have to be “x” or they are “y.” That is complete and utter bullshit.

I can be tough on immigration and still be compassionate.

I can have government les involved in healthcare and still make sure a safety net is available for all people.

I can increase my military budget without being some “hawk” who wants to drop bombs on everyone.

I guess my real point is that most Americans want it all and chafe when it is suggested they have to choose one thing or another. While TV pundits went out of their way to suggest this last election was a ‘binary choice’ the truth of the matter was that the decision on who to vote for was more likely a complex more-than-binary choice.

Which leads me to the Trump voters.

Up until now I have leaned heavily on the fabulous CBS News Nation Tracker Poll <CFM Strategic Communications panel survey> which outlined that the nation’s view of Donald Trump as President breaks down into four categories – Believers (22%), Conditionals (22%), Curious (21%) and Resisters (35%).

The first category are true believers who think Trump is on the right track. Conditionals generally support Trump, but may not approve of everything he does or says. The Curious are opponents, but could be swayed depending on Trump actions. Resisters see no hope in Trump and oppose him across the board.

But now there is a new piece of research out which breaks Trump voters into 5 groups which I will use to make my point again.

To summarize it I offer these 5 numbers to keep in mind:

American Preservationists (20%): 12 million people

• These are the core ‘always-Trumpers’ … this is also the group who think anti-white discrimination is a much more prevalent problem than is discrimination against any minority group <which is, realistically, false>

Staunch Conservatives (31%): 19 million people

• These are the core Republicans who would most likely vote for any Republican even if it was an alien

Anti-Elites (19%): 11 million people

• These have relatively cooler feelings toward Donald Trump and nearly half had favorable opinions of Clinton in 2012. This group shifted most dramatically, however, against Clinton by November 2016.

Free Marketeers (25%): 15 million people

• Small government fiscal conservatives, free traders, with moderate to liberal positions on immigration and race.

the Disengaged (5%): 3 million people

• This group does not know much about politics, but what they do know is they feel detached from institutions and elites and are skeptical of immigration.

USA population: 326.5 million people

USA adult 18+ population: est. 250 million people

<note: I used 60 million Trump votes to simplify my math and come up with people numbers>

The other thing I always keep in mind is that nowhere along the way, primary & general elections, has Trump ever won the popular vote. In the primaries Republicans voted in significant numbers for anyone but Trump <almost 2/3^rd of primary votes did not vote for Trump>. My point in all these numbers is that Trump voters are not just an American minority/splinter of the whole but a relatively small <but loud> group.

Regardless.

Here is the topline good news … I would estimate we have less than 20 million, my guess is maybe 15 million, truly deplorable people in the USA … say maybe 6% of adults. Here is the bad news … we tend to suggest those 6% are representative of all Trump voters <as well as all that is ignorant, deplorable and bad about USA>.

Anyway.

We screw up numbers in generalizations all the time.

Not all Trump voters voted for the same reason nor do they have similar issues.

It’s just like discussing “the 99%.”

The 99% are a mix of the wretched of the earth, the everyday schmucks who want to do the right thing and a fairly large group of upper middle class <doctors, university teachers, journalists, senior management, politicians>. It is the mixed bag of people who, without them, the 1% would cease to exist.

Lumping them all together in the 99% is almost suggesting that is America’s middle class which then suggests opportunity is equal to all <and the 1% should be everyone’s objective>.

Trump’s voters were a mixed bag of people with some good reasons to pull he lever for Trump and some bad reasons for pulling the lever for Trump.

Anyway.

I purposefully called this piece today “deplorables defined” to make a point. Of course not everyone who voted for Trump is deplorable … and Hillary never suggested such a thing. But … gosh … maybe we should have listened to her a little more closely … and maybe we should have listened to the entire speech … and maybe, just maybe, it is possible she was right:

——————

“I know there are only 60 days left to make our case — and don’t get complacent, don’t see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think, well, he’s done this time. We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.”

“But the other basket — and I know this because I see friends from all over America here — I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.”

—————-

Sigh.

Of course, none of us really did pay attention to it all <even the mainstream media which was supposedly all in her camp> and paid the price of not doing so by missing her statement about empathizing and working for better lives for those Trump supporters who aren’t scum-of-the-earth deplorable dumpster fire pieces of shit.

Would I have used the word “deplorable?”

No. probably not.

She probably should have been more specific and named them out, as the Alt-right, misogynists, white supremacist, KKK, and Nazis. But you know what? We are dancing on the head of a pin. ‘Some’ deplorables voted for Trump, ‘some’ deplorables still support trump and ‘some’ deplorables are irredeemable.

Ok.

Let me spend a moment more on ‘deplorable’.

While I, personally, would have not used the term with regard to some Trump voters I believe the only true mistake Clinton made was apologizing. She should have tripled down with clarifying & defining … and suggesting <in some way> we all have a deplorable ‘voice’ inside us whispering fears and untruths and … well … the bad shit we think about people who do not look like us.  And point out that Trump whispers, in a bombastic way, to our deplorable inside … and we shouldn’t permit him that victory <because Americans are better than that>.

By the way … I do believe that. And while there certainly are some truly deplorable people in the USA I would like to think 99% are redeemable not because they need to be redeemed but rather they need to understand they can ignore that voice inside and still get ahead and ‘win.’

In the end I offer two numbers.

15 and 30.

If you scour some of the more random assessment of the population and their views with regard to Trump you will find these two numbers <or close to them> constantly bubbling up.

15%.

This would be the % of people who would follow Trump like lemmings over the cliff. He could bomb Alabama and they would find a good reason he did it <note: these are not all deplorable people but deplorable people reside within this number>.

30%.

This would be the % of people who wouldn’t follow Trump if you told them you would win the lottery. He could apologize every day until the day he died and they would still find a reason to suggest he pissed on Mother Theresa’s grave.

Anyway.

I don’t know Trump nor do I wish to ever meet the man but if I could whisper these numbers into his head … I would. They reflect the precarious nature of his presidency <or his reelection>.

I am under no illusion that Trump truly has any desire to unite the country but the numbers reflect the fact America is not deplorable by nature and the bigger message opportunity, to inspire people, is to remind them of that.

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

“… my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age in which we live. No nation can now shut itself from the surrounding world and trot around the same old path of its fathers. A change has come over the affairs of mankind.  … intelligence is penetrating the darkest corners of the globe.”

——

Frederick Douglas 1850

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

“The ultimate test of man’s conscience may be his willingness to sacrifice something today for future generations whose words of thanks will not be heard.”

―

Gaylord Nelson

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

Ok.

Because of the business I am in <marketing advertising & business strategic consulting> I am constantly inundated with the hyperbole associated with “new and unique.”

So, I admit, I am always skeptical of “worst ever”, “best ever” and “whatever superlative you want to toss out” ever.

That’s why I almost always step up to the plate when I hear someone suggest how the world is changing like it has never changed before.

Or that our situation has never been worse.

Or something is better than it has ever been before.

I admit.

I kind of chuckle when I hear all this.

I often seem to create a maelstrom of conversational misery when I state things like “change is the constant companion of every generation” … or say something like “it isn’t any more difficult for this generation … it is just different.”

Or even when I pull out the quotes I used to open this piece.

Frankly.

Most people my age think I am nuts when I say it.

Shit.

Most people any age.

Or think I am out of touch with what is happening around us.

Ok.

If I were sensitive, I would care.

Or more likely I would care if I didn’t find quotes like this.

“… my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age in which we live. No nation can now shut itself from the surrounding world and trot around the same old path of its fathers. A change has come over the affairs of mankind.  … intelligence is penetrating the darkest corners of the globe.”

Sure sounds like something you may have heard recently from some pundit on TV.

But.

This is mid 1800’s in a speech in NYC.

It is a fact that each generation has faced some radical change and thought process and attitude shift.

Yup.

I could argue <and I have> that the more things change the more they stay the same.

They stay the same because … well … we move on, we progress, we improve upon what is. Inevitably, as that happens, each generation gets “left behind” as another races toward what will be.

Think of it as tectonic plates in which friction occurs as the new plate slowly <and sometimes quickly> surges over the older plate.

Yeah.

The older tectonic plate.

The one that is supposed to be smarter.

The one that is supposed to know the best.

The one that “got us to where we are today.”

The one that suggests “why throw away what appears to be good.” 

Well.

The one has someone scraps of truth in what they are thinking.

Pieces or parts smarter and know the best?

Yes. Sure.

On the whole?

Nope.

Why?

You don’t know what you don’t know … and if you hunker down on only what you do know … well … that is called “stagnant.”

Ok.

To be fair.

A minority of those being left behind actually enjoy the change an the friction and the conflict. These are the ones who empower the youth. Fuel it. Guide it. Not restrict it. Those few get to enjoy the ride toward “what will be.”

But they are a minority.

On the whole the majority of any older generation holds on for dear life to what they know and makes them comfortable. And it would possibly be okay of they did that and remained silent … but instead they complain and gripe about what is lost within the following generations and, ultimately, go to some fairly absurd lengths to try and slow change.

It is too bad.

For by focusing on what is lost they neglect to have the amazing opportunity to see what is gained.

But.

Regardless.

In the end.

Change comes upon us whether we want it or not.  As Frederick Douglas said in 1850 … ‘you cannot ignore the intellect of the world.’ Change is our constant companion <and mostly a friend> … at all times we face “a change has come over the affairs of mankind.’

True in 1850.

True in 2017.

True in 2150.

This doesn’t mean that we are not slow to change … because we are. Change in mankind is like turning a full tanker ship.

Part of this slow change is actually a reflection of mankind’s survival DNA.

And if you want to debate the ‘slow change’ than maybe accept thinking of it more like Schumpeter’s Creative Destruction. The small rise up disrupting and destroying the status quo and that of ‘the big’ … and through their destruction <eating away at the status quo> they begin recreating what is into what could be and what will be.

Now.

I am not suggesting all past experience should be ignored. But it is a fact, a truth, that the older generation needs to be able to let go of some ‘beliefs’ in order to free the change that is inevitable in the affairs of mankind.

I say that recognizing this is not a truth because they were wrong in the past but rather because they are wrong ‘now.’

Effective change demands a healthy dialogue and relationship between the past perspective and a new perspective.

And this is where the current affairs of mankind tend to fall short … they lose perspective as time goes on because they have cocooned themselves within their successful behavior.

Regardless.

This post all comes down to several overarching thoughts.

Each generation faces radical adversity.

Each generation facilitates extraordinary change <typically beneficial as a whole>.

Each older generation is extraordinarily reluctant to release that which is comfortable to them <and what they “know” … or believe to know>.

And, lastly.

We older folk, manager types, should reflect upon this.

Why?

Because we are managers.

And we are managers of those who will foster the abilities of those who will beget what will be better than what we have done or created.  That doesn’t diminish what we have done. And we should embrace the fact we have created an environment for others to go farther than we were able to go.

We wonder why managing young people <call them millennials if you would like> is so difficult?

Well.

It is because we are holding them back <in general>. It’s like trying to tame mustangs in the Wild West. Except we, unlike the savvy old cowboys, don’t reflect on the beauty of the wildness of the mustang as we try and tame them. We simply see the wild untamedness and believe it is a shame they are so wild.

Older managers, to be successful, need to admire the beauty of the untamed.  And not seek to break the mustangs but rather guide their energy to enable them to take the herd to the heights it deserves.

And maybe even more important … older managers need to remember they are not the mustang’s mothers & fathers but rather we are savvy cowboys seeking to guide energy.

Anyway.

Is this poetic metaphor a bad one? Maybe.

But certainly something worth thinking about.

A change has come over the affairs of mankind … uhm … the more things change the more they stay the same. This is not anything unique … this is called “progress.”

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

 

“Those who stand for different causes during different generations often experience the same oppositions and the same difficulties as those of the previous and the next generations. That is the basis of history repeating itself.”

 

―

Criss Jami

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

===

“A diamond is a chunk of coal that did well under pressure.”

——

Henry Kissinger

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

“When you do things right, people won’t be sure that you have done anything at all.”

–

God (in Futurama)

===

Well.

Think what you want and say what you want to say about Kissinger … but the opening quote is awesome <although, geologically speaking, it may not be truly accurate>.

In our quest for recognition as a leader many business people, and leaders in general, seemingly get shoved <on seemingly a daily basis> into some absurd universe where everyone judges you <mostly on some absurd views of ‘being noticed is what matters’ or ‘shine bright like a diamond‘>. I say that because this means thinking of yourself as a piece of coal seems … well … quite underwhelming and quite ‘unleaderly’ <I made that word up>.

Uhm.

But.

One of the most frustrating things you learn early on in a management career path is that you do not get credit for what you are expected to do. And maybe what makes this most frustrating is that this lesson applies to a crisis as well as the most mundane everyday grind responsibilities.

But.

The thing is as you gain more and more responsibility you learn that this is actually a good thing.

People like reliability.

People like consistency.

People like a foundation of quiet competent leadership.

People like you doing what you are supposed to do <with little fanfare>.

This is a lesson learned early on in a management career … and you can tell the leaders who <a> did not learn it or <b> saw the lesson but lack self-confidence … because they … well … ignore the lesson and exhibit ongoing aggravating self promotion <even on the things they are expected to do>.

That said.

This doesn’t mean you aren’t tempted to take a moment or two to point out, sometimes in some fairly loud messaging, that you want some credit for what you are doing.

This is the ‘dance.’

The management & leader “credit dance.’ I call it a dance because every good leader knows they have to do some self-public relations and, yet, they don’t want to be seen as doing any overt self-public relations.

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

“The price of greatness is responsibility.”

—–

Winston Churchill

=======

Being a great leader is all about doing your job and doing the right things at the right time … and <I imagine> figuring out how to actually tell people that you did the right things at the right time. This means not being seen a as blowing your own horn or being some narcissistic attention seeking, credit seeking asshat but rather one who understands it really isn’t about gaining credit or accolades but rather reassuring people that the right things, the good things, just get done under your watch.

I would note that reassurance is a powerful tool. It is powerful because doing things right isn’t about small … nor large … but if you do it right … really right … people will not really be sure that you’ve done anything at all and, yet, feel reassured that you are there.

Now.

In today’s bombastic world it can actually become a bad thing if no one notices. Why? <insert a ‘huh?!?’ here> because someone else at the exact same time is telling everyone what they did … and yes … unfortunately … often the squeaky wheel does get the grease.

Aw heck.

The truth is that the value is never in the credit. And leaders know that. And we everyday schmucks need to remind ourselves of that more often.

—-

“I alone cannot change the world, but I can cast a stone across the waters to create many ripples.”

————

Leaders know that the little things can matter and that just delivering upon what you are supposed to do really matters <a lot>.

A subtle touch can create the needed ripples. Doing what you are supposed to do insures the right ripples are always … well … rippling.

Good leaders know you can be the initiator, instigator or implementer … or even all of them … and it doesn’t really matter.

I would note that within the realm of doing what you are supposed to do about the only thing that can truly diminish ‘greatness of simple doing’ is not accepting responsibility – for the bad and the good and all that it takes to get to either place.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that what I just stated is ‘character’.

Leaders don’t lead by asking or telling people to follow it most often happens by doing the shit you are supposed to do really well.

I know. I know. That doesn’t sound “great” but greatness really cannot be achieved without it.

Oh.

This kind of suggests that greatness is a contradiction.

Let’s use Winston as an example.

Huge ego. MASSIVE ego. Charismatic speaker. Maybe one of the greatest orators of all time. Made some huge mistakes. HUGE mistakes. …. But humble in his responsibility. He permitted  the people to get credit for success and strength and what needed to be done … all the while doing what he as supposed to be doing.

He was vocal, and sincere, on issues and the people of Great Britain getting credit.

All despite his ego.

Great leadership reflects a unique balance of ego and humility. Ego to effectively lead and humility to be effectively followed.

I would imagine those with the greatest character reside somewhere on the line between those two things.

I would imagine those with the greatest character reside somewhere in between not getting credit for what they are supposed to do and actually being acknowledged for enabling greater greatness.

Well.

I know it isn’t popular to say this but most of the best things in Life, and leadership,  are found in the unspectacular:

• The best people more often than not go unseen and unnoticed by the majority.
• The best moments more often than not go unseen until looking back.

Just as perfection is most often found in the imperfections … spectacular is most often found in the unspectacular. And, yes, doing what you are supposed to do is unspectacular.

But I would argue the spectacular would never ever happen if the ‘supposed to do’ shit never happened.

In the end.

Great leaders are often judged by what you don’t see them doing. This also means great leaders are often judged by what they feel comfortable remaining silent about … by what they don’t say about what they are supposed to do and supposed to be.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out this is a little more difficult than it may appear.

It is a little more difficult because a great leader does have to have some ego and some higher level of confidence and, therefore, some positive affirmation kind of helps to put some well needed oxygen back into the confidence balloon.

It takes a awhile to learn you don’t have to ask for oxygen or even try and fill it yourself … well … at least good leaders learn that … the bad, insecure ones never do.

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

“At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst.”

—–

Aristotle

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

“We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker.

It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”

——

Ronald Reagan

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

Well.

If there is one thing the Trump administration does well, really well <great again even> … is to find some scrap of equivalency to suggest what they have done or said is “normal.”

In addition, they gird their normalizing arguments with “because he can” simplistic tripe.

This is the Trump business mantra applied to the presidency … ‘it is technically legal & norms are irrelevant’.

This is the lesson that Trump appears to have ignored, the one where parents teach every child “just because you can doesn’t mean you should.”

Look.

Presidents can pardon whoever they want convicted of a federal crime … not a state crime. Technically Trump was within his ‘technical rights’ to pardon Sherriff Joe Arpaio and, literally, he wins because “the left” and Republicans’ with any sense of norms will go ballistic.

But I would suggest society actually loses on this one <as does the American legal system>.

In a normal world this pardon may appear in the overall scheme of things as small potatoes … but it is not. With this president it edges onto the slippery slope of a new normal <which is not normal nor desired normal>. It edges into an undermining of the justice system.

Hear me out.

2 things make me say this.

How Trump gave the pardon verbally.

He suggested in his words that the Sheriff was just doing his job well. In other words … the laws were either wrong or the law of the land restricts people from doing their jobs. Uhm. And that the president is the judge of whether the laws are right or wrong, constricting or supportive.

The words matter just as much as the pardon itself. The words send a message with regard to how people should view laws and the legal system.

By the way … the words are as much Trump as anything we have ever seen … only he knows what laws are truly worthy and he rules his business that way. In his mind Trump is the sole arbiter of right versus wrong & legal versus ‘useless law.’

How Trump came to the pardon.

He offered the pardon without his Dept. of Justice. In other words … the DOJ and what they thought <or knew> was irrelevant. Process and legal minds are irrelevant … he is the law <a shiver went down my spine as I typed that>. It should be disconcerting to any and all that Trump appears to come to a conclusion about something, particularly what is legal and what isn’t, without seeking the legal process to back it up.

But.

At the root of the issue is that a “law & order” president just pardoned a ‘law & order employee’ who … well … not only flaunted the law but broke the law of rights. The fact is he is not a law abiding sheriff if he’s disobeying a court order <let us remind ourselves that this charming fellow was a convicted sheriff, who ran sweltering, punishing jails where inmates died and was accused of targeting Latino residents … AND … during the litigation that led to his conviction for criminal contempt, he hired a private detective to investigate the wife of a federal judge hearing a case against his office >.

And at the root of the Trump issue <as if there is just one rotten root> is, as USA Today points out, Arpaio didn’t meet the Justice Department guidelines for a pardon. His conviction wasn’t five years old, he hadn’t expressed remorse and he hadn’t even applied to the Office of Pardon Attorney.

The day before, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the president would follow a “thorough and standard process” in considering the pardon.

That process usually requires seven layers of review and an FBI background check.

That did not happen.

Past Bush ethics Chief counsel Richard Painter said:

—————–

Well, I don’t see how this would have made it through any normal process.

This sheriff has been known for lawless acts for many years. I don’t think he would have lasted one week as a sheriff in my home state of Minnesota. We are a law and order state. Many places are. We favor law and order in the United States.

When a judge tells a sheriff to do something, the sheriff does it. That’s what law and order is all about. And if you’re in contempt of court and you’re a law enforcement official, you’re abusing your power. You should not be pardoned by the President of the United States.

And the message here is very clear: the President likes sheriff Joe because he likes going after immigrants. He was going after minorities. And that’s the clear message here. And I think it’s really reprehensible and I wish that something could be done about it. We gotta think seriously about whether Donald Trump is fit to be President of the United States.

I’ve been a Republican for thirty years and we’ve got a lot of great people in the Republican Party. Who can serve honorably in this United States government and can serve this President of the United States.

This is just one more stick in the eye to the minority community and to those victimized by the very few people in law enforcement like sheriff Joe who choose to use their power abusively. And choose to ignore the orders of the judiciary. And that is lawlessness. And that should not be tolerated in the United States.

————————-

Sigh.

The legal system is degraded because it is politicized in the way that it looks like the president wants to do what he wants to do which, in the end, undermines the utility of the legal system overall.

But watch.

All the Trump surrogates will be flocking to the TV shows to start shaking their fists and defiantly spouting out some false equivalence to justify this non-normal presidential behavior.

They will use scraps of truth and facts to weave a story that suggest Trump is normal, thought normally and even acted normally.

This is not normal and there are few fair equivalences.

In the most harsh view … with the pardoning of Joe Arpaio … Trump has established his place in history alongside those who exercised the same executive and dictatorial rights such as Stalin of Russia, Mussolini of Italy and Hitler <as well as Erdogan, Putin and Duterte>. That does not mean he IS them just that he is utilizing some of the same tactics.

To be clear.

While I fear that Trump and Arpaio are bigots and nationalists and authoritarians … that doesn’t make them Nazis <so I wish some people would tone down some of the rhetoric>.

It just makes them bigoted, nationalistic authoritarians. That’s bad enough and I see little value in bringing up Nazis.

That is a false equivalency.

I have said this before and I will say it until I die … the Trump presidency nor the Trump behavior is normal and we need to stop suggesting it is normal. We should be seeking to explain and justify his uniqueness in behavior <and if we cannot then he should be penalized> but no one … and I mean no one … should be using scraps of normalcy to create a false equivalency of a larger whole normalcy to a non-normal president.

This is NOT normal in how we should be viewing our legal system and legal decisions.

Trump is certainly no Reagan but maybe we, all of us, should heed Reagan’s words in the age of Trump … we must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker.

===========

“To think is easy. To act is difficult. To act as one thinks is the most difficult.”

–

Johann Wolfgang Von Goeth

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

“But if these years have taught me anything it is this: you can never run away.

Not ever.

The only way out, is in.”

–

Junot Diaz

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

Well.

Almost every business I have ever crossed paths with has claimed they were running hard. Shit. I have never met a business that said “well, we don’t believe in running hard … we are walkers.”

Trust me when I say most businesses do not really run hard.

I know that because once you have <a> seen and experienced a company that runs hard everything else will look slow and <b> we have all ‘run hard’ in selected moments in our business career but 99% of those companies also say “it is not sustainable” and 99% of the time run at a lower gear.

That said.

When a company is running hard there is a slightly odd dynamic that almost always occurs … wondering whether it is worth it.

Yeah.

When a company is running hard, working hard and doing hard things daily it can be easy to wonder whether it is worth it. Wonder if you are reaching objectives fast enough, doing the right things and whether you are actually getting closer to where you want to be.

By the way … this wondering is often exacerbated by poor managers and management who constantly create a false sense of urgency and manage deadlines like a caffeinated rabbit.

Regardless.

I feel relatively confident most managers fuck up how they address the wondering.

This happens because we inherently want to show people they reached something … a goal, a milestone or some ‘finish destination’ when , in reality, progress is the value you should be showing them to show a causal relationship to the energy they are expending. They are running hard, you are asking the company to run hard … you want to show them a often as you can that they are actually making some progress.

We fuck it up because we just aren’t taught that it is okay to let them know … “well … we are lagging behind on some sales objectives, but this doesn’t mean someone is doing something wrong, or you aren’t working hard enough or that some competitor is doing some magical thing better than we are.”

We fuck it up because most of us do not know how to deliver that message well.  most of us make it sound like we are chasing some unrealistic goal, or maybe we throw in some false sense of optimism or maybe we actually create some ‘midway milestone’ which actually encourages people to maybe invest a little less hard, a little less running and a lot more ‘maybe that is enough.’

When your people are running hard you don’t want to tell them that it is … well … going to be hard and that is why you are actually running hard.

But you have to tell them.

Well.

You have to if you want them to keep running hard.

Tell them: You are asking people to change – and change is hard.

Most businesses aren’t just selling shit <something> they are asking a potential buyer to change – change current product, supplier or behavior. While change really is hard … we get better at explaining how this change we are asking them to do … is easier than they may perceive every day. Sometimes we have to weave our way through objections and sometimes we have to hammer our way through objections … but everyone, every sales person, service person, management, support staff and anyone who interacts with current and potential customers are doing their part today and doing even better the day after.

And while asking someone to change is hard actually implementing the change is harder. I sometimes believe most businesses are in the change management business more than anything else.

You have to tell them you know that no one is better at explaining why that change is good and how that change can occur.

The truth is when you are running hard, and not running simply for running sake, people get better at this every day.

The truth is we are not where we want to be but getting there … and getting better at getting there.

Next.

Tell them: You are asking people to believe what you already know – and educating is hard.

Even if your company is good, really good, and even if your company is the best, the leader, every company does have competition. People just don’t believe you just because you are the best or the leader – and most of your people know that <no matter how frustrating it is>. In today’s skeptical world people just don’t say “oh, okay.” And, frankly,  we don’t want someone to say “oh, okay” when one of our competitors makes a claim.  We shouldn’t, and don’t, expect our customers and potential customers to simply believe everything we say. This means we need to educate and consistently address each question and request as if each answer is THE one which will make them a partner of our company.

The truth is we are not where we want to be but getting there … and getting better at getting there.

——

“If in a company you change nothing, you are sure to fail.

 

If you change everything you are sure to fail as well.

 

So the art of winning resides in your capacity to draw the fine line between what should be changed and what should not.

 

=

Jean Marie-Dru

——

Look.

Running hard is not the same as running fast. But businesses are impatient, in general, and absolutely over-the-top impatient if they feel like they are running hard.

This means you have to tell them some truth about themselves and the company.

I doubt you will ever get to where you want to be as fast as you would want. I imagine every leader in every industry is always perpetually dissatisfied in this way. I imagine every adventurer, every explorer and every innovator is always perpetually dissatisfied in this way. I imagine this is partially what makes an average company great – you understand that tomorrow’s company will be a little bit better than the company today.

Our sales will come. They will never come as fast as you want but our company doesn’t just work hard, you work smart and success is ours whether it arrives in small steps or great leaps.

Anyway.

I have away said this — part of what makes a company great is that feeling of dissatisfaction.

A great company wants to be more agile, move faster, and retain that perpetual feeling that they can always do more and be better.

A great company has a spirit that drives them and gives everyone the sense that tomorrow is another opportunity to be better than today.

A great company, typically, does run hard but, maybe most importantly, has a leader who can breathe constant oxygen into the runners in a way that is neither false nor insincere.

Not everyone who says they are running hard are really running hard but if you are in a company who is … I can almost guarantee the organization will explode without good leadership and will be an Olympian marathoner with good leadership.

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

“At any other time it’s better.

You can do the things you feel you should; you’re an expert at going through the motions. Your handshakes with strangers are firm and your gaze never wavers; you think of steel and diamonds when you stare. In monotone you repeat the legendary words of long-dead lovers to those you claim to love; you take them into bed with you, and you mimic the rhythmic motions you’ve read of in manuals.

When protocol demands it you dutifully drop to your knees and pray to a god who no longer exists. But in this hour you must admit to yourself that this is not enough, that you are not good enough.

And when you knock your fist against your chest you hear a hollow ringing echo, and all your thoughts are accompanied by the ticks of clockwork spinning behind your eyes, and everything you eat and drink has the aftertaste of rust.”

―

Dexter Palmer

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

Well.

I am surprised at how often Trump and the Trump administration make me go back again and again to the post I wrote on November 13^th 2016: The Last Stand of the Old White Men.

It was within that post in which I posed the ultimate judgement we should apply to the new Trump administration …“the potential redemption of a generation.”

At that time I shared thoughts with regard to how a Trump presidency and his speculated band of merry old white men, his “band of brothers” <his cabinet and advisors>, would guide America to the next level of greatness despite the fact they had built their own personal empires on a variety of greater business acumen & business culture hollow attitudes & achievements.

Hollow?

It is my belief that, as a generalization because there are exceptions, old white men have hollowed out the business world in their quest for “winning at any cost” and “maximize win-to-cash” ratio.

Everyone should note that Trump is the poster child of this hollowness <and I will aggravatingly point it out over and over again> and I have pointed it out on the following topics already:

Capitalism.

Branding.

Profit.

Wealth dispersion.

Communication.

They hollowed them all out.

But this weekend I was reminded of another … a much simpler pragmatic crime than lack of morality … hollowness of behavior.

Now.

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

Behavior

Leadership is a complex mix of personal, professional and pragmatic.

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

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

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

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

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

That is Trump in a nutshell.

Anyway.

To be clear, simplistically, old white business men behavior falls into one of two camps:

• Those who do something because they were shown something and thought “hmmmmmmmmm, this makes sense to do.”

• Those who do something because … well … they think they have to <but still believe it is stupid and that ‘the old way’ was better>.

The problem is that the latter group is incredibly good at pointing out how they are technically ‘hiring more women, promoting more women, giving opportunities to minorities, discouraging sexist and racist behavior in the office’ and everything else they would throw into the “mamby pamby politically correct business bullshit” bucket … all the while chafing under the true spirit of behavior.

I say all this because if you strip away all the horrible racist and incorrect moral equivalency rhetoric you will find an old white man who’s “make great again” is grounded in a pragmatically hollow view of behavior. There is no subtext nor is there any higher ground it is a simple black & white behavior analysis in which everyone’s behavior is viewed as a commodity and the only differentiation is ‘effectiveness’ or outcomes.

I say all this because while I pointed out the old white men have a chance at redemption we saw, in the spotlight and podium, one old white man not seeking any redemption nor showcasing any redemptive characteristics. I worry that this one man is beyond redemption.

And as I say that I remind everyone that the old white man Donald J Trump is surrounded by a crusty bunch of curmudgeonly old white men who we would hope we could find some level of pragmatic redemption.

I say that to point out the other piece I authored which continuously pops up as a reread – at this time, at this place, I will be defined.

I wrote it February 17^th 2017. In it I said:

In this moment, in this time and place, something is happening of which we really have to create nothing … but, instead, rather shape something. And, in doing this shaping, we are actually building something within the moments we elect to stand up and define ourselves … well … building “us” … okay … maybe it is building “me or I.”

This moment is different because it demands that we take a whole bunch of seemingly meaningless little moments … almost unrecognizable … that have got us to where we are attitudinally, intellectually and physically … and stop and speak out in some way that will be meaningful to us for the rest of our lives.

And.

In this moment … I would suggest that this is not the time to define yourself by standing against something but rather standing up & for something. This is not the moment to be “anti” something but rather “pro” something.  ‘Anti’ suggests you can turn, or stem, the tide of affairs when the reality of ‘affairs of men’ would most likely suggest a tide is a tide and affairs will be affairs and by being ‘pro’ it may be possible to show which harbor the tide should enter. Don’t define by what you are against … define by what you are for.

That said.

I could suggest that for many of us this is a “now or never” time.

Look.

I can point out all the issues with old white men and all their flaws which could potentially impact, negatively, the united states of America until I am blue in the face.

And I will continue to do so.

But inherent in pointing out hollowness is the unequivocal truth that hollowness begs to be filled with something. And in today’s world, in this time and in this place, it will inevitably filled by the decisions of each of us, one by one, on how we will choose to be defined.

Each of us will do this. That I believe. It may not be today. It may not be tomorrow. But at the end of this wretched situation we find ourselves in I believe everyone will have chosen where to stand and how to be defined.

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

There is a tide in the affairs of men
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.

 

—

Shakespeare

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

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

“Developing our abilities to think more clearly, richly, fully — individually and collectively — is absolutely crucial [to solving world problems].”

——–

Adrian West, research director at the Edward de Bono Foundation U.K.

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

So.

I was asked the other day about what I believed the internet, and connectivity’s, greatest impact on business was.

After chuckling that there was no one thing and we didn’t have enough time to talk about all the aspects that have impacted us … I did suggest one thing we don’t talk about which has a larger ripple effect on the future of business – connectivity’s impact on decision making and how we teach decision making.

Simplistically, technological connectivity has killed maybe 90% of the delegation of critical thinking & decision making.

Yeah.

There are a couple of other sociological insidious things seeping into organizational culture – discouragement of risk taking, particularly among younger employees, ‘flat’ organizations which tend to only put the senior decision makers closer to actual tactical decisions and things like that.

But what connectivity has done is make the most experienced decision makers more available 24/7 and younger people more likely to “send them a quick text asking them what to do” or an email with the question at hand … so that the younger person doesn’t have to make the decision. This translates into less decision making experience, less real ‘outcome of decision experience’ as well as all the critical thinking that gets crammed into one’s head when forced to make some decision <which always takes on some extraordinary size & significance when younger and less experienced>.

I believe this is a real issue.

In fact … I believed it was so important I googled it to do some research for this post.

• ‘how connectivity has killed decision making’ … 0 results.

• how the internet has killed decision making’ … 0 results on the topic … most on ‘overthinking’ or ‘Information overload is killing our ability to make decisions’

I even tried ‘how the smartphone has killed decision making’ and got zilch other than some crap about how ‘smartphones are destroying a generation’ and shit like that.

Lets be clear.

This isn’t about ‘distractions’ or ‘short attention span’ this is about circumventing critical decision making skills through easy connectivity to someone who can make the decision <instead of you>.

And I found it extremely odd that there is nothing obvious in terms of the discussion online because society views technology through an extremely critical eye on perceptions of how it forms, or doesn’t form, critical thinking skills. And nowhere is the conflict more apparent than in the business world where in a seemingly non-stop 24/7 world where we deem “speed” as having some absurd value above anything else we force more and more decisions ‘up’ in an organization.

Let me tell you how it worked in a disconnected world.

As an old guy we had no smartphones and computers weren’t chugging out hundreds of emails between employees all the time.

My bosses sat with other bosses in some high falutin’ section of the office space <most often with doors and big desks> and I didn’t have easy access to my bosses because … well … they were not within shouting distance and they had their own shit to do.

I had team members, clients and other departments who always needed answers so they could do shit and make some progress <to meet deadlines that I had inevitably placed on them> and, when they needed a decision, 90+% of the time they didn’t want me hanging up the phone saying “I will get back to you after I speak to ‘x’ person.”

And many times I was out of town in meetings and … well … decisions had to be made.

In this disconnected world 25 year old Bruce had to make some decisions … hopefully some good ones.

This didn’t mean that afterwards I didn’t sit there going … “fuck me, was that the right thing to do?” … because I did.

So in that disconnected world I would have to get up when I had a free minute and track down my boss and walk them through what was going to happen because I had made some decision.

I could go to Pat, who would sometimes be laying on his back under his desk looking at a world map he had taped under his desk thinking <claiming it gave him a different view of the world>, who would 99% of the time asking me why I thought it was the right decision, what other things we could have considered and start tearing apart the decision to better understand it.

I could go to Charlie who would 99% of the time go ‘okay’ … and then in a burst of energy start talking about what we could do now, a kind of “what’s next attitude” now that the decision had been made.

I could go to Beth who would always, always, just listen … and then start talking about how we could follow up with some research, or data, or support so that <in her words> “the decision doesn’t get killed by someone else’s opinions.”

I could go to any number of other bosses throughout my younger years and discuss a decision that I had made after the fact.

In a disconnected world a less experienced person was demanded to assume some responsibility.

The bottom line it was my decision and I had to live with it. I didn’t have a shitload of bosses who tried to kill the decision but rather seemed to accept it, warts & all, and figure out how to move forward from it.

Now.

A shitload of people may argue that in a connected world better decisions are made <slightly> faster <assuming you can reach the decision maker in some timely fashion> therefore business has benefited.

They may be partially right.

But I would argue 3 things:

<1> Most decisions made at a lower more tactical, or less strategically influential, level are not really business killers nor are they even ‘not fixable’,

<2> by delegating responsibility for a decision ‘upwards’ … someone never learns the critical thinking necessary, sometimes under time duress, nor the burden of responsibility,

<3> and ability to bear burden of responsibility is actually an indicator of future leadership skills.

I have gone on ad nausea over the years with regard to our short term paranoia within the business world and how it is killing us … and this ‘delegate decisions upwards because connectivity permits it’ is just one additional example.

Look.

The people who have the most confidence in their decision making skills, unless they are narcissistic asshats, are the ones with most experience in making decisions. And examining decisions made by someone else <which is what a younger person does if a more senior person makes a decision> is not even close to the actual experience of running the mental gauntlet of making the decision yourself … and understanding he burden of responsibility you assume by doing so.

By outsourcing our decisions to more experienced people, or even the false ‘certainty’ in data, we cheat ourselves.

We are left responding rather than thinking creatively, critically and autonomously.

And maybe worse we don’t give ourselves the opportunity to unlearn what we believe we have learned <which truly can only happen through trial & error>.

Gut feelings, and instincts, or even data … are not the best tools for an uncertain world … they only offer the illusion of certainty.  The business world is a complex world with thousands of decisions and a relentless onslaught of uncertainty.

About the only thing to maneuver your way through all of this complexity & uncertainty is by using the skill of critical thinking.

When we deny people the challenge of thinking critically, evaluating situations, making your own decisions and bearing the burden of responsibility we are heading towards a future where future manager will lack the cognitive ability, and critical thinking skills, to effectively think and make good decisions.

While I have several worries with regard to what technology and connectivity is doing to our business world … this is one we do not discuss enough if we are truly interested in the next generation of business people to be better than us.

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

“Are you prattling about an instinct of self-preservation? An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess.

An ‘instinct’ in as unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even man’s desire to live is not automatic: your secret evil today is that that is the desire you do not hold. Your fear of death is not a love of life and will not give you the knowledge needed to keep it.

Man must obtain his knowledge and choose his actions by a process of thinking, which nature will not force him to perform.

Man has the power to act as his own destroyer–and that is the way he has acted through most of history.”

―

Ayn Rand

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

Ok.

Discussing business leadership is … well … interesting.

Its also <slightly> interesting I used an Ayn Rand quote to open a thought on business leadership.

Why?

Almost everything Rand espoused focused on the individual and self-interest … and leadership inherently focuses on the group and ‘making the tide rise higher for all … sometimes at the expense of a higher one.”

In addition … <simplistically> the central thesis of Rand’s philosophy is that unfettered self-interest is good and altruism is destructive.

I am no going invest a lot of time on Rand’s thinking <of which I have mixed feelings about> but because I speak to many business leaders the balance of ‘business democracy, organizational culture, and business autocracy, i.e., someone has to make a decision at some point and organizational consensus is most likely not the most effective way to generate good decisions, I will spend a moment on Rand.

In my eyes, far too often, Americans tie the Rand philosophy of ‘supreme self-reliance devoted to the pursuit of supreme self-interest’ to a simplistic version of core American ideals: individual freedoms & hard work. The whole premise is based on the promise a better world is available if people can simply pursue their own self-interest without regard to the impact of their actions on others. That thought is usually followed by “this works because everyone is simply pursuing their own self-interest as well.”

Unfortunately what this ignores is a successful organization’s ultimate mission: “e pluribus unim” <out of many one>.

Unfortunately what this ignores is successful cultures typically exhibit a ‘twitch muscle’ which automatically makes 95% of people to find greater satisfaction in contributing to ‘the team’ rather than solely finding individual success.

All of this matters when discussing business leadership and leading organizations.

Now.

That said.

I come back to a key line in the opening quote:  an ‘instinct’ in as unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct.

In a world in which we tend to want to oversimplify things far too often “business instincts” get stripped of any context or the rich & royal hues most typically associated with ‘good business instincts.’ We also strip leadership down to its barest and far too often suggest the importance of ‘’good business instincts’ as some superior skill <and instincts are not a skill but an attribute> inherent in good leadership.

I would suggest we would be much better off stripping leadership down to not one thing but rather discussing a backbone which makes leadership stand tall.

Look.

A shitload of people can lead.

An even larger shitload of people think they can lead.

And even smaller shitload of people can actually lead well.

And while there are a shitload of well written and thoughtful piece on business leadership characteristics I would suggest that all business leadership often comes down to your ‘backbone’ of actual skills with regard to three things: developing an effective vision, having a consistent business philosophy <business acumen> & instincts.

Many leaders have some skill in one of these three, some actually are good at two out of the three but the best leaders are good at all three <with some extraordinary skill at either the visionary or instincts>.

I point out the vision and instincts aspects because it is that ‘dance’ which … well … can make a business dance. Some people talk about strategy & tactics but this is a little different. This is kind of a step up from that.

This is kind of like being able to envision the 5 lane highway which leads to a destination you kind of envision and then actually have the instincts which enable you to instinctually shift lanes, shift speeds and avoid everyone else on the highway in the moments that matter.

Suffice it to say … working with someone who understands, and can manage to, vision and someone who has good instincts is fairly rare — and all three even rarer.

By the way, as I have written before … most people who vocally espouse the fact <belief> they have good instincts tend to have shitty instincts. In fact … I could generalize relatively safely by suggesting anyone who verbalizes they have good instincts … most likely, in reality, do not have good instincts <good instinctual leaders & decision makers tend to have the humility to have an innate sense to keep their mouths shut about any instinctual behavior and focus on verbalizing functional abilities to do shit in certain situations>.

Anyway.

Someone can actually be a pretty good leader and not be very good at all these things.

For example … one of my best bosses wasn’t particularly good at the vision aspect but had an incredibly strong sense of ‘right versus wrong’ with regard to business philosophy and excellent instincts which tended to permit a shitload of progress <if not particularly visionary progress>. I would note he was pretty good at hiring some people who were visionary and combined with what he was good at he had a nice ability <albeit sometimes a lite too pragmatic> to tighten some loose vision and … well … get shit done.

For example … one of my best bosses was an incredible visionary with an excellent ability to set everyone’s sights on the ‘horizon’ coupled with a strong business philosophy of “this is the kind of shit we will do and how we will conduct ourselves in doing it” he could get people focused and emotionally connected with what they had to do. However … his instincts were not so hot. I would note he had a nice ability to surround himself with people with good instincts <maybe not enough but some key people> which permitted him to pick out what to do from options resented by good instinctual managers rather than have to depend on his own instincts.

I imagine my point here is twofold <1> leaders who are good at all three of these things are not a dime a dozen and <2> the good leaders who are not good at all three of these things tend to recognize where they are a little weaker and are smart enough, and confident enough, to surround themselves with people who do have those skills.

I imagine the greater leadership philosophical point here is that good business leaders don’t really fight truth.

They see truth. Accept truth. And work within the parameters of truth.

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

 

“Stop opposing the truths.

The truth is truth no matter how you take it. It is not going to be changed for your inconvenience.”

―

Bikash Bhandari

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

I point out truth because, of all things, leadership is reliant on a leader being able to see truth … and not just what they want to see.

I point out truth because, of all things, vision and instincts are driven more by truth, knowledge and ‘learning’, than by any nebulous “I have good instincts.’

I point out truth because, of all things, people actually have a natural inclination to work for the mutual benefit of an organization … they like to cooperate and collaborate … and truth has an incredible ability to bond together the largest most disparate organization as well as offer the initial burst of energy which pushes organizations forward out of trouble and toward something better when a leader actually makes a decision.

Be wary of the verbose ‘I am good at this’ leader because … well … as with anything else in Life & business … leaders have to be ‘good’ at a number of things not just some simplistic self-interest driven accolade.

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

“More isn’t always better. Sometimes it’s just more.”

―

Barbara Benedek

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

“Our company? 

We have a change the world attitude. We don’t mind being disruptive as long as it is with the intent to create something new and better.  Smart disruption displaces the conventional and replaces it with an unconventional way to do things that actually meets what people want, need and expect. 

We call what we are doing ‘shaking the category etch a sketch.’ 

Visions should be lofty and grounded.

Simple yet reflective of a complex world.

Pragmatic & practical yet not the status quo.” 

—–

Bruce McTague

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

Ok.

I must get trapped in dozens of discussions & debates over innovative ideas, disruptive ideas and what is “new.” And thanks to Yale and some guy named Loewy  I have a tendency to toss around two phrases a shitload in the conversations — “Most Advanced Yet Acceptable” and optimal newness.

<note: <a> ‘optimal newness’ is a relatively new phrase which i have appropriated to replace some of my less eloquent phrases saying the same thought, <b> I have used ‘most advanced yet acceptable’ as a thought for years as it was offered to us by  ‘the father of industrial design’, Loewy, in the 1950’s but more recently highlighted in an Atlantic article>

I pull these phrases out of my thought bag of tricks because invariably these “let’s talk about new ideas” conversations get squeezed between two extreme bookends and the phrases help to unsqueeze the thinking.

One bookend is the highly caffeinated entrepreneurial ‘disruptors’ who are convinced they have an idea that no one has ever seen or done before and want to present it as “the coolest thing you have never seen before.”

The other bookend is the pragmatic risk averse “change agent” who proudly presents the same widget which was once painted taupe and is now painted flat black as “new, improved and contemporary.”

By the way. These bookends actually have names: neophilia, a curiosity about new things; and neophobia, a fear of anything too new. This conversational tug of war is a reflection of the basic human truth that we love, and actively seek, familiarity <safeness>… uhm … as well as the thrill of discovery <risk>.

We do this with … well … everything.

Therefore we are almost always torn, slightly or a lot, by these two opposing thoughts. This is the thinking that led that guy, Loewy, to articulate his industrial design attitude as “Most Advanced Yet Acceptable.”

He believed to sell something surprising, make it familiar; and to sell something familiar, make it surprising.

This thought is important. It is important because while an idea can, conservatively, die 101 different ways 2 of the most likely ways to die is <a> you have a surprising, possibly truly disruptive idea, and your inclination it is to make it look spectacularly surprisingly different – therefore scaring the shit out of most people and they do not attach themselves to it, and <b> you have a spectacularly unspectacular useful idea and … well … you undersell it because it is difficult to articulate beyond the familiarity – therefore boring everyone into believing it is not worthy of a ‘new’ label. And before you beat the crap out of me on all of this The Atlantic article offers a nice proof point to ponder:

In 2014, a team of researchers from Harvard University and Northeastern University wanted to know exactly what sorts of proposals were most likely to win funding from prestigious institutions such as the National Institutes of Health—safely familiar proposals, or extremely novel ones?

They prepared about 150 research proposals and gave each one a novelty score. Then they recruited 142 world-class scientists to evaluate the projects. The most-novel proposals got the worst ratings. Exceedingly familiar proposals fared a bit better, but they still received low scores. “Everyone dislikes novelty,” Karim Lakhani, a co-author, explained to me, and “experts tend to be overcritical of proposals in their own domain.” The highest evaluation scores went to submissions that were deemed slightly new.

I shared this research to show that even the dullest deserves some surprise & novelty while “new” has some limits when trying to communicate the pragmatic <both of which are important with regard to … well … almost everything>.

That said. I think the real point here is that you need to find the sweet spot … that there is an “optimal newness” for ideas or, well, how about we call it “advanced yet acceptable”.

So why do we always have this struggle? Well … in business the challenge seems to be the business world has put an incredibly high value on <perceived> innovation & disruption and a lesser, if not nonexistent, value on <real> functionality & highly pragmatic thinking & ideas. This out of whack valuation steers some business people to some extremely shallow misguided thinking and hollow ideation.

Nowhere is this found more often than when discussing “disruptive ideas” and innovation which are the two “phases that pay” when we talk about new.

We use these words to imply this idea will change the world <and more often than not it is just a nice idea which will make an impact in its own little universe … assuming it doesn’t die a quick death>, therefore, it becomes the only type of idea we should pay attention to.

In other words … if it’s not disruptive, its crap.

Well.

That’s crap (bullshit). The truth is that many, if not most, of the most foundational ‘innovative’ or new ideas the world has ever seen tend to be the most overlooked, unseen to the naked eye, unobtrusive ‘disruptors’ we have ever interacted with.

The truth is that most effective useful disruptive ideas are almost always leveraging off of something existing. You may turn everything upside down … but you are still using some existing pieces <some existing attitudes & behavior as well a ‘things’> from which your idea will end up tapping into. I say that with two thoughts in mind:

• something from nothing equals the same thing as nothing from nothing … nothing.

• smart, or intelligent, disrupting is always about something from something.

Ponder them <not too much because it will make your head hurt> … but everyone should keep these two thoughts in mind whenever seeking optimal newness – you cannot create something from nothing.

Anyway. In today’s business world “new” and “disruptive” are inextricably linked. This is a shame.

It does not benefit either concept or idea to do this. New is … well … new. No more and no less <although there are certainly degrees of new>.

Disruption actually means ‘to challenge.’ And, despite what many want you to believe, disruption is actually about creating something … not simply to destroy something. I would actually suggest that disruption, at its core, is about changing the way you think – creating new ways to think about something.

Think about it. Conventions train us to do the conventional. I say that because accepted beliefs <conventional thinking>, where everyone is thinking the same, usually means no one is really thinking.

Therefore, constructing new accepted beliefs may not mean destroying the old, the familiar, but rather creating a new way of thinking and creating a new familiar. All this becomes important as you consider what would be “optimal newness.” Because as we wander aimlessly between the hyperbole of disruptive and new … well … many new ideas are simply a fresh derivative of ‘familiarity.’

I say this to make a point.

Optimal newness, 95% of the time, leverages some familiarity … something existing … and it is grounded in some reality that people can grasp.

Therein lies a truth “optimal newness” never loses sight of. The biggest ideas with the biggest end impact on our lives typically have gained some momentum not because they were some huge ‘new, never seen before’ idea but rather because the innovated on some conventional thinking and shifted us into some different way of thinking about something.

Maybe we should think about it this way … if today’s innovators have been successful … have seen farther than others before … it is because they have stood on the shoulders of giants … well … maybe stood on the shoulders of something that already existed.

Regardless. I read somewhere in one of those bullshit pop psychology pieces that confident people are better than most people at seeking out small victories … they don’t necessarily need “big” ideas or maniacally pursue being called a ‘disruptor’ as they pursue success. I tend to believe confidence can reside in comfort within ‘optimal newness’ and the confident business people know that newness doesn’t have to be splashy nor hyperbole driven but rather surprising functionality.

And maybe that is the larger point with regard to ‘optimal newness’ and ‘most advanced yet acceptable.’ In business these days we seem to either believe “go big or go home” and therefore either overplay our hand or completely underplay it <because it isn’t big enough>. Just think about that last thought as you ponder the last dozen good ideas you have seen die before your eyes.

I will end by stating, unequivocally, that this is easier to write about then to put into practice.

Shit.

Finding the ‘optimal’ anything in business is hard. All I know is that every time I have this discussion with a sales group talking about selling, an innovations group talking about articulating an innovation or even a CEO about ‘organizational change management’, I get a lot of cocked heads  as they think about it a little.

That’s got to count for something.