=====

“What I hate is ignorance, smallness of imagination, the eye that sees no farther than its own lashes. All things are possible. Who you are is limited only by who you think you are.”

–

Egyptian Book of the Dead

======

There is gobs of advice information on how to communicate authentically but, in reality, authenticity comes from the soul; it comes naturally. So. I am dubious with regard to the value of the advice ‘how to be authentic’ information.

Anyway. I actually prefer discussing all of this is ‘being genuine.’

I call it genuine because authentic has become bullshit. Authentic has become business. It has become something you can learn to be – like a skill.

That’s nuts.

Frickin’ nuts.

To me it all started going awry through entertainers and people in the spotlight. I imagine every person who dances in the spotlight of fame gets coached and scripted and sculpted for the masses before stepping up to a podium or agreeing to accept the microphone and say something. I call it the ‘polishing of authenticity’. I will also call it, well, ungenuine.  I would also suggest we don’t want scripted from the people we suggest we want to know about or just know.

Ah.

‘suggest’

Here is where Authentic really goes off the rails. While yearning for this thing we call ‘authentic’, we also relentlessly parse each tone, syllable, gesture, word & thought <although mostly that is speculation on our part on with regard to what they really meant when they said what they said>. And that is where this whole thing gets slightly odd <or absurd … if not sad>.

We cannot tell what is genuine and what is not, what is authentic and what is not. That is just batshit crazy.  So we ask for ‘authenticity, seek authenticity, yet remain overly cynical of anyone actually offering authenticity and, worse, critique it fragment by fragment.

I put this in the same category as transparency. The only way to be transparent & believable is to be radically transparent. Similarly the only way to be authentic & believable is to be radically authentic.

Whew boy.

Ponder that.

Ponder how willing you are to be ‘believably authentic’ or, in my terms, ‘believably genuine.’

Ok. Let me make an example. Risking some shit from my readers, let me talk about Katy Perry <or even her ex,

Russell Brand> and authenticity and being genuine.

While people step up and speak as earnestly as possible and share truth and we consistently doubt them, there is Katy Perry who steps up in a slightly wacky persona <which you have to know is slightly scripted at minimum> and within the wackiness, uhm, seamlessly slides into a serious thought <reminder: she was quite articulate & ‘smart’ during the 2016 election>.  People got confused. Well. Some people did. How could this wacky entertainer, sometimes quirky, be smart and articulate and serious.? Well. One would almost suggest she was, uhm, being authentic in all aspects of who and what she is.

Look. I am fairly sure she is one of the more truly authentic people out in the public eye today.

I just think it’s a little out of whack that we doubt the sincere and accept the absurd.

I just think it’s a little out of whack we doubt seriousness and only see the nonseriousness.

I also think it’s a little out of whack how much we listen or do not listen for ‘things’ (cues to judge).

What I mean by that is we listen very very <very> hard for things in which we can turn to and point out flaws & ‘lies’ & things that make the person saying them ‘less than.’ And, yet, we don’t seem to listen as hard for the nuggets they share in which we can look at them and think ‘more than.’ Well. That would seem to say more about us then them, no?

Ponder.

Every time she speaks she is entertaining.

Every time she performs she seems to love what she does.

Every time she has an opportunity … she offers up something bigger & more important.

How is that different from anyone being authentic? Isn’t that almost the definition of genuine?

You speak to engage.

You genuinely agree with what you say and how you feel about what you are doing.

Every time you genuinely feel like you have something to contribute – you offer it.

Yet. The price to being authentic seems to be she isn’t being heard for the really important stuff.

Yet. the price YOU pay to being authentic seems to be you are not being heard for the really important stuff.

What a wacky world we live in these days. Who knew authentic would be so difficult.

Yes. I purposefully chose a lightning rod ‘Hollywood liberal’ to make a point. Choose your own lightning rod and see if I don’t have a point.

Anyway.

Maybe we should listen to the people who get the microphone shoved in front of their face with a little less cynicism.

Maybe we should seek to find a little more trust that some people truly are trying to tell us the truth.

Maybe we need to get better at discerning genuine versus ‘faux authenticity’ (practiced sincerity … as if that is a ‘thing’).

Maybe we need to remember you can only see as far as you think <and only hear as much as you unthink>.

Lastly. A cautionary note for businesses & brands. Brands are not people, but genuine is genuine. Deciding to ‘be authentic’ is not something you ‘decide’, you just, well, are (or you are not). My caution is the natural cynicism people have about authenticity. Because if you noted that point above, and you nodded your head, well, take note that in business that cynicism increases exponentially. That cynicism demands you don’t ‘be authentic’; it actually demands that you are authentic.

Which permits me to end where I began. You can ‘be authentic’ and maybe you can learn some faux skill to be authentic, but if you are authentic you are genuine. And genuine is invaluable in the world of business.

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

“Tired, tired with nothing, tired with everything, tired with the world’s weight he had never chosen to bear.”
―

F. Scott Fitzgerald

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

Well. I admit. I get in trouble with some of the ‘radical transparency people sometimes because I hesitate to agree that the most effective organization is an organization in which everyone knows everything.

Yes. I do believe every person is capable of leadership.

Yes. I believe every person actually does lead (contextually & situationally).

Yes. I believe if you want to encourage individual leadership within decision making you should, and have to, be as transparent from a leadership perspective as possible.

No. I do not believe you tell everyone everything.

Yes. This is where i get sideways with a lot people.

Here is a truth that many people do not like to hear.

This may sound obvious, but leaders do not always tell the truth.

This may not sound obvious, but leaders do this on purpose because not always telling the truth is sometimes, truthfully, the best & right thing to do. This leader can be in business or in the government or, frankly, any situation.

Now. I am not suggesting they always lie nor am I suggesting they do not know what the truth is <or how to tell it>, but I am suggesting that there are times & situations that we, the everyday schmuck, shouldn’t hear the truth.

Therein lies a leader’s uncomfortable relationship with truth and truth telling.

Leaders are often demanded to manage the narrative <not control it>.

Managing the narrative can be based on a variety of solid rationale points which may piss us every day schmucks off later on <when we inevitably learn the whole truth>, but within the context of how and what is happening the leader has actually done the right, and best, thing by not telling the whole truth.

Sorry.

That is the truth.

Look. Leaders have a shitload of responsibilities, but let me highlight two with regard to truth and truth telling:

– All people.

You lead all people not just one group or one department. You end up being very careful in what words you decide to attach to whatever you want to talk about.

No. This is not political correctness.

This is managing the overall effectiveness of the larger group. If a word, or group of words, disenfranchises a group from the rest of the organization or greater whole not only does the whole suffer but the smaller group can receive undeserved negativity.

All people.

The burden of responsibility that a leader bears is to all, not just parts of all.

– Moderation.

This may seem counter intuitive, but leaders spend much much more time tamping down excitement <to make it realistic> and tamping out fear <to make it less debilitating> then they do creating energy and ferve.

That doesn’t mean that they do not inspire the masses … just that the majority of their relationship with those they lead is more about rational and not emotional – the responsibility to temper emotions and emotional responses.
Moderation.

The burden of responsibility that a leader bears is to mitigate emotional responses.

So. These are responsibilities.

These are actually reflective of behavior intended for the greater good and not to hide something or any nefarious reason. It is solely in the best interest of the greater whole. And, yes, while we everyday schmucks bitch & moan about no one should be making decisions for us or a desire <or right> to being part of the decision … we really do not.

Mostly because while we all think we can be a leader … 99% of us cannot.

To be clear. The obligation to tell the truth is heightened depending on what one is proposing, yet, it always gets balanced by the obligation for the greater good. This is the truth telling balancing act, a high wire act most of the time, every leader walks — every day.

Which leads me to wanting to share a couple more truths. Uncomfortable truths.

Truth 1. Sometimes a leader gets it wrong.

Good intentions or not sometimes what you didn’t say, or even what you did say, will come back and bite you in the ass. And there isn’t shit you can do to explain why you did what you did. People tell you how to do your job. People call you a liar. People call you stupid. People call & tell you … well … a shitload of things that make you feel like shit.

But you know what? You are a leader. You forge on and do better the next time.

But. Let me be clear. Just because you get it wrong doesn’t mean you will automatically tell the whole truth every time from that point on. Leaders always … always … look at what they say in a contextual fashion. I will not tell the whole truth if emotions are running high and will incense to a state of irrational behavior. I will not tell the whole truth if it will drive further despair <when hope is needed>.

Truth 2. Even when you get it right … you can never tell anyone why you did it.

You can’t tell people that emotion makes rational people irrational and “I didn’t tell you everything so that emotions could ease”. I stubbornly didn’t say something, agree with something or use a particular word or phrase because, well, I wasn’t sure you would attack some other group of people <take out your emotions on someone>.

You are a leader. You carry the burden of what you did and take solace in the positive outcomes when you do get it right.

That’s it. This topic has been on my mind for quite some time.

Mostly because I believe we should think about this more often as we view our leaders <and see the uncomfortable amount of shit that our leaders get piled on them>. Partially because I believe in an autonomous democratized decision making organization model. Totally because business mostly exists in a hierarchy model and for the most part we need to manage the existence in which we live in.

Now. This is certainly not written to applaud lying. I do not condone blatant lying. But I do believe there is a time and a place to not tell the whole truth.

That is the burden a leader bears.

Now. Far far too many people think they either are a leader, as smart as a leader or could be a leader.

Harsh truth? The majority of people cannot be a <good> leader. And. Not everyone can or should become a leader.

It takes a certain type of skill, lots of character & courage and … well … the ability to say what needs to be said when it needs to be said. Sometimes what needs to be said is the whole truth and sometimes what needs to be said is selective truth.

This is the uncomfortable truth leaders know as … well … truth.

I imagine some o the thoughts I shared today will make some people uncomfortable let alone vehemently disagree with. That’s okay. All I ever ask is you think about it and maybe see this as an uncomfortable truth.

===

another thing I wrote about the Burden of Leadership

===

 =========

“Stagnation is self-abdication.”

―

Ryan Talbot

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

“The moment we stand still, we begin to decay.”

―

Erich Fromm

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

“If you’re stationary, you’ll die.”

—-

Gen. Mark Milley, Joint Chief of Staff

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

Ok. I tend to believe any reasonable business person recognizes stagnancy leads to inevitable death <although at the same time many reasonable business people also have an unhealthy relationship with tried & true systems & processes, mitigate risk taking to such an extreme level that change almost seems indiscernible and views any change as something that needs to be analyzed from every view imaginable before undertaking it>.

I thought about that when I scanned a fantastic article on WarontheRocks discussing the army strategy of the future. Within it was a phrase that caught my eye – “disciplined disobedience.”

It first and foremost reminded me that businesses can view stagnancy in a variety of ways in their attempt to “not change what works” while seeking “change what needs to be changed” <all of which simply means “something within your business is not dynamic and there are scraps of stagnancy slowing you down”>.

It secondly reminded me that back in august 2010 I wrote something called ‘discontinuity for successful company continuity’  in which I shared an organizational idea called “controlled autonomy” <others may call it a version of a self organized organization or a decentralized organization or a variety of ‘decentralized-like employee empowered’ terms> … and suggested that was the organization of the future.

—————————-

A continuous discontinuous organization?

Controlled autonomy.

Controlled in that there is a vision, a focus and a functional understanding of what is it we do well.

Autonomy in that outside the ‘control developers’ people can do different shit.

Controlled autonomy is certainly an organizational shift from the past.

But even IBM has looked at this concept.

A past IBM research report suggests that the best analogies for businesses in the future may no longer be the command structures of the military but the self-organizing networks found in nature: schools of fish, flocks of birds and swarms of insects.

Well.

I don’t know about the birds & bees thing but I do understand they are suggesting some decentralization (or autonomy at the employee level).

The struggle with this is that this agility I am discussing is a process where the leadership is not omnipotent.

And further struggle continues with autonomy (and the ensuing agility) as there will be enablers and blockers within the organization therefore the leadership must factor in internal organization limitations (and possibilities) when judging the best plan of action.

What that really means is that no matter how you slice it … organizations are ‘tense anxiety-driven’ structures.

Employees typically oppose new ideas because they perceive they are unworkable (and sometimes they are if the ivory tower doesn’t have their shit together) and bad for profits (or it appears to on the ground people they aren’t making as much money).

And yet we also know that employees always have a large stake in the future success of any organization. Some hesitancy is due to fear or laziness but it can also be due to good judgment.

This is where autonomy comes into play.

It’s not just about diverse views in planning (which obviously highlights opportunities and obstacles) but also some permission of diversity in on the ground decision making.

And autonomy in an organization helps address the truth that is there is a difference between ‘intended’ strategy at the corporate level and ‘realized’ strategy on the business level, i.e., what management wishes to occur, and what is in fact carried out.

That is also the dynamic portion of businesses that permits change to meet changing markets.

Sounds awful difficult to control? (or manage) Sure it is.

But that is why a leader should be paid the big bucks.

———————-

Uhm. I still believe that.

At the most simplistic level any business faces two basic demands — it must execute its current activities to survive today’s challenges and adapt those activities to survive tomorrow’s.

This means executing and adapting at exactly the same time. This also means, within your business, there is a constant competition for resources, money & time in order to meet executional demands and adaptation opportunities <therein lies a significant portion of the ‘tense-anxiety’ dynamic of a dynamic organization.

I am not making this up.

Peters and Waterman <In Search of Excellence> argued that organizations must simultaneously be “tight” in executing and “loose” in adapting. I believe they also pointed out that very few do both well.

I have had many discussions with many businesses trying to convince them that an organization can be very good at both executing and adapting and how to be good at both.

It seems that many business leaders sometimes forget that the organization can sometimes forget they can actually be an organization from an aligned ‘doing’ perspective <because we put such an emphasis n vision and strategy>.

What I mean is that most good businesses have naturally incorporated a sense of autonomy and over time the organizational alignment aspects fade into a subconscious background space and individual departments and groups coalesce around the autonomous aspects <it gives them a sense of pride, empowerment & self-actualization as part of the whole>.

Everyone should note that while this is an incredibly powerful engine in a company it can become challenging with employee turnover <because there has to be some plan to assimilate new people into a subconsciously acting organization>.

Look. I believe, and vocally espouse, great alignment in an organization more often than not is actually “purposeful fragmentation.” This is the type of alignment which permits the parts of the organization <departments, divisions, etc.> to maintain some autonomy yet always be grounded in what is ultimately important to the organization.

Sure. I do believe there are things you want an organization to do fairly commonly and certainly can do if you ask the organization to swing into action. And I do believe it is imperative to get these things down and established as ‘rote behavior’ in the midst of an organizational shift/transformation. But organizations have a nasty habit of falling back on less-than-autonomy type leadership and thinking. This nasty habit occurs as we gain experience because our ‘rules & guidelines’ hierarchies fill up based on a larger collection of specific experiences and more feedback on what has and hasn’t worked.

Someone articulated the outcome of this as:

“our mental models grow into complex structures of categories, interlinked rules, and weightings. We become less likely to perceive experiences as totally new and instead try to relate them to previous ones, which we group into existing categories. As mental models become more complex over time, major rearrangements become more difficult.”

Basically, as an organization’s size and complexity increase its degrees of freedom & autonomy decrease. and while I just made a sweeping generalization I would point out something that Scott Page, University of Michigan, who studied why some organizations are complex and hierarchical while others are simple and flat concluded — organizations evolve in response to the problems they have to solve.

All of this leads me back to what the Army Chief of Staff said in the warontherocks article. Two thoughts for any business person who embraces the uncomfortable truth that stagnancy is the path to irrelevant death:

“If you’re stationary, you’ll die.”

Consolidated bases and logistics hubs will be untenable, presenting lucrative targets for an enemy with precision firepower. He noted we must “untether ourselves from this umbilical cord of logistics and supply that American forces have enjoyed for a very lengthy period of time.” Army units will have to move, set up, move, and move again — “maybe every two, three, four hours just to survive.” Fixed sites of any kind will be lethal magnets for destruction by enemies who will have a rich diet of targeting information — especially since smart phones will be even more ubiquitous. As he bluntly stated, “If you’re stationary, you’ll die.”

• Disobey Orders — Smartly

He called this “disciplined disobedience.” I believe this idea was floated by a past Army Chief of Staff back in the 1970’s but called “selective disobedience.” This suggests that disobeying orders can be justified to achieve the larger purpose of the mission.

[A] subordinate needs to understand that they have the freedom and they are empowered to disobey a specific order, a specified task, in order to accomplish a purpose. Now, that takes a lot of judgment … it can’t just be willy-nilly disobedience. This has got to be disciplined disobedience to achieve the higher purpose.

Milley added:

“disobedience, when done, must be done with trust and integrity, and you must be morally and ethically correct.”

A business competitive field has always been one of chaos and unpredictability <although we have always tried to communicate it as more static in SWOT analysis and crap like that>. And if you accept it is more chaotic and unpredictable it will become easier to understand why far too many organizations frequently lack reliable communications up and down the chain of command. As the Army recognizes, and businesses more often should, junior leaders may have to independently make quick decisions upon which battles may be decided and which may have strategic consequences.

In a controlled autonomy the leaders must become more comfortable with some ambiguity and accepting the fact that employees closer to the point of action/decision will be making unsupervised decisions to achieve the organization’s, and leader’s, intent. Simplistically, as the Army suggests is mission command — empowering leaders with the “why” of their task, but leaving the “how” to their imagination.

Well. Suffice it to say … while people like me love that thought & concept most business leaders are scared shitless of it. Frankly, most senior leaders <centralists by management nature> who seek to implement some autonomous aspects don’t set out to deceive anybody. In their heads they know that high degrees of involvement, participation, and autonomy are key elements in high organization performance. But in their hearts, they still crave orderliness, predictability, and control.

They get trapped in the wretched in-between because a central “plan” cannot dictate and bring order to a haphazard, chaotic, unpredictable, and rapidly changing business world – no matter how much we wish it would.

And. It gets more difficult.

With a continuing stress on “bottom line” or making margins as high as possible leaders fall into the financial analysis trap which encourages anything but autonomy.

Financial analysis can clearly show that consolidating and centralizing support services and functions saves money and increases efficiency <in huge PowerPoint graph slides in the conference room> therefore suggesting autonomy is less than efficient.

What doesn’t show up in these analysis are two things:

<1> consolidating & centralizing is most effective & efficient in servicing a static business (note: business is never static)

<2> the inherent alienation, helplessness, and lack of ability to connect with real time customer & market needs or organizational purpose that centralized bureaucracy often brings

I could argue for controlled autonomy for years. And I could begin with the simplest thought that efficiencies may save gobs of money but the processes to do so can be cost you the intangible people energy and passion engine within the organization <and then add in at least 5 additional powerful reasons you, as a business leader, need to suck it up and embrace some ambiguity>.

Controlled autonomy may not be the proper terminology <albeit it offers a more comfortable liminal space fr a lot of existing leadership> but I would encourage all business people to start using the Army as an example and start using “disciplined disobedience” as a management North Star.

—

“It is not the strongest of the species that survive, not the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.”

=

Charles Darwin

—————————-

Survival. A topic we all care about. This quote should make everyone think about Life as well as with their business. I love this quote mostly because those with ‘brawn’ scoff at those with ‘brains’, and the ‘brains’ scoff at the ‘brawn’, when survival (and that doesn’t have to mean life & death, but rather success or failure) is being played out.

Regardless of the side someone is on, both brawn & brain believe they have the advantage regardless of the situation in terms of survival. But. Chuck (as Darwin was called to his closest friends) suggests you don’t have to be the sharpest knife in the drawer nor do you have to be the strongest tool in the drawer to survive. You just have to be flexible. Responsive to what is happening. Have a willingness to adapt to the situation.

Flexibility is certainly an advantage if you have the desire to succeed at anything you do (ask any coach). We all face times when we have to deal with situations that do not “fit in” to our routine or our ‘comfort zone.’ I say “tough noogies” (not sure exactly what that means, but I bet you get the point).

Adapt or die.

Just ponder. One of the most frustrating things in life is when you have done your best and yet things still go wrong. Or maybe you didn’t get to where you wanted to get to (what you were ultimately aiming for).

You have to be flexible.

You have to adapt.

You have to have the ability to fit into a changed situation … or … to modify your behavior & actions accordingly to fit the changed situation.

And if you don’t? If instead you stubbornly hold on to some things that don’t work, and stubbornly repeat mistakes (because it matches best practices or “what worked in that past“) this inflexibility will cause failure (or simply not reaching what it is you were aiming for which is a derivative of some type of failure). By the way, in other words, continuous behavior along those lines means you will not survive.

Ultimately you have to decide to do things differently to experience different results.

Easy? Nope. It can be uncomfortable. It can be emotionally draining.

We know that when we are asked to change again and again, the physical and psychological reaction, which is actually excessive stimulation to the system, puts our ability to adapt under massive strain. All the change produces stress and carries with it a physical and emotional price tag. The more radical the change — the bigger the price tag.

Excessive stimulation has at least three levels: sensory, cognitive and decisional. To help us function <or survive>, each of us has developed strategies, or destimulation tactics, to lower the level of stimulation when we feel uncomfortably close to the limits of our adaptive range. We use these tactics every day, often unconsciously. Yet. By becoming conscious of them we can increase their effectiveness. By examining our own responses to overstimulation we can learn ways of consciously influencing change. We can begin by influencing small events, then expand our influence to larger patterns of experience. All these mental tactics are designed to detach from the shit … and rise above all that you are today so that you can be the best you can be tomorrow.

To do all of this you need to be aware. You need to not only be prepared to recognize when change needs to occur (typically there is a threshold on where you need to stop fighting the change or risk falling so far behind you cannot catch up or just be ‘eliminated’ at that time … oh … that survival thing) but you also need to be ready to change.

Look. Everyone has the capability to change. In fact I have a nifty chart which shows how most people accept & accommodate change.

Its pretty simple but shows that we need to work through the different levels of response to effect change. I would imagine there are several points to be made but here are the two from me:

–          you learn as you move through each phase at each point actually changing how you think about future problems/challenges to further change

–          you can get stuck anywhere in any phase at any time (the nifty chart actually helps show how easy it is to NOT change because you get stuck somewhere).

So. As change is introduced to you & your life you are forced through all four levels. I would imagine the most important thought would be to attain the fourth level as quickly as possible.

Anyway. Survival, and change, pretty much always depends on the most basic first step – believe that you are able to make the changes.  And take the first step.

Without that? You have the thought, but no action.

And the result of no action? Lack of survival again.

All that said. I tend to believe a lot of people will read the Darwin quote and seek to find meaning within ‘survival of the fittest’ bigger picture. I have some strange advice (coming from me).

Think small.

Think day-to-day.

Think “me.”

Think that survival is about adapting to the environment around you.

Think adapting means “initiating a new order of <personal> things ….”

—

“It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things.

For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only luke-warm defenders in all those who profit by the new order.

This luke-warmness arises partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favor, and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had an actual experience of it”.

Machiavelli

=

Bottom line.

Always think about how can you adapt.

By the way, I am not suggesting (and I believe Chuck Darwin wasn’t either) 100% change to adapt (although some situations demand it). Successful change typically begins by pinpointing anchors of stability (one you either have or can develop) which help to make the transition change not only viable, but more likely successful for you.

Regardless. Make change your constant companion and friend.

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

“The only thing that has ever made me feel old is those few times where I allow myself to be predictable.”

Carlos Santana

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

General Mark Milley:

“disobedience, when done, must be done with trust and integrity, and you must be morally and ethically correct.”(Disciplined Disobedience)

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

Well. There is no lack of articles on generational gaps in business and, yet, almost every one of them focuses on simplistic “generational characteristics”, “old versus young” and “what millennials want” and shit like that. Sure. Useful but I would argue all young people have always wanted a version of the same thing “do good meaningful shit without all the old people bullshit.”

Anyway.

What no one seems to talk about is the core frictional axis in today’s business generational issue: business philosophy<embodied in how ideas are created & implemented>.

That said. While I will certainly piss some people off by suggesting 50somethings are slowing us all down <impeding progress> I will do so by hopefully using some rational arguments rather than simply ranting.

The foundation for my belief will center on 2 things:

• Compensating
• Compensation

Of course this is, in reality, about ‘letting go holding on’ <with a dose of ‘please move on’>. That said. 50somethings are the biggest impediment AND catalyst for progress.

Let me explain.

Impediment. They cannot let go. They are holding on with a stranglehold sense of fear to what they ‘know.’ I recognize that this is actually a topic on some elder generational life truths:

• No one can do it better than I can.
• It was always better when I was younger.
• It is always worse now than it was before.

Every generation as they get older believes this. Every generation of businesses has a bunch of people sitting in their corner offices looking askance as the young skip down the hallways tapping their proverbial fingers on their desks wondering how to corral all those young whippersnappers to do it the way they did it.

And it can get worse.

The old folk think they are living in the present <their perception> by implementing what is comfortable <the past> therefore their behavior is incredibly difficult to impact because their mind is telling them what they are doing is actually different than what they are actually doing.

Ok. Now that I have blasted 50somethings as being stubborn bitter curmudgeons and the biggest impediment to change, I will take a minute and also note, given the right attitude, 50somethngs can be the biggest enhancer/catalyst of progress. There is a relatively small percentage of 50somethings who have the ability to straddle generations <attitudinally> and have the ability to insert themselves into the younger generation’s minds and desires to strengthen the engine of progress rather than stall the engine.

Please note … I am not suggesting these 50somethings have to be as good as the young at technology or whatever new innovative techniques out there yet to be discovered, in fact, it may benefit them to not be or even try. Their value is in their heads and experience and the nudging of ‘what can be’ using selected knowledge from ‘what was.’

Let’s call it ‘selective best practice learnings.’ Topmodels suggested it was the happy few who could explain things. I have to tell you. I think the market place needs more of these “happy few” 50 year old+ employees than ever before (and I am gonna tell you why). Now. I am not suggesting all 50+ people are the same. And this generalization may be translatable to other age groups but let me suggest there are three groups:

• Over 50 and all they know and believe in is what they were taught when they were in their 20’s.
• Over 50 and they have all the knowledge they need to be on their own and like being on their own (I call these builders)
• Over 50 and have accumulated iterative learning over the years and have a unique combination of old and new (and like renovating)

(note: I wrote a post about Builders versus Renovators)

The first group is lost in the past. They will struggle because their thinking and ideas and even their vocabulary can be out of date. They will suck at transformation or renovation. Their hope is finding someone who needs to work on their internal construct of how to get shit done. But mostly these are the people when we were young we thought were ‘out-of-touch’ from the real world (or chuckled to ourselves because they would throw out up to date buzzwords acting like they knew what was going on).

The second group has accumulated enough knowledge and expertise and confidence where mentally they have flipped from ‘working for someone’ to ‘working for myself.’ They have recognized their ability to build. And they like building (which is different than transforming). They would suck at transforming because they want to run the place and not simply be an enabler for the organization to shift. (Ralph also talks about this within his newsletter as “fear of flying” and learning about yourself). They could possibly be out of touch or they could be leading edge entrepreneurs. But it doesn’t matter because they are now going forward as their own boss.

The third group? They are renovators. Companies should be fighting over these people. They are old but not old. They are experienced but still learning. They have a solid thinking construct but flexible in application. They may have their quirks (because I believe all of us older people start feeling more comfortable in our own skin and therefore are a little less worried about ‘fitting in’) but also tend to be more interested in the result than worrying about step by step how they get there. They can actually make the current buzzword understandable by using past functional learnings to explain them.

So. When I say “fighting for these people” I don’t mean to suggest that companies should be stockpiling these people at the expense of young energetic fresh thinkers and doers. I am simply suggesting that companies need a good tier of these boomer types to transform themselves when, frankly, a lot of companies need to be ‘transforming.’ (and my definition of transformation is leveraging from solid good older characteristics an injecting some new characteristics). I am also not going to suggest there should be a direct correlation between % of boomers in population and % of boomers in the makeup of business organizations. That would seem kind of silly to me.

But the numbers are pretty compelling that organizations should seek that third group of over 50ers (let’s be nice and call them boomers). In 2009 The PEW Center released a study outlining the current generation gap is the largest in the almost 50 year history of the study. Today, an astounding 79% of Americans believe that there is a generation gap in the ways young and old think and believe. Truly the only way to bridge that gap within an organization and eliminate generational divisiveness is to have boomers who can effectively communicate with and motivate all age groups.

There are not many of these 50somethings out there.

—————–

“The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.”

L.P. Hartley

—————————-

I equate it to the fabulous few who can travel to a different country and seamlessly blend into the attitudes & behaviors of the new country.

Generations are, in general, slow to change and adapt in a normal every day situation. Today’s 50somethings are exponentially challenged with change and are not dealing with it very well <i.e., not letting go very well>. I believe it was a French sociologist, Emile Durkheim, who developed a psychographic method to establish different socio-cultural groupings <I believe it is called the Sinus Milieu>.  Anyway. Basically it is a model that challenges us to think about behavior, preferences and cultural practices. The main premise behind the model is called ‘the lock-in principle.’ The principle simply states that if we get used to something we do not want to change our habits <or attitudes an beliefs> even if we are presented with something new or different that might be better. Simplistically it consistently shows <to a point that it is almost an unequivocal behavioral truth> that habit is stronger than the desire for improvement.

This thought partially explains that while 50somethings actually share the same desires as young people they are reluctant to let go of what they “know.” this gets compounded by two things:

1. With the advent of data & technology, the working business model has transformed from a “idea construction” model to a “idea destruction/reconstruction model“.
2. With the internet the gap between older experienced based knowledge and younger theoretical based knowledge has become sliver thin.

JEREMY SCRIVENS

“Over the past ten years, businesses have used Lean, Six Sigma, business process engineering and other techniques to drive costs out of a business. They have also succeeded in driving people nuts. Something really important happened two years ago. The percentage of people who loathe their jobs has been rising and the number of people who love their jobs has been falling. Two years ago these lines crossed. If we don’t find a way to reverse that trend then we are truly stuffed.”

Sliver thin? This is the compensation and compensating thoughts I shared upfront. 

• compensation

While this is about management style as well as purpose ultimately this is about money … not only how we personally get paid <earnings & wealth> but also how the company gets paid <profits, revenue, growth, etc.>. The current 50something management generation is literally and figuratively the generation that got squeezed. This was the generation who had to learn how to do more with less. This was the generation who was also demanded to generate more profits and sales increases … with less.

If there is anything this generation understands better, it is the concept of the squeezed dollar.

Now.  Let me explain. As business evolves and the economic environment surrounding industry evolves the needs of the business leader changes. It is natural to adapt to what the economic environment demands <or be killed if you don’t>. The burden of this business generation? The squeezed dollar <versus the bloated dollar of the previous generation>.

The current generation of business leaders has had to thrive in a ‘squeezed dollar’ environment.

• The squeezed dollar is the unfortunate fact that because of the boomer generation leaders’ wonderful success … the financial community demanded the same results … but the consumer demanded transparency.

Therefore in order to maintain continuous sales growth <which is actually a relatively ludicrous concept> and continuous profitability the current business leader had to find ways to squeeze the same profit/growth out of less dollars <cutting staff while cutting prices while cutting … and cutting … and … well … cutting>. I say all this because this economic pressure creates a certain type of management style in order to be successful. 50somethings learned on the job and actually were quite successful maintaining the boomer ‘earn as much as I can’ attitude <a version of extravagant desire for more> as well as working leaner … on the edge of what an organization is actually capable of.

Compounding this is the next challenge.

• Compensating

There is always a fragile relationship between generations … old holding on to what they know and have while the young are trying to pry things from the old … trying to get them to let go <of ideas, responsibility, things, etc.>.

From a ‘wisdom’ perspective the current generation gap is different, and more challenged, at the moment <although it has been this way in the past … just not within our experienced past>. While this wisdom gap between adults and the youth <in Life and in business> has always existed I will call this unique current gap challenge ‘the war on the adult advantage’ <or false knowledge versus real knowledge> for the sake of my discussion.

False knowledge. This is harsh <and an over generalization> but adults have always made shit up. We pass our opinions and beliefs along as facts … as real knowledge based on real life experience. Let’s call this the ‘years advantage.’ Most likely it is a ‘focus group of one’ knowledge but in the past adults could own this advantage the majority of the time. And at its worst … it is simply a defense mechanism to deflect youth energy away from something we would prefer them not to be focused on or thinking.

Real knowledge. Adults almost always had a real practical technical ‘how to do it’ advantage … mostly because in this case we had seen & done it. And done it many times so that it was almost with true expertise <or at minimum we had the process understood and efficient>. Nothing beats practical hands on experience <remember that old folk>.

The internet has squeezed both.  Today false knowledge can be challenged immediately.

And real knowledge?  Well. With some professional proficiency an adult will always maintain an advantage but with the advent of the computer and technology … many adults have actually LOST the advantage. Ultimately … the internet has squeezed this entire advantage perspective <actual wisdom as well as the learning process itself> to the head of a pin.

Only those adults truly agile and adept at thinking are maintaining this advantage.

But, in general, the 50something response?

We are threatened. The two main pillars of advantage have become toothpicks. So we hunker down. We take an increasingly bunker mentality and batten down the hatches <ok … no more tired metaphors>.

What do the 50somethings inevitably have to hold on to <and put a death grip to never let go of>? Whatever slim margin of advantage we can own, the unassailable portion, is ‘how we learned to do it’ — the process and the mentality and the ‘work’ on HOW we learned what we learned that got us to where we are.

Heck.  We got here this way … so any other way is a short cut <or not the right way>. Uh oh. Why is this an issue? Well. My good friends at topmodels.com helped me out again. They refer to it as “why faith is replacing knowledge.”

“… our world is getting more complicated all the time. Black and white, good and bad, right and wrong have been replaced with complicated constructs that leave most people in the dark.

As the world around us becomes increasingly fast paced and complex, the amount we REALLY know – what we can really grasp and understands – decreases all the time. Today it is more or less taken for granted that we do not understand many of the things that surround us, such as mobile phones and ipads. And even if somebody tried to explain the DNA code to us, we would probably be out of our depth.

We are increasingly surrounded by ‘black boxes’ … complex constructs that we do not understand even if they are explained to us. We cannot comprehend the inner processes of a black box but nonetheless we integrate their inputs and outputs into our decision making. The amount that we simply HAVE to believe, without understanding it, is increasing all the time. As a result we are tending to assign more importance to those who can explain something than to their actual explanation.” <The Decision book: 50 models for strategic thinking

Krogerus & Tschappeler>

Well. That thought scares the shit out of 50somethings. It stands against everything we were taught.

Faith versus actual knowledge? How can you truly understand if you don’t understand <all the innards and stuff>? The young are replacing <some> knowledge with faith … and the old are not letting go of ‘stop and learn the knowledge.’ There is certainly a balance … but 50somethings are not interested in balance … they are interested in having ‘no faith’ because they perceive it as having ‘too much risk’ or ‘not the way we did it.’

<insert ‘get over it’ here>

There is a massive opportunity for 50somethings if they can get their shit together and quit ‘compensating.’ If they simply quit cocooning simply to maintain their adult dignity <their wisdom factor> and seeking to simply maintain whatever slim perceived advantage they can have over the youth <not actually increasing the gap but simply strengthening the fine thin line between the two>.

Today? It is a more hardened thinner gap than in past generations.

The future is always ‘now’ to the young because the future exists in their ideas. Whenever the future ‘happens’ it becomes the present and then immediately the past <kind of my explanation for the excessive restlessness the youth in business have>.  50somethings need to learn to let go and hold on for the ride <as a conductor>.

Ultimately … the old have lost their traditional grip over the young and are holding on harder than ever before. They are over-compensating to maintain control <or their advantage>.

Bottom line on this topic. It really comes down to two things … attitude and respect.

Attitude.

The right attitude <combined with some respect> is the requirement for adapting to change and generations.

With the passing of time each of us changes … experientially and psychologically. In certain situations, younger people do not like accommodating themselves to traditional experiences and in others older people are reluctant to accept the new. In order for a person to change themselves, it is necessary that they not only be convinced of the appropriateness of this change but they also have to have the right attitude. The attitude matters because … well … this shit doesn’t happen overnight <despite the fact everyone seems to think if you don’t make changes immediately you will get crushed>. In order for everyone to adapt organizationally everyone, both generations, need time.  Time to assimilate the new and the old and create the necessary experience as well as process it to make … well … progress.

Respect.

Oddly, I will suggest it isn’t that the young should respect the old, but rather the opposite. I believe the 50somethings need to get their proverbial heads out of their asses and develop some respect for the young and what they can do <that we cannot>. Show them respect and I imagine they will show us respect <if we have the ability to deserve it along with the right attitude>.

In the end.

There is a lot of talk amongst older folk on “changing” and “adding purpose to businesses” but my prediction?  Existing leadership <and middle management> will screw this up mainly because they will only see the short term as an opportunity to get an older, more mature, cheaper employee and not recognize the longer term issues that will arise. They will screw it up because they will focus on ROI & not ROY:

• Lack of ROY <return on youth>: youth and young people are the cheapest innovation engine in any organization. While typically overlooked in an innovation model their innate ability to provide a fresh perspective through fresh eyes is invaluable. Organizations may not recognize their current loss with the ‘lack of youth’ within their organizations but it is having an impact. It has a domino effect within an organization. Without the ‘hidden youth engine’ more pressure will fall on older employees for innovative ideas … and these employees are more focused on ‘safe behavior to maintain employment’ and … well … you can see where this ends up.

Focusing on what we perceive as ‘generational differences and ‘youth attitudes’ <and not the organizational issues> I believe we older folk will not manage this issue well. Mainly I believe this because we will tend to focus on numbers & jobs and not some key psychological aspects <some Maslow stuff>.

There is truly no generation gap with desire to what we want <purpose, meaning, joy of task, being better, hope>, but the real gap exists in the minds of HOW things should be done.

As noted in my construction versus deconstruction posts, it is a new business world out there today and navigating the transition is where the best minds of the older generation should be focused. I could argue we are currently in the business world’s liminal space <uncomfortable, uneasy transition space> and if you agree, well, then we are simply on our way to someplace new & better. I could also argue we need a new business model for a new business world and fortunately for everyone the young are more capable of implementing this new model than any existing generation.

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

“Souls are funny things. They stay constant even when the outside changes, or when the heart makes mistakes.

Souls don’t really care about good or bad, right or wrong — they’re just true.”

—

Miranda July

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

“Lies and half-truths fall like snow, covering the things that I remember, the things I saw.

A landscape, unrecognisable after a snowfall; that is what she has made of my life.”

—

Neil Gaiman

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

“If you cannot find the truth right where you are, where else do you expect to find it?”

–

Dogen

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

Well. I almost called this “if you cannot find the truth right where you are” because it sure seems like we like to look for truth, the harshest truths, somewhere else other than where we are. Ok. What I mean by ‘where we are’ is  within us.

I admit it seems kind of crazy to look anywhere but within because, ultimately, the stability and security and outcome of our souls, ourselves I imagine, need to be grounded in some self truth:

No lies.

No bullshit.

No ‘wishes.’

Just harsh unfettered truth.

In order to be greater than the turmoil of life.

In order to stand unwavering in the storm of life.

In order to not flinch in the face disasters in Life.

Just harsh unfettered truth.

This harsh unfettered truth gives us a space. It’s kind of like the eye of a hurricane.

We draw some lines.

We create some limits.

We place some margins as a buffer.

At the center?

Just harsh unfettered truth.

I use harsh purposefully. Self reflection is always difficult. It’s tough facing some shit you most likely don’t want to face.

And admitting it?               Whew.

That’s where harsh truly comes in.

You come face to face with some shit you more than likely would rather not face about yourself and then, well, you admit that what you face is you. Well. That is, more often than not, harsh.

In fact so harsh you flinch a little.

But, in flinching internally at this point, you are empowered to not flinch when facing outwards.

You have faced your sins.

You faced your flaws.

You faced your failures.

You faced the harsh unfettered truth.

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

“I speak my own sins; I cannot judge another. I have no tongue for it.” 

Arthur Miller

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

I will say this. Any hope of greatness always resides within, not with out. And I would argue the harshest evaluation of your hope’s chances resides within the harsh unfettered truth within.

Now. All of this may sound like personal Life thinking. It is not.

I use these same words these days with business people about businesses and companies.

In today’s world in which there seems to be no black and white and only grays.

In today’s world in which there seems to be no facts and only what is called common sense.

In today’s world in which there seems to be no truth and only lies & liars.

In today’s world … those who strip themselves naked of anything but truth will stand out not for their nakedness but rather for their clarity of who and what they are. These will be deemed the true authentic and the true credible and the true commendable or capable of winning favorable acceptance in people’s minds.

That is a harsh unfettered truth for the few who desire distinction and success in today’s world. Well. It is the harsh unfettered truth for those who want to make their soul a little less tricky.

All that said.

Don’t flinch from your harsh unfettered truth for it contains your destiny. I do not care if you think about this as a person or as a business … just think about it. And remembered. Souls are funny things which truly can only be found by facing harsh unfettered truth.

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

“Just remember, if you flinch from your destiny, you’ll never achieve your true greatness — you didn’t choose to be chosen, but being chosen means you have to choose.”

–

Charlie Jane Anders

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

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

“When a fact begins to resemble whatever you feel is true, it becomes very difficult for anyone to tell the difference between facts that are true and “facts” that are not.”

—-

Katharine Viner

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

“Alternative facts aren’t facts, they are falsehoods.”

Chuck Todd

===========

 “Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?”

Groucho Marx

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

“Perception is a dynamic conflict between the attempts of an outer world to impose an actuality on us and our efforts to transform this actuality into a self-centered perspective. 

Perception is a confrontation between an inward-directed vector of external reality compelling awareness and an outward-directed vector of physiological, cultural, and psychological transformation.

Where these vectors clash, where they balance each other, is what we perceive. This in sum is my view of perception.”

—–

Source: Understanding Conflict and War – Volume 1: The Dynamic Psychological Field

==========

So. I had this piece in my draft folder for months and pulled it out when I heard the term “alternative facts.” Yeah. Not ‘non-truisms’, but real actual ‘alternative facts’.

This is a bastardized version of the false branding concept of “perception is reality.’

My belief is that at some point a long long time ago Trump read the back of some book about branding <because he has never read a book> that said “perception is reality” and he was off to the races creating a hollow universe of ‘perceptions’ in which he could skate along the superficial surface toward riches & fame.

Today, Trump and his merry band of liars, are now taking the perception business to a whole new level of absurdity.

Let us be very clear on some basic Truths:

• Alternative facts live only in an alternative universe.
• Perception is not reality.

As someone who has dabbled in marketing professionally “perception is reality” truly galls me. It is an ugly lie.

And it is even uglier because in an untrained, inexperienced mind … or a misguided lack of moral individual … it can be used to defraud people – unintentionally or intentionally.

Perception is perception.

Reality is reality.

And perception is reality only, and ONLY if you permit it to be so.

Here is a fact.

Perceptions, by definition, are hollow things unless they are truly a reflection of reality. And how can you know if this is true? If you puncture perception, it deflates to whatever reality is. That is a ‘full honest perception.’

Let me be clear <because any real business person who has worked on any consumer brand in the world understands this>.

When you float on the superficial surface of a “perception based Life” you can only get away with it until people get interested enough to actually interact. Because interaction is when the piper gets paid. As one famous advertising person said “nothing kills a bad product faster than good advertising.”

Look. I am not suggesting perceptions, and managing them, is not a viable marketing objective nor am I suggesting that perceptions aren’t important. What I am saying, not suggesting, is that you learn very quickly in the business world that perceptions MUST align with reality or you are screwed. Reality must deliver upon perceptions offered & promised.

For example.

Trump can tell me he is intellectual, smart and knows the best words, but every time his reality, his actions, deliver hollow simplicity, idiot thin-skinned responses and odd word salad verbiage I start questioning the perceptions he is asking us to believe.

The only people I have ever seen try and exist in a ‘perception is reality’ universe have been marketing hacks <who didn’t know any better> and con men <who knew better but wanted to make money and run>.

Perception is not reality and trying to create a universe based on perceptions is a hollow world.

Unfortunately in the universe we live in the American president, from day one to, well, ad finitum, will constantly be trying to convince us reality is not reality, perceptions are what he and his merry band of liars say are truth, alternative facts exist and there is some alternative universe that he, and they, can only see.

We seem to be entering a new era in which truth is what Trump and his administration wants it to be.

Trump was a historically dishonest presidential candidate, a historical dishonest president and his merry band of surrogates <liars> have displayed a persistent commitment to lying – needless lying or necessary lying. Trump is a man who creates his own reality and lives in it … and he and his surrogates are asking us to live in it. Okay, not ‘ask’, he is demanding it.

As his inauguration speech suggested, you will believe in his reality and will live in it and therefore you will be demanded, not asked, to follow his lead within it.

You & I, America and the rest of the world will have to decide whether it will accept this alternative universe or convince him his reality is actually a hollow universe of perversely wrong perceptions.

There are a number of risks at hand.

One is basic society construct – reality is no longer fact based, but ‘feeling’ based.

The other is that Trump anchors this alternative universe based solely on some warped perceptions and therefore those  who elect to follow will follow the pied piper <allegiance to him above all> and not to any ideology, values or principles <not even the US Constitution … because he becomes the sole arbiter of what the Constitution “means to say to us”>. Trump is not a normal phenomenon and his alternative universe of false perceptions and alternative facts should not be normalized by something as simplistic a “politicians have always lied” and “we can never trust the media.”

Politics has always had a tenuous relationship with truth but even in that environment there are limits.

As Jonathan Last wrote in the conservative paper The Weekly Standard … “you can obfuscate, you can misrepresent, you can shade the truth to a ridiculous degree, or play dumb and pretend not to know things you absolutely do know. But you can’t peddle affirmative, provable falsehoods.”

Here is the surprising truth to add.

Journalism has always had a good relationship with truth, but even in that environment there have been missteps which create a false narrative that journalism, as a whole, is dishonest. The majority of journalists are not dishonest, every viable publication in existence has a standard of honesty & proof and while they may tend to a more liberal skewed perspective truth is truth and facts are facts and they treat both with reverence <because their existence relies on that>.

Anyway. This ‘perception is not reality’ truth is going to be challenged like it has never been challenged before.

I will give you the easiest way to puncture a reality/perception gap. Get someone to envision the repercussion of acting, or not acting, upon the perception. What does the day after look like, feel like and … well … be like.

This helps meet the challenge created by false leaders who exaggerate crises or create them with the intent to subvert, and pervert, the constitution, the judiciary process and the system itself.

This helps meet the challenge created by false leaders who offer simple solutions for complex problems.

===

“The simpler past seems more attractive than today’s complex reality, and so people vote [thanks to] inchoate frustrations. They choose simplicity and locality over complexity; identity over internationalism. Politicians promote themselves by giving voice to this. Hence, in addition to Brexit, we have calls for Scottish independence, Catalan independence, and so forth.”

—

Tainter

====

And maybe that is where perception gains traction in a complex world. If complexity doesn’t show simple benefits, or maybe the real benefits are difficult to align in a cause & effect way, perception starts beating reality.

Well. It will until reality catches up to the false promises & false simple solutions offered by perceptions.

The alternative universe can only last as long as the alternative universe can stave off the real universe. Just as alternative facts can only last as long as the real facts can get their shit together and get in the game.

I would note that Trump’s alternative universe isn’t so much about his lying <although that is truly the shiny object we focus on> but rather he’s just wrong in a simplistically naive way about almost everything <and even on the things he has a valid point on and I could construe as ‘right’ he unnecessarily cloaks it in ambiguity & hyperbole so that even his right is wrong>. He rambles aimlessly about anything that happens to pop into his brain and is convenient for him to say at the time. He is not typically deliberate about his lying he is simply authentically living in his own alternative universe and explaining that universe to us.

The universe itself may be one bigly lie, but his explanations are truth about the universe.

Trump is a rambling, bombastic, amoral narcissist. He’s never pretended to be anything else. What you see is what you get. His integrity resides solely on authentically communicating the big Lie <although … in his mind … in his universe … it is the big Truth>.

Oddly this seems to mean, at least to a lot of everyday people, that an authentic liar has more integrity than a calculated communicator.

He is genuine in his belief of this alternative universe.

His perception is actually his reality <just ponder that scary thought for a moment>.

Ok. That is bizarre. Fucking bizarre.

Trump and his merry band of liars use a variety of truth-blurring techniques <i call it “chaff”>. Their objective appears to not only be to control by creating doubts about what is real and what isn’t, but also to create an alternative universe in which whatever he does actually looks like it makes sense.

To quote President Trump himself … Bad! Sad!

There is a much bigger lesson here for everyone beyond whether our new president is capable of telling the truth or whether he, and his followers, even care and accept alternative truths as reality … perceptions are NOT reality.

Perceptions should always be held accountable.

People should be always be held accountable for the perceptions they create and offer.

In the end I come back to the beginning.

Here is what I think as an everyday person. Envision the day after your perception is faced by the harsh truth of reality.

Will you be scared?

Will you be excited?

Will you be happy, sad, or somewhere in between?

Good on you if you come out of these questions excited, happy and looking forward to the reality which perceptions suggested it would be. Just make sure you treat what you perceive with care.

Here is what I think as a business & marketing person.

The gap between perception and reality is the “death trap.”

====

‘In the day we sweat it out on the streets of a runaway American dream …’ It’s a ‘death trap,’ a ‘suicide rap.’  I want to guard your dreams and visions. ”

Born to Run

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

Perceptions create expectations. Expectations are developed to meet personal dreams & visions.

If expectations are not met in reality … people swing back angrily upon the ‘perception creators.’

Creating false perceptions is a suicide rap.

Creating false perceptions is a death trap.

Many of us business folk have the scars to prove this.

Treat what you ‘build’ as perceptions with care.

Perceptions are simply that … perceptions.

Facts are facts.

Reality is truth.

==========

‘res gestae’

latin for “things I have done” or “things done”

—–

À la recherche du temps perdu

french for remembrance of things past

<“In Search of Lost Time” Marcel Proust>

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

So. This is about things you do in life and the remembrance of things past and the fact that in today’s society you cannot permit things you may, or may not have done, become lost and gone.

Oh. And I imagine this has to do with business and building a resume and ‘marketing yourself’ <a term I abhor almost as much as ‘personal branding’>. I begin this discussion with a quasi-Life truth warning about how things you do, in the end, can blow away in the wind<if you are not careful>:

———-

“I spend my time building castles in the air but in the end all of them, and I, blow away in the wind.”

Don Juan of Austria

——-

Now. To be clear. This is not about not doing things, or not having the drive or passion or persistence to go and do, this is more about having actually done <things> and whether it matters if you tell anyone you actually did them or not.

Anyway. I just used a quote from Don Juan of Austria to make a point. He was a young man in the late 1500’s described as having an unquenchable appetite for glory and certainly a man of action. He was the leader, and victor, of the Christian coalition against the Ottomans in the battle of Lepanto at the age of 22 in 1571.

Yup. 22 years old. Oops. Only to die not too many years later of typhoid somewhere in the Netherlands <while seeking further glory & action>.

Well. We do not all have an ‘unqeuenchable appetite for glory’ <I know I do not>, but I do tend to believe that we all would like to have developed a nice list of ‘things I have done’ throughout our lives.

Glorious? Maybe. I think ‘meaningful’ would be a better word and thought. But here is one of the challenges Life throws you. It doesn’t really matter what you want or desire because society wants and demands something else. The whole world of ‘understatement’ and ‘being humble’ and ‘letting my actions speak for me’ seems to have disappeared.

I know … I know … that sounds cynical … but look around.

Self-help books scream “if you don’t tell anyone what you have done how will anyone <in this fragmented short attention span world> ever know what you have done … don’t fear telling people your accomplishments!!!!” <yes … they always include exclamation points>. Or … “you need to be your own best advocate … and don’t be afraid to tell people so.”

In addition, you cannot escape it in the business world because business management demands you to point out your accomplishments in interviews and annual reviews <at the same time demanding you never use “I” because that implies you aren’t a team player>.

Let’s be honest. Today’s world makes it difficult to be humble or quiet with regard to … well … anything, but especially your actions and accomplishments. Simplistically this happens because businesses want to pay people off of results, i.e., ‘responses’ not stimulus. Uh oh. That means you may be a catalyst, but you will get paid less than someone who ties themselves to results.

Sorry. That is today’s world.

Well. Let me take on this whole res gestae thought in pieces <or parts>.

• Accountability in our lives <us common everyday folk>
• Accountability in business life … possibly in Life in general … for leaders.
• Defining accountability in interviews and in business <from a personal perspective>.

–          Accountability in our lives <us common everyday folk>

Personally I do not believe the majority of us have to show ‘accountability’ for our lives. I believe this mostly because most of us are just trying to do our frickin’ best without having to be accountable for all of our actions at the end of it all. Sure. We would maybe like to have a list of ‘things that I have done’ that reflects … well … a job well done. A measure of the overall effort we put in over time and at critical times <I tend to believe it is really really rare we would ever look back and say ‘wow … that was perfectly the best and I couldn’t have done better!” – note the shouting for affect>.

I tend to believe most of us will be pretty content saying we did the best we could.

Ah. But its a ‘res gestae’ world. What have you accomplished? Where is the list of things you have done? Suffice it to say, this sucks.

–          Accountability in business life … possibly in Life in general … for leaders.

Now … leaders? Well. Yeah. They are accountable.

They accepted responsibility. They should be accountable and dammit … silly or not … I want them to step up to the plate as examples for the next generation of leaders and say “yeah … this is what I did … and didn’t do.”

As I type that … I will visit what actually got me thinking on res gestae … Roman Emperor Augustus. He was most famous for listing his deeds <Res Gestae Divi Augusti …. – Latin: “The Deeds of the Divine Augustus” –  is the funerary inscription of the first Roman emperor, Augustus, giving a first-person record of his life and accomplishments>.

——-

By its very nature the Res Gestae is less objective history and more propaganda for the principate that Augustus instituted. It tends to gloss over the events between the assassination of Augustus’ adoptive father Julius Caesar and the victory at Actium when his foothold on power was finally undisputed. Augustus’ enemies are never mentioned by name. Caesar’s murderers Brutus and Cassius are not referred to by name, they are simply “those who killed my father.” The Battle of Philippi is mentioned only passim and not by name. Mark Antony and Sextus Pompeius, Augustus’ opponents in the East, remain equally anonymous; the former is “he with whom I fought the war,” while the latter is merely a “pirate.”

———

Some examples of deeds <or accomplishments> he listed:

16) I paid cash to the towns for the lands that I assigned to soldiers in my fourth consulship, and later in the consulship of Marcus Crassus and Gnaeus Lentulus

17) Four times I assisted the treasury with my own money, so

20) I restored the Capitol and the theatre of Pompey, both works at great expense without inscribing my own name on either. 2 I restored the channels of the aqueducts, which in several places were falling into disrepair through age, and

25) I made the sea peaceful and freed it of pirates. In that war I captured about 30,000 slaves who had escaped from their masters …

Well. While I worry that this can quite easily turn into self-propaganda I do see the value in leaders having ‘deeds.’ Do they write them themselves? Yikes. I don’t know. I would prefer some unbiased people providing the list, but I do like the fact that as a leader they are accountable. In addition, maybe this is where I am different from other people, I am okay if they sucked as a leader. I do not believe we demand this list to crucify them <or worship them>, but rather simply to learn. The fact that their ‘deeds’ were underwhelming or they under delivered on what was set out upon in the beginning is not the point. Huh? For a variety of reasons good, or great, Leaders do not succeed and just as often some people overreach and attain leader positions and are not really leader types. But if we do not demand that leaders list their accomplishments how can the next generation better assess whether they should lead or follow?

Augustus may have been a toga wearing blowhard, but he sure had an impressive list of accomplishments. I ahve no clue whether he was a good leader or not, but I do like the fact we have something to view  as a ‘res gestae.’

–          Defining accountability in interviews and in business <from a personal perspective>.

Well. Let me begin with an interesting factoid – res gestae is a legal term:

 “Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place of at different times and places.”

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … facts which may be proved, as part of res gestae, must be facts other than those in issue but must be connected with it. Though hearsay evidence is not admissible, but when it is res gestae it can be admissible in a court of law and may be reliable evidence.

Anyway. This is whole res gestae and interviewing <or business in general> is an interesting topic & situation for me. And before I wrote this section I had to go for a run and ponder what I would say.

Here is a truth.

I am naïve about this whole res gestae and interviewing and business thing. Yup. I have been in the working world for over 25 years and not counting the gobs of interviews I had to do to get my first job I have had 8 interviews in my entire career and had 6 offers from those 8. And I have had 9 jobs <yes I got 2 jobs without interviews because they were old bosses reaching out and hiring me>.

I don’t interview. Well. I just haven’t, jobs have appeared.

That said. In an interview I imagine if you are investing in res gestae you only have to provide ‘reliable evidence’ as to things you have done — including some hearsay. In other words you can make shit up or create some very very tenuous links with regard to what you have done. But, in today’s interviewing world, you are increasingly being demanded to step up and list your accomplishments. Hearsay, tenuous or direct … whoa … provide no list … and no job offered. That is the equation in today’s business interviewing world.

Me? I won’t do that. Well. I certainly would struggle to do that <hence my hesitance to go out and interview>. Combine that challenge with the fact that, well, I know everything … and nothing. Let me explain. As a generalist I know a little about everything and not a lot about anything in particular. I imagine I am more of a catalyst type than I am an ‘accomplisher’ <at least in my eyes>.

So. I have a double whammy challenge in today’s world – I am a generalist <when the business world is endeared with specialists> and I don’t really accomplish anything <but organizations accomplish things around me>.

Bottom line? This whole topic is a tricky one for me personally in Life and in interviewing.

I don’t get, nor like, the whole concept of even listing ‘things I have done’ even in a resume.

I imagine I should be quite thankful that I have avoided having to go through the interview process a lot. I suck at listing ‘what I have done.’ The few times I have interviewed I suggest ‘situations in which I have been involved have tended to end in positive places.”

Inevitably I get the follow up question(s) … what did you specifically do? How did you contribute to that success? … in other words … res gestae … you are demanded to give ‘the list of things I have done’.

I don’t.

I won’t.

Ok. Res gestae and this whole personal interviewing thing. I am relatively sure I have done some meaningful things, but most likely not any more meaningful than a bunch of other people.

So how do I resolve this in my head? Geez. Shit. I will suck in interviews <because I won’t ‘res gestae’ like many others … or invest any time and energy in remembrance of things past> and I simply will hope that others will recognize that I provide value in some form or fashion. I will not play this game. It is quite possible that I am being foolish. But I also tend to believe in the long term … which permits me to remind everyone of the quote I opened with … “I spend my time building castles in the air but in the end all of them, and I, blow away in the wind.”

If people demand that I list all the castles I have built <in the short term> which will all inevitably blow away in the wind <over time> … I just cannot. How big is an accomplishment if it simply blows away in the wind one day? And I certainly doubt I am good enough to have built any castle that the wind cannot blow away some day.

Ok. So <the conclusion to this rambling observation>.

I can hope when all is said and done, just as Shakespeare did in his plays, in the end maybe I will simply ask for a “pardon “as his actors did if you don’t enjoy the show called my Life:

If we shadows have offended,

Think but this, and all is mended,

That you have but slumber’d here

While these visions did appear

And this weak and idle theme,

No more yielding but a dream,

Gentles do not reprehend.

If you pardon, we will mend.

If you believe that Life is a stage and we play our part <as I do in most cases> than I will take a bow and hope everyone will recognize I played my part as well as I could. That is all I hope that people remember about what I have done. In business, interviews and most importantly life.

Yup … after taking a bow … I will <as Shakespeare did> offer a good night unto you all. Give me your hands if we be friends … But. Please don’t ever ask me for a list of things I have done.

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

“And our team is mature enough to understand that, to have perspective and to feel fortunate for this opportunity.”

—-

Ron Turcotte

===========

Opportunities. Suffice it to say we all seek opportunities. I would also suggest because we tend to think about opportunities like wishes granted by rubbing some magic genie bottle we associate some fabulous concepts to them:

Fate.

Destiny.

Hard work.

Making your own luck.

Look. I think it’s a little crazy when people say they deserve a chance or deserve an opportunity or even because they ‘worked hard’ that opportunity was deserved in some way. To be clear. I believe society should be fair in that if you present yourself, put forth the effort, you should get an opportunity.

But. While opportunities always exist, you are not guaranteed to get them. Life is indifferent to you. So, yes, sometimes you can do all the right things, work hard, be smart, and while some opportunities may come your way, well, they just will not be ‘the’ opportunities that can make the positive difference in your Life.

Therefore. If you get an opportunity, feel fortunate <and do your best to not waste it>. For some reason I believe a lot of people will find that thought debatable. Maybe it feels a little to, well, passive. But here is the truth. 6billion+ people are all striving for something better and some of those billions may actually want to be in the same place seeking the same opportunities as you and, well, you cannot all be in the same place at the same time even while seeking the same thing.

===========

“…. I just have to ride him accordingly. I don’t think anyone can tell a jockey what to do. I had a free hand when I was riding most of the time, but when they tie your hand and give you orders to be placed somewhere or do this or do that — ‘I want you to lay third,’ or ‘I want you to lay fourth’ — it might be 10 horses in the race, and nine of them have the same orders.”

===========

Or.

===

“We can’t all be in the same place, so when the gate opens, you’re on your own.”

Turcotte

==========

So many times we say ‘this is the way to win’, but, you know what? Everyone is trying to win.

Oftentimes winning is about context and managing the moment.

Someone can tell you ‘this is the way to do it’, but … trust me … in Life you have to use a free hand to win the race.

Lastly.

It is silly to suggest there isn’t some competition in Life. We may not like it and there are certainly unhealthy dimensions, yet, compete we do. And we will also compete over opportunities and because we do so we will view them in a variety of ‘win or lose’ dimensions.

This leads me to Humility. Or maybe the simple acceptance of what happens.

The year was 1965, and Turcotte, then 23, was aboard a horse named Tom Rolfe, whom he had ridden to a Preakness win after a third-place finish in the Kentucky Derby. Turcotte made his move too early in that race and ended up losing by a neck at the line to a Florida-bred horse called Hail To All. “It was completely my fault,” Turcotte said. “I knew the horse’s fitness and all that, and I should have waited a little bit longer, and I got the horse beat. I don’t know if I was one of the best (that year), but the best can get beat the same way.”

 Whew. So he admitted … yup … admitted … he was the reason he lost.

Yikes. Imagine that. That’s integrity.

Almost all in the horse racing industry said Turcotte’s unimpeachable integrity may be his most defining and notable distinction. Not competitiveness. Not wins or losses. Integrity.

Well. I think everything else I have written about Life and horse racing is almost irrelevant compared to that last thought.

Unimpeachable integrity.

Opportunities exists and, frankly, the majority of us will almost always feel like we have missed opportunities, messed up opportunities or even believe opportunities missed us in favor of other people. That said. Life, as it should be lived, is always grounded in unimpeachable integrity.

Feel fortunate with the opportunities you get and treat each opportunity with unimpeachable integrity and I imagine you will live a good Life.

………. axial shift in economics Otto Sharmer ………

————

“To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting.

It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.”

==

Oscar Wilde

—————————

Well. I wrote Society of Fairness in February 2016. I revisited it due to 2 things:

• I just wrote “guilt free accumulation” which explored the shallowness of values versus the pleasures of capitalism
•  just discovered Otto Sharmer and read his piece “Axial Shift: the New Coordinates of Societal Change.”

Both of these pieces explored some of the societal challenges we face but, at their core, both revolve around what we view as fair – for I and We and Us.

To be clear. Fair  and fairness is a much more difficult topic to discuss than one would think. Maybe it is more difficult because I believe we are living through a period of simmering anger. People are angry with government, with capitalism, with media, with religion, with inequality, with immigrants, with Europe, with big business, with Russia, with how they get treated and with, well, everything seems to be changing.

In my eyes all of this is rooted in an overall question, and concern, at an individual level of “with all this change as the world transforms I am afraid change will not treat me fairly.” <this is a derivation of my post of “I get angry when people screw with my hope”>. Therefore we rage against anything we can attempting to insure the tentacles of fairness touch us at some point. In other words. When the world seems t be going to hell in a handbasket we grab on to our basket, fill it up with anything we can grab and protect it with clenched fists.

———

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

de Tocqueville

—————

Interestingly, the whole discussion of fairness ITSELF creates a sense of anger.

The reason for this is that fairness sounds simple, but is complex. The most basic logic of fairness suggests choosing between which poor people, or who is most in need, are more worthy of the help of the generous and “morally superior” wealthy. That is the mental logic we apply as we attempt to parse out fairness rather than have fair become mired in “equal for all.”

Yet, while even struggling working people will agree those in truest poverty, particularly children, are first in line for ‘fair’ their personal anger is not even partially quenched. They are not quenched because fairness is both an “I” thing AND a “we” thing which is not selfishness, but self preservationness.

A society of fairness is one in which we are fair with each other and the system, in turn, is fair to us.

It is about attitude (and persistently holding onto that attitude).

It is, at it’s core, frankly, not glamorous.

It is the nitty gritty stuff and not the college education and wall street or even the government.

It is about marrying principle and pragmatism and gradual improvement.

It is infrastructure like streets, trains, highways and roads, public parks & community centers, easily accessible fountain water, lower level easy access good public education, stuff like that.

It is basically common sense bricks & mortar actions within a … well … the hard part … an equality based moral order frame.

Jobs is the tangible <which we need> and moral order is the intangible which creates the structure for behavior within the tangible. Jobs may be hierarchical <at the moment>, but morals should not be hierarchical.

These are not problems which can be fixed by simply suggesting rich white folk save the poor or “marginalized working people.” In addition it’s not just about people fighting back against injustice and working hard. It is about personal responsibility AND shared responsibility. It is about people being active positive participants in their own lives and society, itself, positively participating in individual lives.

A ‘society of fairness’ clearly reaches into the heart, and soul, of what most of us care about, it reaches into our attitudes (because it is hard work), but almost immediately runs into the economic obstacles of ‘what is fair’.

I tend to believe all of us know that it doesn’t mean everybody has the same income. It translates more into equality of opportunity. The difficulty resides in putting dollars & cents and tactics & objectives against ‘fair & opportunity.’ No one, and I mean no one, couldn’t simplistically point out the extreme unfairness in today’s society, but the true society of fairness is defined not by the extremes but rather what happens in the majority.

I share my thoughts today not to suggest we shouldn’t seek a society of fairness, but rather to point out that “fair”, in and of itself, is significantly more complex and complicated than when looking at it on a superficial level.

That said. We can do something to make the world the place we want it to be if we get our heads on straight.

What do I mean? I found a fabulous little article at a site called Common Cause Foundation on Values  . But it was in the middle of the article where the author nailed the issue with regard to attaining a Society of Fairness.

==

Common Cause Foundation has recently conducted research in the UK and the US looking at the values people hold, and the values they think their fellow citizens hold.

We’re still analysing this, but here are two early results. Firstly, a large majority of people hold self-transcendence values (generally concerned with the wellbeing of others) to be more important than self-enhancement values (based on the pursuit of personal status and success). But this isn’t seen by most people, who believe that their compatriots hold self-transcendence values to be less important, and self-enhancement values to be more important.

Perhaps this is a key reason why many people don’t get engaged and active, although sharing values that would otherwise lead them to – because they believe that they are in a minority, and that society at large doesn’t share their values. We call this the ‘perception gap’. It’s a gap that many in our media, and many in government, seem to work hard to perpetuate.

==

In America we are certainly living out that ‘gap’ quite vocally, but as we wrestle with fairness and shared self-transcendence values I will note some reality — America has always been defined by a combination idealism and materialism. A balance of the two & it would be silly to suggest ditching one for the other. I would also note both are powerful sources of motivation.

The idealism expresses the best of human instincts in that it sanctifies the fixing America break someone else prioritizing of others over oneself and requires social and political respect. The materialism celebrates individualism.

===

“It is not fair to ask of others what you are not willing to do yourself.”

Eleanor Roosevelt

===

The combination has coexisted because one never sought to fix itself by breaking the other. The natural coexisting conflict sparks greatness, opportunity and progress.

In my words it is organizational alignment of social, materialism and political.

The difficulty with the idealism side of the equation is that people’s idealism tends to translate into, well, it doesn’t necessarily live in the real world. In our idealism, our hope to be the best of the best, we seek some things that aren’t feasible in a practical sense <and, yeah, someone is gonna throw out that practicality is just another word for “too hard”>. My response? It’s not too hard, sometimes it just isn’t feasible. That is because unfortunately ideas are reliant on two things: the power of the idea and access to an infrastructure to embrace & implement the idea. If either side fails to meet the challenge it all fails.

It is irresponsible to offer up ideas for consumption without an infrastructure in place <or a foreseeable path to a rebuilt infrastructure> to, at minimum, accept the idea and, at maximum, implement the idea.

And that is where alignment on fairness tends to fall apart.

What is maybe worse is that not only is it extremely difficult to effectively communicate what I just said but also many people don’t care when they are dominated by anger. They just want solutions – they just want it done.

And if that anger is tied to a real & tangible & personal ‘unfairness’ … well … gradualism never sounds compelling and, frankly, isn’t compelling. Revolution appears much more attractive.

Here is a realistic truth. In 1990 Peter Drucker discussed Salvation by Society <his version of society of fairness> and how a transforming business world was killing it. We now see in the late 2010’s the full repercussions of that transformation. I say that because while ‘fairness’ may begin today its positive transformation will take decades to become re-embedded in our business, and societal, structure and institutions.

Anyway.

I love the idea of a society of fairness. Unfortunately, in today’s world, fair means different things to different people. And demonizing any group of people, even despite their inordinate wealth, doesn’t really seem fair. Good people reside at every wealth level. Good people reside in every skin color. Good people reside, well, let’s just say that 98.5% of the time 98.5% of the people are good <I made up the 98.5% and thought it looked smarter than simply putting 99%>. And the 1.5% bad are not solely in the purview of the mega wealthy.

And therein lies the hope for a Society of fairness. Good resides in the significant majority. It simply lies dormant and needs to be reawakened.

With that I return to Otto Sharmer. What I like about his thoughts aren’t all the specific thoughts (which I could haggle with aspects), but rather the holistic integrated view of creating a society of fairness. It is complex, & I am not sure we are aligned with what ‘fair’ really is, but if we can envision what the totality could look like, well, it can be built.

=====

originally posted February 2016