====

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

Plato

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

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

Anuj Somany

===========

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

honeya

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

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

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

Yeah.

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

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

Ok.

Let me explain navigators and sledge hammers.

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

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

Now.

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

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

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

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

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

Me?

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

Always have and always will.

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

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

Yeah. Sure.

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

<and sledge hammers abhor this type of politics bullshit>

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

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

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

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

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

Now.

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

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

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

    Who are the real influencers?

    Who has authority but doesn’t exercise it?

    Who is respected?

    Who champions or mentors others?

    Who is “the brains behind the organization”?

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

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

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

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

Look.

Here is what I know.

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

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

I will admit.

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

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

===========

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

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

(via lipstick-bullet)

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

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

“Capitalism is the only engine credible enough to generate mass wealth. I think it’s imperfect, but we’re stuck with it. And thank God we have that in the toolbox. But if you don’t manage it in some way that incorporates all of society, if everybody’s not benefiting on some level and you don’t have a sense of shared purpose, national purpose, then it’s just a pyramid scheme.”

David Simon

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

“It’s not personal. It’s strictly business”

The Godfather

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

I do not get (understand) investing, VC evaluation and startup support in general. Ok. I get it, it just confuses me. And I say that having:

• Been on both the good and the bad side of a VC takeover: buying out a profitable business seeing an opportunity to make it more profitable by running it better & buying out a business to break it apart to make money
• Been in multiple startup incubators (B2B & consumer) and seen a wide range of technology to non-technology startup ideas (good and bad)

All that said. Don’t ask me to explain how startups get funding, how VCs evaluate & invest nor how some ‘successful’ startups continue to get money <although this piece, “What I wish someone had told me about Venture Capitalists‘, does a nice job>. No matter how many times I’ve been involved in the process or been asked to evaluate businesses, I seem to be on the wrong side of the evaluation ‘brain.’ Why? Well. That has an easy answer. I like businesses that make money as in ‘profit’, not revenue, as my main criteria. Doesn’t mean I don’t care about revenue or the bullshit buzzword of the day, ‘scale’ (which is simply another bullshitty way of saying ‘growth’), but I like to stack profit dollars on top of profit dollars rather than cross my finger a business will cross the ‘making lots of unprofitable revenue’ Rubicon to the ‘hey, all this revenue is now profitable’ side.

** note: the exception would be what I call the ‘enabler idea products.’ These are the products which I usually call, in my non-startup pea like brain, the engine part ideas. They see the world as an engine and they develop parts which can replace existing parts or be inserted into the engine to make it run more efficiently or effectively – software ideas often fit this criteria.

What I will say is that the startup industry has become a master pyramid scheme in which the investors hope that one of the pyramid scheme bets pays for all the other bad bets. And you know what? Sometimes they do. And you know what? More often they do not. They have made capitalism a pyramid scheme. They encourage us to view business, all business and the economy, as one big gambler’s bet. And because they do they have reshaped the larger economy (forcing larger businesses to view innovation as a gambler’s bet too – if not their own business).

You may think I may be misguided or even wrong. But play a game. How many well known ‘successful’ technology startup like businesses are making a profit? Amazon? Kind of. Uber? Nope. Wework? Nope. Shit. Go into the best startup incubators, maybe even audit Techstars (who I like and admire). How many are making a profit (but showcase revenue)? Zero (okay … not many). It’s a gambler’s game. American capitalism has become a pyramid scheme. Can big business benefit? Sure. They can look at the gamblers and then buy the winners and absorb them. It limits their innovation ROI risk, but costs them in the purchase.

** note: I would suggest that many larger businesses are actually more well positioned to develop these more successful ideas but they tend to either (a) have a poor new idea evaluation process or (b) do not approach ‘startup idea innovation’ in a way that enables the focus & investment needed to make it successful.

To be clear. Companies like Techstar basically serves as the big business ‘brain’ that a small startup cannot afford.

That said. Even the exceptions I highlighted, the enabler idea products, are a gamblers game.

Here is where this version of pyramid scheme has an even darker underbelly. Conflicting interests. This new model of capitalism is an attempt to get around inefficiencies and costs imposed by larger business, but creates an ambiguous allocation of rights, and ownership as well as an ambiguous business model. Simplistically, everyone is in to get their money (let’s call it at its worst: greed). Even if the founder/owner truly isn’t overcome with a greed muscle and simply is in it for the idea, there is a dilution of control (under the guise of ‘freedom to innovate that engages a market that doesn’t yet exist’). This is nuts. Fringe business malpractice, but, simplistically, nuts. As I have noted most of the most successful businesses, and profitable ones, aren’t particularly disruptive at their onset nor do they ‘think outside the box’, but rather see the box and reconfigure it. And they make money.

I call this lazy capitalism (when I am being generous) and pyramid scheme capitalism (when I am not being generous).

** note: this pyramid scheme has a variety of bloodsuckers. For example, I have sat in on or eavesdropped on dozens of business people looking to pick the pockets of founders – the social media structuralists, the PR scale people, the ‘organic growth’ disruptors, the brand builders, the startup marketing futurists – who slither their way into founder’s (investors) wallets.

Look. I am all for startups with appealing ideas and driven founders getting the expertise they need quickly and the funding necessary to give them some traction that they may otherwise would have no access to. But over 80% of startups fail because, uhm, there is no market for their idea. and, no, this isn’t because they see a future no one else can see (i.e., they are visionaries), but rather because THERE IS NO MARKET FOR THAT IDEA.

** note: I have never seen an angel investor or any investor sit in on those ‘pick pocket presentations’ I mentioned in my last note. If they did, they would not only hear how stupid (nonexistent possible success, i.e., ‘no real market for that idea’) some ideas they have invested in, but would also watch a pick pocket in action.

The flow of money into the startup world is absurd. I look at that money and can only dream about what it could do if invested elsewhere. But it will not stop. Why? Greed. That’s what pyramid schemes work in the first place. Greed. Easy money. All that bullshit.

There has to be a better way – and there is. Startups have a place in the world and investing in them in which dreams turn into viable businesses is actually good for capitalism. It’s a funded Schumpeter Creative Destruction and I love that. Family companies have, and should have, a new lease on life. Public companies SHOULD be challenged as they try and squeeze out more profits through their operations in a variety of misguided ways. Short term mentality, archaic hierarchies, status quo onerous non-digital business models should be gamed out. All that said. A pyramid scheme non profitable lazy capitalism startup investment model is not the way to do it. An insurgent economy should be a hybrid of smart idea, money making, startups and large public company smart non-standardization (I hesitate to call it agile so let’s say adaptable, antifragile) money-making longer-term business sense making.

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

“A job is the ultimate pyramid scheme.”

Ken Poirot

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

I believe we are seeing a shift in the underpinnings of the business world. I may not agree with all the “its about culture” people or the “purpose over profit” people, but I do believe, and have for quite some time, business is transitioning from an outcome only mentality to more of a “business is more than just business” mentality. I do believe technology is playing a role and while not in the ‘digital transformation’ camp I believe augmenting humans and thinking-conceptually-sensemaking is edging its way into the ‘way we do business.’ Someone said awhile back that business is learning that to ‘outbehave’ is the path to better performance. Within that idea is part technology and part people. Within that idea is where the startup world may find its most fruitful investments – ideas that outbehave created by a mindset that seeks to outbehave the status quo (ethically & service). Ponder.

==========

“An expert is someone who has succeeded in making decisions and judgements simpler through knowing what to pay attention to and what to ignore.”

Edward de Bono

====== 

“Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity.”

Simone Weil

====

“Genius is nothing but continued attention.”

Claude Adrien Helvetius

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

So. Targeting customers in business, for business, used to be about, well, targets.  More specifically – demographics.

Well. Not anymore.

First.

Attitude, or attitudinal targeting, has replaced age & income & crap like that. What I mean by that is if you develop a compelling message that connects with aspirations & attitudes, well, I don’t really care about the demographics of someone <or it becomes significantly less important>.

This means a business goes forth ignoring who someone is physically and, with an intent to connect with or maybe change a mindset <or at least make the mind think> and create some desired behavior, goes out and connects with aspirations and expectations by delivering ‘something’ <it could be a variety of tactics, images & words> with relevance and resonance.

And then it all comes down to tactics <connection points – which is place & timing>.

Second.

Beyond the actual targeting of people <who should I aim my message at> it seems more and more we were actually paying attention to, well, attention. Someone actually called this topic “the attention value equation.”

The equation is fairly simple:

“I give you my attention … I expect to get something in return” = some value

This value equation is almost like a transaction. My attention is the currency which I am going to lay out on the table expecting to get something for it. And the true value? The attention giver actually feels like they got an additional ‘gift’ <that’s the highest order of attention value>.

Now.

Of course, in today’s word this creates some massive, but not insurmountable, challenges.

The opportunity exists in the fact that over 90% of almost the entire business targeting population now is interested in maximizing their ‘mobility.’ I once called this the ‘nomad generation’ but let’s just say that we are being socially conditioned to live much of our daily Life from wherever we are <enabled by some smart technology>.

The challenge is that “live much of our daily Life from wherever we are” is a self-empowered decision where attention is ‘given’ … uhm …‘spent’, if I continue with the equation theory.

Whatever I spend I, well, don’t want to “lose” <get nothing for it>. And while many people smarter than I would step in here and suggest we should treat attention as a gift, I will not. I will suggest that attention is money extended as part of a transaction. But with a twist.

They are paying upfront. You get the money no matter what. They get nothing if you give them nothing <uh oh>. That thought places attention unequivocally into a transaction equation.

And that is the reason why from the ‘attention receiver’ standpoint content marketing is an essential tactic. Because it isn’t really a tactic, it is an intimate engagement in which money has been exchanged and someone wants to receive, at minimum, value for the exchange and , at maximum, some acknowledgement of the intimacy <but this does not need to be done in every exchange>. The danger in taking what I just wrote literally is that someone could view exchanges as one-on-one transactions at some given point in time.

Why is it a danger?

Because it avoids the fact that there is a constant ever increasing flow of information in which people are often not only drowning in that flow but also unsure of how to enter into the flow and not get swept away. It’s the flow of memes, animated GIFs, updates, events, questions, conversations, breaking news updates and every other digital drop of water creating the flood of information.

In addition the giver of attention has a constant flow of attention running through everything available on the ‘must do’ and ‘should I do’ and ‘want to do’ at exactly the same time.

Now.

This is where most marketing people stand up and say “do break thru executions and you will win!” The intent is quasi-correct, but the challenge is steep.

First.

It implies one engagement & connection is sacrosanct.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

You gotta start somewhere and treating each moment & engagement as ‘important’ is important. But it ignores the fact that managing ‘touchpoints’ is like staring at beautiful trees while the forest could be burning down.

Second.

Did you know that 4.6+ billion pieces of content are produced daily?

Tweets / Videos / Whitepapers /Email / Listicles / Instagrams / Webinars / Vines /Infographics / Podcasts / eBooks / GIFs / Blogs /Memes

4.6 billion.

<yikes>

Ok.

I mention this because, getting back to targeting and attitudes, if you want to discuss attention & attention value unfortunately you have to discuss data.

Yeah.

Most people who formulate attention/connection communications have an aversion to data.

Now.

I encourage everyone to think about data a little differently. Think of the fact that Data is actually the result of someone doing things over and over again through connections with other people. Maybe think of it as a massive research program of ‘one-on-one interviews.’ And, as with any research, when you compile the interviews you can very easily lose sight of the fact that each data point represents real people who dedicated their real attention at some particular identifiable moment.

But, if you look at data that way, you realize that each moment matters. Each moment is possibly very important. And each word, image, story, factoid needs to be thoughtful and purposefully constructed as part of a larger ‘forest’ we want people to wander and inevitably to arrive at some beautiful clearing we have created just for them.

Access to data has given us the opportunity to capitalize on the most important, sometimes personal and uniquely relevant moments. Frankly, it has never been easier to find the right people or the right moments. Sure … you may have to dig into the <research estimated> over 20 trillion moments of smartphone ‘moments’ each person has each year, but, go ahead and assume 20 trillion will trend or pattern and trends & patterns can offer extraordinary insights.

But.

Most importantly <and possibly what all those ‘big data experts’ fail to see> is that all these data points reflect WHAT SOMEONE HAS CHOSEN TO PAY ATTENTION TO.

—————–

“Attention is the most important currency that anybody can give you, it’s worth more than money, possessions or things.”

Steve Rubel

———–

Discussing data is a completely different, and complex, topic. But do not disregard data as a means to examine connections and what people pay attention to.

But let me get back to attention itself.

Google getting someone’s attention and you will get a gazillion <46,900,000 to be exact> results in less than one second.

And I have seen dozens of presentations from really smart digital market people on capturing attention. But of everything I have seen I would have to say Ben Parr <author of Captivology: The Science of Capturing People’s Attention> caught my attention in Harvard Business Review <HBR> with a couple of deeper thoughts.

• Capture … or … “THE capture”

Anticipation and motivation.

It fuels our desire to “want” food, sex, money or more intrinsic rewards like self-satisfaction and a sense of purpose. The prospect of capturing these things makes us pay attention.

Rewards we can touch, experience, or even just visualize have a greater impact on our attention.

First.

This does not mean we live in a visual world <and a visual is all that matters>. This suggests “strategic use of visuals.”

Second.

This does not mean the visual has to be ‘beautiful.’ Many business people suggest that something beautiful is so attractive that everyone looks. I would argue that is a lazy argument.

Third.

The big thought? “Capture” is at its best when tied to intrinsic rewards <not rational>.

Fourth.

This Ben Parr guy suggests sensory cues actually direct our attention automatically. It’s a safety and survival mechanism that helps us react faster than our brains can think. Thinking about capturing someone’s attention that way permits you to think aurally, visually and any other more subtle way that plays on people’s instincts rather than just plastering some beautiful visual in front of them.

• *** note: there is an entire book, “The Case Against Reality” How Evolution hid the truth from our eyes” by Donald Hoffman on this topic. I highly recommend the book.

• The Expert.

From the same HBR study the author suggests that attention increases with … well … credibility.

Consumers consistently rate experts as the most trusted spokespeople, more than CEOs or celebrities. There’s a scientific reason for this: in a 2009 study, Emory University neuroeconomist Greg Berns found that the decision-making centers of our brains slow or even shut down while we are receiving advice from an expert.

This is a phenomenon Dr. Robert Cialdini calls “directed deference.” So, especially if you’re trying to capture the attention of people who don’t know you, feel free to lead with your credentials, establish your expertise and cite others who are most knowledgeable on the topic at hand.

To be clear, the use of “shut down” in this case means “filter our distractions and focus.” Well. Many digital experts expound upon the importance of ‘personal ‘in digital and mobile communications, but, maybe we should be thinking about establishing ‘expert’ first?

Just a thought.

All that said.

I do believe that while discussing gaining someone’s attention and the value equation it is incredibly easy to focus on one connection and one moment, the truth is that to gain someone’s attention within a multi trillion mobile connection person’s life you have to be relentless, persistent and omnipresent <because the smartphone is omnipresent in that person’s life>.

This is hard to do.

Like.

REALLY hard.

Mainly because to be persistent you need a shitload of content and it needs to be relevant content <remember the credibility, the capture and the intrinsic reward opportunities I outlined above>.

Truthfully? This is a glorious grind. I say a grind because, well, that is obvious. I say glorious because you are constantly seeking to create that one post, article, tweet, video, picture, whatever … that connects, converts and is remembered.

You are constantly seeking to briefly say what needs to be said – with care. And, yeah, you have to do all this. Why? Because if there truly is 4.6 billion pieces of content created daily then you almost have to assume that most people are ignoring anything that could be construed as mediocre content.

Anyway.

I would suggest it all starts with the attention value equation.

While almost everything I have shared today suggests “overwhelming”, the one thing I have been clear on and offers a strong central filter is the attention value equation. All questions you may ask about relevance and interest and connection can be answered by using the value equation.

No value and whatever you are offering is useless.

This also suggests you can put “creating dialogue” on the backburner <because if you don’t gain someone’s attention in the first place and don’t actually offer some value once you do gain their attention there ain’t gonna be no dialogue>. Create connections that are useful, likeable, memorable and shareable … and what people value. And create an overall journey in which the value equation is driven by purpose and intention <that insures no connection is wasted>.

It is easy to say in today’s world you are competing for attention. It is actually a little lazy. While living Life from the palm of your hand may create some ‘noise’ challenges … we have always had to compete for attention. In addition, as I have stated before, the whole “shorter attention span than ever” is bullshit.

Attention is attention – was yesterday, is today and will be tomorrow.

And the attention value equation is the attention value equation – it was yesterday, is today and will be tomorrow.

Sometimes we forget this shit. Most likely because our attention is caught by some stupid cat video and then we sit back and think “oh, that is what needs to be done to gain someone’s attention!”

That is stupid thinking – yesterday, today and will be tomorrow.

Just keep your eye on the attention value equation and you should be good. Ponder.

===========

“The advantage of the incomprehensible is that it never loses its freshness.”

Paul Valéry

==========

“The moment you decide an event is impossible and therefore stop directing your attention to it is the moment when it will take place.”

General Petro Grigorenko

========

“This may be the most important proposition revealed by history: ‘At the time, no one knew what was coming.”

Haruki Murakami

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

Well. I have lots of discussions about the future with people and it continuously surprises me on how confident people are with regard to what will, or will not, happen. In fact, I find it slightly incomprehensible until I remember that the incomprehensible, in all its forms, has a certain allure.

The incomprehensible has a certain freshness of inevitable believability that some people are addicted to <and blind to the possibility it will never happen>.

Uh oh.

The incomprehensible has a certain inevitable un-believability that some people are married to (and blind to the possibility it could actually occur>. The incomprehensible appeals to both those convinced it will never happen and to those who are convince it will happen.

Now. That said. We attack the incomprehensible in a variety of ways trying to comprehend it.

Research/experimenting

Innovation methodology: stage gating as an example

Pick your “assessing likelihood of incomprehensible” methodology but, well, 90% of new businesses fail, over 60% of new products fail and The Law of Unintended Consequences guarantees the unforeseen is almost more likely to happen than the foreseen. Yet. Even all that knowledge doesn’t slow us down one bit with our love/hate relationship with the unknown, i.e., the incomprehensible. We love the thought of finding something that seemed incomprehensible. We love that ‘holy shit’ feeling.

Here is the weird thing. Despite our love of the incomprehensible we plan our days to the minute, plan projects and tasks in excruciating detail and ‘plan out’ to eliminate any risk and uncertainty and, well, incomprehensible we can feasibly plan out. I would point out that all this really does is foster the timeless tradition of second guessing and seeking blame as soon as the incomprehensible occurs.

Regardless.

The incomprehensible always remains fresh because, as a Life truth, it consistently confirms to us that at no time no one knew what was coming.

Yup.

You can be pessimistic <and be proven right … or wrong>.

You can be optimistic <and be proven right … or wrong>.

But, in general, before being proven anything, you are guessing. Sure. You can make an educated guess, and the odds may be higher or lower based on what you decide to do, but someone is lying if they say “I knew it was going to end up that way” or “we should have seen that coming.”

That’s bullshit. We do not know. We often guess <sometimes well, sometimes not so well> under the guise of planning. Maybe worse is we often guess under the guise of ‘scrutinizing history.’

Uh oh. A fact.

‘History teaches by analogy, not identity.’

Henry Kissinger

People tend to mistake a study of history, or a historical moment, for proof of what is to come and, in fact, it sure does look like a frickin’ smart thing to do when going backwards in time and connecting dots <even when the connection is tenuous at best>. But, just a reminder about what Hank said: History teaches by analogy, not identity. This means that the lessons of history are never automatic or formulas for the future. The truth is that they can be apprehended only by admitting a range of multidimensional factors <unique context matters>, assessing the significance of each factor <individually and in combinations – I believe that is called “complimentarity”> and that the answers we obtain will never be better than the questions we pose.

————————–

“From this, one can make a deduction which is quite certainly the ultimate truth of jigsaw puzzles: despite appearances, puzzling is not a solitary game: every move the puzzler makes, the puzzlemaker has made before; every piece the puzzler picks up, and picks up again, and studies and strokes, every combination he tries, and tries a second time, every blunder and every insight, each hope and each discouragement have all been designed, calculated, and decided by the other.”

Georges Perec, Life A User’s Manual

=======

Like it or not situations exist in time more than in space. At any given moment a moment is but a collection of individuals and things bringing to bear all their collective experiences and things. Reassembling that multi-dimension of ‘collective’ is next to impossible. What this means is that when viewing the past incomprehensible, trying to make it comprehensible, you will find it is contingent to a unique set of factors.

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

“For the lessons of historical experience, as of personal experience, are contingent.

They teach the consequences of certain actions, but they cannot force recognition of comparable situations.

Henry Kissinger

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

Uhm. Cannot force recognition of comparable situations.  This is why I scratch my head when some people are so sure on the future. If the incomprehensible is contingent upon a unique set of factors than you would have to be able to look into some crystal ball which unravels what will BE unique (that is impossible isn’t it?) to see what the future configuration of contingent factors is.

Well. That’s nuts. No one can do that.

In the end.

I believe all of us would probably like to have a better sense of how to plan for the future and to better understand the best and proper actions to take to maximize the future in some form or fashion.

Therefore we do the best we can, most often that means examining the past to assess actions affecting the future, trying to understand consequences for our decisions yet to be made. The intent is good and true.

However. We should never confuse honest intent with ‘what is right.’

We simply hear the echoes of footsteps but never meet their owners until they actually enter our lives. And, frankly, you cannot control all that ‘are coming by and by into our lives.’ At each point in time no one knew what was coming, therefore, no one can truly know what is coming. I imagine it is helpful for us to remind ourselves on occasion that just when we are absolutely positively 100% sure that something is impossible or incomprehensible — it occurs.

Just remember this about the incomprehensible. We don’t know what we don’t know AND we don’t know half of what we really do know. It is difficult to accept the fact that today, in the moment, in the middle of change, no one … let me repeat … NO ONE has the right answer. We are simply asking the right questions at the moment and doing our best to adapt as we learn.

And therein maybe lies the greatest lesson about the incomprehensible – change is about adapting.

Sure. Having a vision is good and there are multiple ways to reach the ‘end game. But, in the end, change is change and the incomprehensible is the incomprehensible. Plus. If we knew exactly what the change was and what was needed and what was truly incomprehensible and what wasn’t, well, we would be really smart sonuvabitches, wouldn’t we ? Almost incomprehensible to think that though. Ponder.

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

Prouver que j’ai raison serait accorder que je puis avoir tort. -Pierre Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais

“Proving that I am right would be admitting that I could be wrong.”

“The question is not what you look at, but what you see.”

Henry David Thoreau

I do not care how much experience you have or how much experience, and institutional knowledge, your business has, at some point if you are going to try and provide a service to another company they will say something like: “you cannot know as much about our business as we do, how can you be better at our sales efforts <or whatever you are attempting to help improve>?”

Here is the truth. We can’t know as much you do.

Here is another truth. We can be better at something you do, than you.

How can that be? Well. Two things (focused on sales just to make the point):

– We know sales engineering.

This means we know how to delve into decision maker buying processes, assess attitudes & behaviors and have a wealth of expertise with regard to ‘nudging’ a decision maker toward a sales meeting & decision. A company could spend pages describing a sales engineering methodology, but why? Why not simply say “by month two you will have about 8 confirmed quality sales meetings.” Or whatever specific need outcome you have we can deliver.

We may not know as much about your business as you do today but this we know. This means rather than talk about experience, we can talk about outcomes. But. It is what we know, and our experience, that permits us to talk this way.

– We remember everything we learn in the process and never go by ‘gut.’

What most tenured experienced business people have at their fingertips is gut & feel based on all their experience. It is invaluable. And it is also sometimes untrustworthy. Please note the ‘sometimes.’

We say that because sales engineering in the development phase should eliminate sometimes and insert certainty <or as close to certainty as possible>. The business truth is that ‘feel & gut’ should be incorporated into the final sales presentation and not sales engineering.

Which leads me to say almost every business methodology, or practice, is built upon remembering everything we have learned and applying it, and reapplying it with new learnings, to strengthen response to certain cues and different decision maker characteristics. Basically good methodologies are machine learning well implemented by people.

Now.

The truth is that almost any good methodology has a behavioral aspect. No business likes to claim something isn’t unique or proprietary but most sales efforts are grounded in a learning program model called Super-Memo and was developed by the Polish researcher Piotr Woźniak.

I say that because almost all success in sales engineering is based on insuring that everyone remembers everything they learn, and apply it properly, as well as insuring the DECISION MAKER remembers everything they have learned about your product or service.

Which leads me to a basic premise anyone who claims to know their shit about any replicable methodology knows – long-term memory has two components: retrievability and stability.

Retrievability determines how easily we remember something and is dependent upon how near the surface of our consciousness the information lingers.

Stability has to do with how deeply information is anchored in our brains.

All memories are different. Some memories have a high level of stability, but a low level of retrievability. For example, try to recall one of your old phone numbers and you probably won’t be able to, but, if you see the number in front of you, you will recognize it immediately. Even if you learn something and memorize it without practice over time it will become increasingly difficult to remember. The amount of time it takes for you to forget it completely can be calculated, and ideally you should be reminded of the word precisely when you are in the process of forgetting it.

In addition, the more often you are reminded of the word, the longer you will remember it for.

All that to say most business decision makers have multiple tasks and multiple things on their mind and it is difficult to assume they will be able to retrieve whatever information you may have given the last time you shared information. In addition, anchoring information in a decision maker’s memory is a process.

Now. All of that, or much of that, could sound a bit esoteric when all you asked was :how can you know as much as we do?”. Its important stuff because we are in the business of doing business so that your business succeeds. And the lifeblood of any success is knowledge and using it well in a relevant way.

Which is where I say here is what we can say in the end about ‘how can you know as much as we do about our business.”

If a business provides a service to another business what matters is that we not only learn your business, we learn the decision makers business, the business itself, and then have a system and methodology in place to insure we remember the business at hand as well as make sure the business decision maker remembers everything they should have learned and use it in the interest OF the business in an ongoing way.

Suffice it to say most effective business isn’t about what you know it is what is remembered APPLIED against what you may know in the existing context of what you know. In order to create movement, progress, velocity, scale – whatever word you choose – you have to be sure everyone knows what they are supposed to know <remember> so you do not have to recreate the wheel and basic value is steady so it offers some traction for the growth and improvement.

In the end. No other business can know what you know, but they can know how to make what you know work better and be more successful.

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

“Her sentences were icebergs, with just the tip of her thought coming out of her mouth, and the rest kept up in her head.”

Gregory Galloway

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

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson

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

Ok. I can honestly say that I have few friends who I know the full thinking, i.e., everything they truly think, about a thought.

Very few.

This includes even my best friends.

Uhm.

I don’t think this is unusual.

More often we only see the tip of the iceberg.

Some words to open a thought.

A sentence or two which offer a preface to a bigger story.

The rest is kept up in their heads.

The ones we know the best may give us some cues, assuming we are paying attention enough, as to where to go next.

The ones we know the least may give us only the tip of the iceberg thinking we may not deserve the rest or maybe the rest is none of our business.

Not to mix metaphors <but I will> but people are like books we peruse at a bookstore. We scan the covers, maybe read the back and sometimes even open it up and read the inside sleeve to get a sense of what is inside. 90% of the time that is what we end up knowing about the book.

<kind of the same as an iceberg … just inside instead>

Now.

In business this is a little different.

In business, assuming you ever want to get some decisions and get something done, far more often you are exposed to a full iceberg, with regard to a thought, because business demands it. About the only way you can ever get an idea from insight to real action is to figure out a way to lift the bottom of the iceberg up & out from the ocean of ignorance and into the conference room light. And even then the business world does everything it can to encourage you to only show “what is important” … as in … “just show me the tops of the icebergs … that is all I have time for”. The misguided assumption being (1) that is all that really matters & (2) if you are good enough you will show the tip of the iceberg well enough we will get a sense of what is under the water>.

That last thought is kind of bullshit and why this iceberg metaphor is so appropriate. The majority of any idea and thought is found below water, not above, and 99% of the time what is above water gives very little indication of what is truly below the water.

Compounding this issue is, well, more often than not if you bring an iceberg into a meeting you will have to discuss the fact there are a bunch of other icebergs, also with tips people can see and bottoms one can only imagine, floating around the iceberg you are discussing.

The shallowest of people in the room will scan the tips floating around and assess that way.

The more thoughtful want to know at least something about the parts they cannot obviously see.

The most thoughtful are interested in everything they cannot see even if it takes a lot of time and it is less than simple.

All that said.

I could argue that in Life or in business what is important is the part most often not seen or heard.

I could argue that in Life or in business what we actually do is spend a shitload of time focused solely on the tips of icebergs.

I could argue that the latter point is the foolish consistency of the hobgoblin of foolish little minds.

To be clear, you cannot chase all icebergs. Attitudinally you would benefit by always being curious with regard to what you can’t see, but behaviorally there is just not enough time to chase down everything beneath the surface if you ever want to get anything done. All this to say chasing icebergs is not easy.

Look.

I could conclude my thought today pounding away on the importance of using curiosity to avoid bad business decisions, but I will not.

Instead I will use a personal thought to make a business point.

If you think about the moments you took a moment and stopped after hearing a sentence from a friend, the tip of an iceberg as it were, and followed up with some curiosity with regard the rest of the thought that you assume was kept in the mind and how much you were rewarded in terms of enlightenment by doing so, well, I kind of think that makes my point. It is typically a rewarding effort in terms of your friendship and connection.

We can spend our lives skating along the icy surface of irrelevance focused on the tips of icebergs or we can decide to dive down and see the larger portions of thoughts, ideas and minds hidden from sight.

That is your choice. Choose wisely.

===========

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

–

Eleanor Roosevelt

======

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

Iyanla Vanzant

=========

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

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

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

3 reasons:

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

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

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

Is it lack of trust in people?

Is it a leadership ego thing?

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

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

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

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

Veronica Roth

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

This is a valid, and important, topic.

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

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

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

Stowe Boyd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“I lived according to the prevailing myth.  Everyone lives by myths.

Prettied up they are called truths … basic truths, natural truths, self-evident truths. What I knew or thought a year ago is beside the point. The problem is today. Even if the past was a lie, what am I supposed to replace it with? Another lie? All that’s necessary is to pull the old one out and put a new one in like a circuit board?  

Inspector O

=====

“The capacity of the human mind for swallowing nonsense and spewing it forth in violent and repressive action has never yet been plumbed.”

Robert Heinlein

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

“The way we got out of the caves and into modern civilisation is through the process of understanding and thinking. Those things were not done by gut instinct.  Being an expert does not mean that you are someone with a vested interest in something; it means you spend your life studying something.

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

Brian Cox

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

“… if no one knows anything then why can’t I know something?”

Bruce McTague

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

Well. Increasingly we are hearing more and more people publicly questioning the expertise & knowledge of experts. It has come to a point where significant public figures have even stated things like “we have had enough of the experts.”

Uhm. When this occurs, and enough people actually believe it, well .. geez … if no one knows anything than why the hell can’t I know something becomes the overarching perception <if not attitude>.

You know where this belief has always existed? The corner of the neighborhood bar. I am sure we have all experienced it. Sitting around with friends, maybe at the corner of the bar, bitching about the world and talking about what we would do to fix it. At that table … and at that time, well, we can solve everything that the experts, the leaders, the grand decision makers seem to struggle solving.

Most of the time, if we are honest with ourselves, we dumb it down to some simplistic surface conclusion which sometimes is partially right. Often we apply a ‘common sense’ filter which, if we are honest with ourselves about this too, does not really reflect the complexity of reality. If we are honest with ourselves <once again>, more often than not we are wrong. Now. Its not that we aren’t smart. It just may be we are a little intellectually lazy.

Ok. That was harsh. Try this. Maybe we just don’t know enough or have enough experience. Maybe it is because we have not spent a lifetime studying it or we assume our personal professional or whatever experience is indicative of the knowledge necessary to be ‘right.’ And maybe we rely a little too much on what I have called “fortune cookie wisdom” <quasi-intellectual soundbite wisdom>.

But … whew … in the moment … in the discussion and debate and obvious common sense, we could run the world, the country and the biggest business venture out there. It is a fun moment. And we feel smart and even more importantly we feel as if we could do whatever it is as well as the person who is doing it. For a moment, just a moment, we look around at all the Harvard MBAs and all the policy experts and all the high falutin’ experts and we are as good and as smart as they are.

Sigh.

But we are not. It may seem like it. But we are not. Yet, at every bar, at every table, every Steve, Sarah, Sue and Sam thinks that they are.

That is the sad truth.

I actually believe this belief is driven by a version of the 80/20 rule. Assuming you are fairly worldly, fairly well informed and fairly enlightened, you probably get 80% of it right. And, boy, that 80% feels good. It may even feel “right enough.” But, in general, its just, well, 80% right. In general, just 80% on the important stuff just is not good enough. That is the difference between an amateur and a professional or an expert. That 20%. Some would argue it is simply the nuance, but in most of the larger more grand problems and issues we face it is that 20% that makes something go incredibly right or incredibly wrong.

And, uhm, I hate to tell everyone … but … most of us are not capable of that 20%.

That said. Realistically the last time everyone possessed the same skills in a society to participate within a leadership role at 100% equal was maybe several million years ago when all of us humans ran around as hunter/gatherers. Once we evolved into larger social groupings, and inevitably created cities and population clusters where some people had to make decisions for the greater good of the whole some people naturally evolved into governors and governing <leadership> and the expertise needed to assume those responsibilities. And while we can bitch & moan about the ineptness of leadership, in general, leaders lead and others follow. Yet, we everyday schmucks get confused and believe we would be smarter, if not as smart, as people in the positions of leadership.

Part of the problem is the problems themselves. Most problems contain contradictions and truly are complex with lots of moving parts. Heck. Everything is complex, not just the problems.

** note: that last point contributes to corner of the bar wisdom. solutions, or good past decisions, tend to look simple in hindsight and we ignore the complex interconnections which begets the result we are pointing to <while at the corner of the bar>

For example. As we discuss country issues we discuss natural contradictions within a complex world <both domestic & international is important> as well as the fact the American people often embrace contradictory goals <just wander through any PewResearch report to confirm that thought>.

What do I mean? Well. For example. While any citizen of any country wants to be ‘great’ – defining ‘great’ is a complex puzzle. At the corner of the bar more often than not we ignore the contradictory challenges with more simplistic solutions for what would be great <under the guise of common sense actions or ‘seems to make sense on the surface’ attitudes>. Sometimes this ‘common sense’ assumes ‘oh, everyone would agree with that’ when, in reality, the majority of people would debate it <that is actually complexity in a nutshell>.

I would like to note the exceptional corner of the bar pontificators position themselves incredibly well to exploit such contradictory opinions. For example. “Make America Great Again” is a simplistic slogan that embraces some aspects of patriotism or nationalism pride and is broad enough that any individual can define ‘great’ from their own perspective including both a harsh insular ‘past driven’ edge to a much grander ‘future possibilities’ thought.

That said. At the corner of the bar we more often than not rule our thoughts based on passion <fear, individualism, frustration & anger> supported by reason. The experts reverse the equation ignoring passionate response <fear, individualism, anger> and basing ideas & solutions on solid reasoning and rational thought <and things called “principles” & laws>. I will not spend any time on laws, but, while we at the corner of the bar sometimes shake our heads wondering what common sense <or lack thereof> created some laws we accept they are laws because in some way we all know it creates a construct of ethics.

But let’s be honest. The neighborhood bar is in … well … the neighborhood. It is where we kibbitz over non neighborhood things.

In general it is healthy semi-intellectual debate which makes us feel intellectually good.

In general we take a fairly ridiculously narrow view of how the world works.

Anyway.

The experts who have been talking about this stuff. For today’s discussion I am going to lean on two relatively short, but broader insightful reads – Huntington’s “clash of civilizations’ written in 1993 for Foreign Affairs magazine and then Foreign Affairs magazine’s reprise of the article in 2013 with a number of short “here is what I think” articles.

Rereading the well written thoughts makes you not only realize that the intellectual of those of us at the corner of the bar may not be at the level of stupid, but that there are a shitload of really smart people discussing these topics not at the bar.

Basically, most of us struggle with globalization and nationalism. It’s not that we do not want either or reject one over the other it is that we struggle to see, feel and understand the balance. One expert called this uneasiness we feel ‘casual collapse.’ It is the seemingly ongoing blurring of many beliefs, rituals, formal requirements and laws that define specific societies and us.   And we feel a little helpless in stopping this ‘casual collapse’ because of that darn thing called ‘the internet’ <the cross-cultural sharing of information and knowledge> all compounded by all those darn people shouting nonsense on that darn thing called ‘the internet.’

Now. All this is happening without causing any particular larger collapse of anything. It is just a casual collapse of things as they used to be. And it is happening despite any government edicts or programs designed to slow the change <collapse> or older generations tied to some past cultural aspects efforts. It is an inevitable collapse driven by the fact as everyone becomes more knowledgeable about ‘what is happening and what people are thinking’ half way around the world they begin questioning the status quo conventional thinking where they are. It becomes a blending of local cultural thinking and a more global perspective.

And the whole issue is exacerbated by a faster additional natural progression created by the urbanization of emerging countries.

Why does this change anything? There’s an obvious link between the broad spread of more liberal attitudes and increasing urbanization globally <in 1980 Africa 28% lived in cities – today its 40+% – 40+ million people>. As new urbanites find themselves further distanced from traditional social and familial structures, and are exposed to a wider range of alternative goods, services, lifestyles, opinions and experiences, their tolerance to alternative thinking and behavior grows – as does their interest & attitudes. The web simply accelerates what would have been happening naturally.

I am certainly not suggesting this will happen overnight. As trendwatching suggests “compared to much trend thinking, casual collapse moves at a glacial pace.” Basically, whether we like it or not, globalization has forced the world to be at odds with itself. We are not a world of countries and states living in solitude, but rather one in which we overlap linked, and delinked, by varying degrees of history, culture, religion, language, location and institutions.

This causes a natural reaction against a sense of uniformity. We naturally chafe at the thought of “being the same as everyone else” <while still viewing aspects we like & want>. And therein lies the greater conflict – while economic life takes place on a global platform human identity remains national & local.

Yeah.

The identification of local <and nationalism> will always continue and will always create the same angst we feel at the corner of the bar as we watch the zillion TV’s typically sitting in the bar suggesting globalization is infringing upon our corner of the bar.

Even global economic growth infringes upon our national identification.

What do I mean? Economics depends on education and communication which leads directly to conflicts over language and comparisons over education levels. All the while … a global economic view encourages everyone to believe the world is their oyster – anyone can aspire to any economic position. The reality is that everyone does not have an equal likelihood of upward economic mobility <locally, nationally or globally> and not simply because individuals have different innate capabilities <but that is a different post>.

At the corner of the bar we need not worry nor address the balance we focus on what we need and what we want – not necessarily the greater good.

And then there is the scary factor we local experts face over a beer.

Terrorism.

There is clearly a relationship between globalization and violence. Unfortunately, this stage of globalization <its current stage of maturity> doesn’t necessarily spread peace & understanding. Instead it tends to foster conflicts and resentments <global media makes it possible for the most deprived or oppressed to compare their fate with that of the free and well-off as well as showing one nation what another nation is achieving>. In today’s world globalization tends to provoke revolt and dissatisfaction.

All that said. The one thing we common everyday schmucks can certainly do at the corner of the bar is to analyze the present, embrace some of the past, but we cannot predict the future.

The future is yet to be written by a world that is anything but simple. It is a world where society is often uneven, always complex and often local societies overlap with a global society all the while burdened by public institutions seemingly incapable of navigating local and international needs. This often leads us to simply divide the issue into a solvable part versus unite the complexity into one seemingly unsolvable issue <because it is easier to solve a part rather than a complex whole when you are at the corner of the bar>.

And that is where most of us at the corner of the bar truly fall short. Enriching people, minds, bodies and spirit, is the ultimate objective of any problem & issue and the most difficult task in the world.

It is a complex task.

It requires the best of everyone, the best of civilizations and the best of leadership & thinking all not emphasizing the differences, but reinforcing the common objective.

A country, a culture, a civilization … is a messy creature.

A country can be kind & generous as well as cruel & coldblooded as they pick their way through the natural chaotic world.

Me, and American, believes the United States clearly has the capacity to influence which future is most likely. However, for anyone to predict the future confidently would be naive <or outright lying>. But globalization is not a simplistic concept. But nationalism is not a simplistic concept. Being a president, or any leader of a significant organization, is not a simplistic concept.

Inevitably leading is not just about hope or promising something better, it is a pragmatic pushing of  opportunity to the people who need it the most and want it the most <thereby maximizing what opportunities do exist>. And opportunities abound … in fact … there may actually be more opportunity in the world than problems <but you would never know it by listening to conversations at the corner of the bar … or on TV>.

Look. In a world where I have no idea how my mobile phone or the internet work <or my car, television, or microwave, or … whatever> and, yet, they consistently work, everything seems so unknowable that amateurish expert wisdom actually seems … well … attainable.

In other words. If no one knows anything then why can’t I know something?

C’mon, let’s be honest, corner of the bar discussions typically devolve into the simplistic and our solutions skate on the superficial surface of reality. We should not, and cannot, devolve into a world where there are no experts or believe that experts don’t know more than we do.

Simply being an expert doesn’t mean ‘perfection’ – not making mistakes or being wrong <because that would predicate they could actually tell the future>. But let’s be honest, we want people smarter than us – the people sitting at the corner of the bar – making the really important decisions.

Well.

I certainly do.

---

originally posted July 2016

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

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

—-

Robert Louis Stevenson

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

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

<a> come across as condescending,

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

<c> come across as flippant tripe.

Regardless.

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

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

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

Anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Voltaire

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

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

Things that we have no control over.

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

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

All that said.

You can’t fold.

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

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

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

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

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

Look.

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

That said.

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

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

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

They are foolish.

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

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

Or the best of the worst choices.

Or making the worst best.

Regardless.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well.

Don’t waste your time.

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

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

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

In the end.

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

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

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

They simply get dealt. And you play ‘em.

In the end.

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

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

<

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

===

“Not even the human

imagination satisfies

the endless emptiness of the soul. “

Allen Ginsberg

===

nicesuggestions:

    let the stardust inside your veins shine bright and light up the lives of those around you

===

Potential is an amazing thing.

Well.

Amazingly good and amazingly bad.

It pulls, it pushes and it ties you down, all at the same time. All the while creating thoughts of what could be as well as thoughts of “am I enough.” And it certainly teases the human imagination to think about the endless possibilities within one’s soul & purpose.

Potential asks for great things from people. Sometimes it whispers the ask and sometimes it shouts the ask. Regardless. Once heard, potential demands some things from that person. Suffice it to say potential becomes alternatively an individual’s burden and an engine. It forces a test of ‘self’ with regard to potential, in this case, is your engine strong enough to carry the burden? Now. The engine has almost as many moving parts as a car engine does. It isn’t just belief, thinking you are capable of whatever it is you want to be capable of, it is also the hard work, the skill and the opportunity management in Life. You have to engage all parts to make the potential engine run effectively.

But, and this is a HUGE but, you have to wrap your head around this wacky thing called ‘potential’ the right way or you will not do so well.

What do I mean?

A shitload of people view ‘I am not living up to potential’ as some fucked up personal code for ‘not being recognized for how good I really am.’ Yeah. In order to understand potential it demands having some personal perspective.

I admit.

I want to actively vomit when I read shit like this:

I’m not living up to my maximum potential.

The biggest thing blocking my path right now is myself and I want to change for the better. I have big dreams, but it’s sad to be in the condition I’m in where the light and power is there but it’s not yet burning to the max.

I just want to say … “c’mon, get a grip <and grow up>.”

Look.

There is a difference between dreams and reality.

There is a difference between what I can do and that sometimes wacky perspective with regard to ‘what I can actually do <often called ‘potential’>.

There is a difference between pragmatism and possibilities.

Some people seem to think potential is like some magical wand they can wave to create some alternative dimension where anyone can do anything they dream or want to do. I am not suggesting potential doesn’t exist in everyone <because it does>, but it isn’t something you tap into and “make it burn to the max’ it is a, well, burden. And you either choose to carry it well or permit it to weigh you down.

But we should all get it through our pea like brains that we all carry this burden <albeit in different sizes and shapes> and how well we carry that burden pretty much depends on our perspective with regard to our potential <and potential itself>.

====

“Greatness demands that I understand that I am not nearly as big as I thought myself to be, but that I am capable of becoming far bigger than I ever imagined myself to be.”

Craig D. Lounsbrough

=====

But “living up to our potential?”

Now that’s bullshit.

Yeah.

The idea that we somehow have a certain amount of potential that we must live up to is a bullshit. A total bullshit fortune cookie wisdom soundbite. I tend to believe the same people who say they are not living up to their potential are the same people who pretty much have no fucking clue with regard to what living means and what is important in life.

I believe 99% of people understand Life is very hard.

We all have some fundamental desires and goals which set the basics for our horizon thinking <even if it is waking up and having the optimism needed to aim for the horizon which on that day is simply the end of that day>. And with that thought … well … we get out of our fucking beds and go do some shit.

Some of the shit meets the fundamental needs. Some of the shit is just shit. Some of the shit is good. And some shit, on some days, seems to tap into what we truly believe we are capable of. Let’s call this ‘what we believe is our greater potential.”

It is that last shit that can screw us up.

We want more of that last shit.

We see it as “our true potential” and “why shouldn’t we do that, and be that, all the time.” It makes us happy to think we could do more of that shit. And, most importantly, it makes us believe we have better shit within us we could do if given the opportunity.

“You cannot use someone else’s fire; you can only use your own. And in order to do that, you must first be willing to believe you have it. “

Audre Lorde

But you know what?

Maximizing Life and your potential may quite possibly look exactly how I just wrote it out.

Waking up, doing some shit shit, doing some good shit and doing some shit which maxes out our potential.

Maybe that is Life.

And if you don’t think what I am suggesting is true?

Well.

Maybe get your head out of your ass and think about it <instead of listening to all the other assholes screaming about all the potential you are not maximizing>.

Maybe take a moment and acknowledge that potential as a concept is a fairly delusional concept. Acknowledge that most likely it is a concept not created from within but by someone or something without creating some perception.

Maybe acknowledge that potential more often than not implies you are in some fucked up race to be better than someone else.  Life is not a race. In fact. It is not even a competition.

In a race ‘potential’ always seem to become relative to everyone else in the race. how fucked up is that? I mean … what the hell … its your potential.  So maybe acknowledge that if you stop looking at Life as a competition you can most likely stop worrying about whether you finish first or not or even compare yourself versus other’s “use of potential.”

Lastly.

Just go ahead and acknowledge that ‘living up to your potential’ is a fucked up phrase you hear in your youth from older people suggesting you are capable of being the best or at least better than maybe what your reality suggests would be more realistic in your own head. And, if you think about it, this phrase more likely than not comes from people who have no fucking clue what you really want to do in your life and with your life <mostly because you have no fucking clue what you want to do in your life and with your life>.

You want to know how to live up to your potential?

Do the right thing <as often as you can>.

Do the best you can <as often as you can>.

Show respect to others. Show some kindness in moments where kindness may seem difficult to show. Show some dignity in the moments of loss … and success.

Live with some honor.

And if someone whispers “oh, you have so much more you could do” just look at them and shake your head. They don’t get it. By doing what you are doing you are maximizing living Life. All the rest of the crap is shit that can possibly earn you some more money and maybe even win some fancy awards, but they won’t earn you the really important stuff – maxing out Life itself.

Now that is what potential seems to me.

Yeah. Potential seems like … well … letting the stardust inside your veins shine bright and light up the lives of those around you.