==

“Our humanity is not an attribute that we have received once and forever with our conception. It is a potentiality that we have to discover within us and progressively develop or destroy through our confrontation with the different experiences of suffering that will meet us through our life.”

—

Xavier Le Pichon

==

“You’ll have to help yourself.”

—

Lemony Snicket

===

This is about us. People. Individuals. Ok. Let’s call it “the power of I.”

Oh. And the fact we either grow or diminish what we have in terms of “I”. So. That begs the question … what is the power each of us have?

I would suggest that your power is actually a reflection of your character <and its resilience>. Character actually begets all the shit we truly care about: resiliency, personal responsibility, integrity, morality. In addition … it is character that dictates whether, and how, you either progressively develop or diminish.

And therein lies the true power of I.

Yet, we face an inherent ongoing challenge to this power. What do I mean? Character is not solid; it can get chipped.

What I mean by that is once you start taking shortcuts, the ones that appear to make the Life travel a little easier, a little cheat here … a little lie there… maybe a little taking advantage of the system … all of which chips a little of your integrity & character away. Now. That may not seem so bad, but, character is a non-renewable resource.

In addition. Each time you take a shortcut, no matter how small, and get away with it, it becomes even easier to decide to do it another time – that’s the slippery slope of character erosion.

Just think about what I just wrote for a minute.

You can be crappy at reading, writing and arithmetic or pretty much anything that people bitch about all the time, but you can’t effectively survive by being crappy at Life itself. And you certainly cannot get along with a crappy character.

You have to fight the good fight in Life, try and avoid the short cuts, and maintain your character and have faith, and courage, to keep character from eroding in the face of Life. Surprisingly … this is an ongoing fight day in and day out week after week.

Now. That said. Character is a tricky thing to self assess. Interestingly … we all think we know ourselves well, but, psychological studies show otherwise. In fact, <unfortunately> most of us are somewhat deluded about ourselves. And in that delusion we tend to be slightly misguided with regard to what we should do and how to do it <because the basic premise of who we are is flawed>.

This is really really important for us to think about because research has clearly linked social mobility to social and emotional skills. Emotional skills ranging from empathy and the ability to make and maintain relationships, mental toughness, delayed gratification and self-control all contribute to social mobility <and Life success>.

These research findings all point to the same conclusion — that character counts. Now. Research also points out that character is developed not necessarily instilled <experienced versus taught>.

Research shows that people who overcome adversity and realize their full potential tend to exhibit many of the same traits.

Traits that can be thought of as a belief in one’s ability to achieve, an understanding of the relationship between effort and reward, the patience to pursue long-term goals, the perseverance to stick with the task at hand, and the ability to bounce back from life’s inevitable setbacks.

Please note this does not suggest negative experiences increase character but rather that multiple experiences create depth of character (despite being a common wisdom quote, research has never show a relationship with “what hurts you make you stronger”). These various traits all fall under the broad heading of “character and resilience.”

Well. That said. If character is about experience then I get to bitch a little about personal accountability or personal responsibility. Or, in other words, responsibility for your own actions.

Today it seems like a shitload of people suggest their actions, faults, any excessive unacceptable behavior, or any … well … generally heinous or unacceptable behavior … are a reflection of outside influences, society driven/motivated, challenging home growing up, poverty, ethnicity, or any experience that we can identify as ‘generated pain’ which inevitably impacted us in childhood. Let’s title all of that under one big fat heading of “excuse.”

It is almost like no one, okay, far too many, wants to accept responsibility for their problems.

All I can think is that some people, well, this is what they learned. Which makes me ask, well, “who the hell taught them this?”

Anyway. On the other hand I know for sure that some of us learn that when you screw up it is on ‘you’ and no one else. This ‘learning’ teaches us that basically you can be frequently wrong, frequently stupid, frequently imperfect, but if you have been taught to be accountable — to admit it– you may get some shit from people but you will also be known as someone who is accountable for their own actions. You assume responsibility for all the good and bad that you do.

Yeah. This can be harrowing at times and incredibly rewarding at other times.

—————

“If your success is not on your own terms, if it looks good to the world but does not feel good in your heart, it is not success at all.”

Anna Quindlen

—————–

And this leads me to destiny, fate … and resilience.

Well. I believe we make our own destinies. A destiny may await us but we need to go & do things, to make choices, in order to actually get to our destiny.

Every day we are presented with choices.

Some we don’t even recognize.

Some we don’t even see <until they are past>.

Some we see and make a choice.

Our destiny is a reflection of these choices … made and not made.

This means making your destiny is hard because we see, and don’t see, choices and make, and don’t make, choices.

“Of course it’s hard! If it was easy, everyone would do it. Hard is what makes it great.”

<For the Love of the Game>

This is a Life truth. Shit. It is true about everything we do <even making the perfect cup of coffee in the morning>.

And that is where resilience comes into play.

Because you will always have disappointments. You will always have dreams that don’t come true. You will always have bad shit happening. And you will always make some bad choices.

And in all of what I just wrote we have a habit of getting stuck.

You get stuck knowing what you already know.

You get stuck on what happened in the past.

You get stuck thinking about shit that you cannot do anything about.

You get stuck on disappointments, dreams that don’t come true and bad choices.

We just get … well … stuck.

Resilience is all about being able to overcome all the simple tragedies you face in life. Not the big dramatic shit just the everyday shit.

=====

Brooke:

George Bernard Shaw once wrote, “There are two tragedies in life. One is to lose your heart’s desire. The other is to gain it.”

Nathan:

As far as I’m concerned, Shaw was a punk.

‘Cause you know what? Tragedies happen. What are you gonna do? Give up? Quit?

No. I realize now that when your heart breaks, you gotta fight like hell to make sure you’re still alive. ‘Cause you are, and that pain you feel, that’s life.

The confusion and fear, that’s there to remind you that somewhere out there is something better. And that ‘something’ is worth fighting for.

=====

Resilience really isn’t about hope or dreams or vision for what you want & desire and doing what you need to do to stay on that path. Resilience is more about recognizing Life is hard and the practicality that if you want to make some progress and develop … you gotta fight like hell to not get stuck.

Simplistically you take personal responsibility for not getting stuck.

And you now what? You have to. Because Life makes it really really easy to get stuck. You can get stuck on so many things it is scary if you think about it. But you can really only get stuck if you let it happen.

Progress is, more often than not, in your hands. Which means your destiny is in your hands. That, my friends, is the power of I; a power driven by the engine of Character. Yes. Character is your destiny.

—-

“If a man shall begin in certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.”

=

Francis Bacon

—-

“I don’t rule out anything.”

——-

We spend a lot of time on ‘fake news’ and how people use Facebook to get their news and a whole bunch of stuff that doesn’t have to do with personal responsibility and accountability for how individuals consume information.

That said.

Yikes.

Yikes is all I can say when thinking about the gap between when an event happens and the inevitable truth comes out. In fact I would suggest that in between is simply the ‘big squeeze’ where you & I <and, unfortunately,  truth> gets squeezed.

In today’s news and social media universe … world events, facts, speculation and truth become so blurred it is not only difficult to know what is going on; it is difficult to know what did go on.

The trouble is that facts get dribbled out like scarce drops of water and each get analyzed as if they were each an ocean of facts <when it is one drop of information and a gazillion drops of speculation>. A story unfolds slowly … never fast enough for anyone … and if you don’t pay attention ‘your’ story may be three or four editions behind, yet, that is what you believe>.

So.

What can we believe?

What is “true” or “valid” or “reliable” information?

Oops. These words are all slightly different. And, unfortunately, those differences create entirely different worlds of meaning. In fact those words inevitably intrude between the event and truth. They intrude between reality and perceptions and, ultimately, understanding.

All the while the confusion upsets the majority.

—–

“There is much contradictory news, I really don’t know what to believe.”

—–

Excessive alarm, fueled by misleading news reports, leads to knee-jerk responses that are not necessarily for the best.

It is another fact that theories grow without facts.

And then scraps of information beget even more theories.

And initial theories are revised with new information.

And in the end theories are actually created by selective use of some scraps of information.

I would suggest the main ingredient between event & truth rumor generation and transmission is uncertainty. It is within the lack of full information, some of which is called a ‘mystery’ or ‘crisis’, which permits everyone to play detective and theorist for a day. This uncertainty also creates opportunities for people with existing agendas to dwell on their favorite themes <take a moment and think about this in business, i.e., that ambitious fool in the cubicle across the floor seeking an opportunity to move ahead in the wretched in between of the event and final truth>.

All that said. As events happen and information unfolds I realized that a guy named Alain Badiou has provided some good thoughts about what happens between the event and truth.

——-

“…. truth enters into the world for Badiou not as a state but as a process, or more specifically as four processes: love, politics, art and science.

He claims that truth itself is almost impossible to recognise as truth, but it can become briefly discernable for a passing moment in what he calls an event.

The event is a rupture in the current circumstances caused by an awareness of what is missing from those circumstances. The event is a glimpse of the void inherent to any given state.

Having experienced such an event, a subject is created who has a chance to affect the world by remaining faithful to the event of truth they have encountered.”

Alain Badiou

——

It is maddening, but, he is correct. An event is being defined by:

• love <people who are hurt or benefit from>
• politics <those with an agenda>
• art <I will loosely use this as journalism, but in today’s social world let’s call it ambient journalism or amateur storytelling>
• science <the endless array of experts who cite research and science>.

We are barraged from all sides by these four things. I will call this the big squeeze. We get squeezed as truth is validated by the traditional aspects in which truth is arrived at:

—

–        Anecdotes: Powerful compelling narrative examples of phenomena from world of experience that might embody a principle. Ideas correspond to real world events.

–        Statistics: Could that observation of a phenomenon be in error? Statistics reveals patterns and tests validity of generalizations –For example, if a finding was made by chance.

–        Explanatory power: Utility of an idea in helping integrate a larger array of ideas in a coherent way.

—

Uhm. Trouble. Those three things imply ‘time.’ As in a reasonable amount of time to have these things unfold. Its trouble because while media endlessly states with sincerity “of course it is premature to draw conclusions” they immediately veer into theory, hypothesis and speculation and second guessing decisions and actions as well as guessing <or speculating> on conclusions all the while establishing the outer limits of what is only frustrated guesswork, but is truly the outer limits of the boundaries squeezing us.

——

“In this age of instant reporting and tweets and blogs, there’s a temptation to latch on to any bit of information, sometimes to jump to conclusions.

But when a tragedy like this happens, with public safety at risk and the stakes so high, it’s important that we do this right. That’s why we have investigations. That’s why we relentlessly gather the facts. That’s why we have courts. And that’s why we take care not to rush to judgment — not about the motivations of these individuals; certainly not about entire groups of people.”

President Barack Obama

——-

Yes. Most of us want to know when there is an event. But. Yes. We also want to know truth. And, yet, the world around us is squeezing us on all 4 sides with images and words. We get squeezed so hard that the ‘gap’ between the event and truth actually becomes the crisis; not the event itself <and if any word is being overused these days it is certainly ‘crisis’>.

This brings me to Truth. Truth is never <or let’s say … very very rarely> a static state. If it were than an event would have a predetermined truth. Badiou sees knowledge as ultimately fragile and subject to change. I agree. Truth is often contextual and always is dependent upon a collection, and coherence, of essential information.

Look. As an event occurs truth is created. Which means we should look to science as to how we should assess information in the gap … as we are getting squeezed:

—-

VALIDITY of data refers to its accuracy and specificity, as well as its applicability to the question being asked.

=

RELIABILITY refers to data’s precision, consistency, and appropriate resolution

—-

As we transfer information we learn about an event into our pea-like brains and start thinking about it … we are right to question and test our perceptions — to establish the validity and reliability of our experiences and the beliefs they engender.

We are all concerned about what is true and what is not — with what is real.

Memory and imagination are strong sources of imagery. But our struggle is to discern our internal instincts <thoughts we naturally gravitate to> from the external opinions mixed with true knowledge or we are hopelessly confused.

Oh. Scientists are awesome at actually discerning. As they explore the boundaries of what is ‘known’ they are especially wary. They are often confronted with information for which there is little or no precedent to guide their judgment about the meaning of their data.

Oh. Politicians and journalists suck at this. Politicians and journalists have a common interest in crises. When there’s a crisis, people buy newspapers and turn on the news to learn how politicians and leaders will fix the crisis. In addition crises give politicians <and people with some agenda … in general> more power.

And maybe that is where the big squeeze, the gap between the event and the truth, really gets us.

We seem to be a society fond of creating a sense of crisis all the time and only some of the time, now and then, the truth comes out.

Many philosophers have expounded on the difference between knowledge and truth, but not many have invested a lot of energy <and thinking> of how a sense of crisis affects how we absorb knowledge and arrive at truth.

Look. Not everything is a crisis. It can be a tragic event, it could be a tragedy of errors, it could simply be an unfortunate confluence of unintended consequences, but most events are not crises.

This is true in every day Life as well as in business.

But regardless of an events ‘label’ I can almost guarantee we will be squeezed by a combination of what I stated earlier — Truth is not a state but a process, or more specifically as four processes: love, politics, art and science.

When an event happens we will be squeezed in the gap between the event and truth by the 4 things I listed above.

How much you care.

How much society cares <politics>.

How much art cares <because they create the words & imagery>.

How much science cares <because they create the facts>.

We just need to try and not be suffocated by all that caring until the truth is aired. Regardless. Events occur and truth emerges. Everybody should ponder that as they setp into the next created Big Squeeze between the event and the truth.

 =========

“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.

==========

“I prefer physical exhaustion over mental fatigue any day.”

—-

Clotilde Hesme

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

“There is a construct in computer programming called ‘the infinite loop’ which enables a computer to do what no other physical machine can do – to operate in perpetuity without tiring.

In the same way it doesn’t know exhaustion, it doesn’t know when it’s wrong and it can keep doing the wrong thing over and over without tiring.”

—–

John Maeda

=========

Well. Employee engagement is the key to maximizing productivity potential. Period. We can gussy up engagement with respect, safety, collaboration, etc, but business is about business and engagement has to do with the business of doing business well.

To be clear. I think of engagement on three levels:

• first is vision. Employees engage better, & have more interest to do so, when they not only know where the business is going, but are engaged with the vision
• second is how you go about doing business. Employees engage better, and have more interest in doing so, when they are rested, when they feel ‘psychological safety’, when they believe they are contributing (meaning) and when they get to do what they do with dignity & integrity
• third is energy. Employees engage better, and have more interest to do so, when they aren’t exhausted (mentally or physically) and are fresh.

You will find an infinite number of articles on the first and second. Heck. Even I have written about them. To me, the third is one of the least discussed and most overlooked aspect of engagement.

What do I mean? We talk about business transformation and ‘agile’ and constant innovation and relentless focus on the customer and, well, it all sounds exhausting. Add in when experts suggest leading an organization is like running a race (its actually nothing like it) and, shit, even I start feeling exhausted. Let’s be clear. Exhaustion and business is bad.

So. That said. Leading a business is more like managing the health of a body in which you do want some exercise and you do want some healthy eating and you do want to insure proper amount of sleep. Suggesting you want to run a business like you are in some marathon is silly and misguided. It is just as misguided to think about an organization like a machine with gears and moving parts and keeping it well-oiled and full of gas and shit like that.

So let’s talk about organizational exhaustion.

If you stay away from silly metaphors about what an organization is, or is not, simplistically you are trying to insure your organization is putting forth a proper amount of effort against the efforts you want it, and need it, to be working against. This is a daily, weekly, monthly and annual leadership objective. Different leaders have different styles working against this objective, but, simplistically, that is the objective.

Now. HOW you meet this objective typically takes some experience.

What do I mean? I assume most leaders do not inherently know exactly how to pace an organization. Pacing an organization takes some experience and some practice, some mistakes and some successes and then you zero in on how to do it well <or just keep getting better at it>.

Using me as an example. I liked a hard charging group when I got to a team/group management level. And I, personally, would be ecstatic if I didn’t have to sleep and I could go 24/7. In the beginning, that was my vision for my groups.

By the way, in general, good intentions/bad idea.

But what that meant was that I probably learned this lesson, pacing and applying effort appropriately, too slowly <and I most likely will have a bunch of past team members chuckling painfully in agreement>. Going hard charging all the time is not sustainable — you just have a constantly exhausted group. Effective hard charging doesn’t mean 24/7 it means picking your moments and going hard.

That said, in desiring to have hard charging organizations there are certainly some lessons learned to limit needless organizational exhaustion. Here are a couple I learned along the way:

• I had to be consistent.

It doesn’t get discussed often enough, but expectations go both ways. As a leader setting clear expectations is certainly expected <and I will mention that in my second learning>, but it really helps an organization if you establish clearly what people can expect of you – behaviorally and attitudinally.

Words surely matter.

Setting expectations surely matter.

Actions surely matter.

But consistency matters above all.

No leader is perfect and no leader will make the perfect decisions, let alone good decisions, all the time. Therefore it becomes incredibly important to just be consistent. Your organization, and specifically people, will become better accustomed to where you will be really really good and where you may be slightly off <and they will naturally accommodate both>. In other words your consistency actually offers your employees some direction for what they should do. Your best people will assess situations and know where you are consistently most likely right on, know the things you consistently overlook and know where you consistently leave some spaces for them to ‘do their thing.’

• Keep some strong threads of consistency.

Threads of consistency permit an organization to not have to think about some things. There were some really simple tactical things that I could control.

• What do you mean <clarity in articulation>
• Where are we going <set a visible North Star>
• What do you want me to do <pragmatic expectations>

If you could keep these three things solid and not have people milling about talking amongst themselves on these three questions, you were staying ahead of the game. It permits your organization to progress and not be stagnant. It permits your organization  to not invest unnecessary energy against those things and apply energy against doing shit.

Of course, a leader doesn’t have to do these things.

Of course, a leader doesn’t do these things at their own peril.

The peril? Exhaustion. frustration. Waste energy. Not doing these things has an expense to an organization and mostly that is defined by two things – time & energy. I would point out that both of those things are not infinite resources to an organization. I point it out because if they are finite than you better have them available to you when you actually need them. And that is why I chose to not use an organization as a race metaphor at the beginning, but rather an organization as a body metaphor.

Look.

As a leader of larger organization you can hide your misjudgments or poor decisions in a variety of creative ways; mostly by shifting resources from one group to another or have another department assume some different responsibilities or by shifting some people into the work gaps or to buttress the best people who are flagging with some support.

But that is also not sustainable.

The organization gets exhausted doing all that maneuvering, in addition, they get exhausted by you doing that.

I will admit that I got better at this as I moved up in responsibility. And, I will admit, I partially got better at it simply because I had more moving parts, departments and groups to manage. That is because I loved working 24/7 and I thrived with the energy of solving problems and, well, just energy. In a larger organization there is always something going on, some project or problem or initiative somewhere within an organization that needs attention or needs a little ‘push.’ This naturally permitted me to let one part of the organization ‘rest’ while another part of the organization ‘ran.’

Oh. Think about that a second or two if you will.

What I just suggested is an organization as a well-rounded circle, or the classical myth of a ‘well rounded person’, is simply a myth. In fact the idea of it creates a false, and sometimes dangerous in terms of expectations, narrative in our heads.  As an organization learns and thinks and gains experience it does not expand smoothly but, rather, raggedly. Day after day, despite the fact it may feel like business is a grind or it may even feel too fast <or too slow>  an organization is constantly running toward some thought and experience, or, leaping from danger or something  disagreeable or some problem or some success and suffice it to say it is anything but balanced. And it is certainly not creating any smooth well rounded growth.

My main point?

There is no such thing as a well-rounded person and there is no such thing as a well rounded organization. A leader may certainly aspire to create a well-rounded organization but, even at your best, the organization at any given point in time is some shape other than a circle.

The good news is that this means organizations also naturally get excited to explore the edged forays into interesting things and, in parallel, get snagged on the ragged edges of unexplored thoughts or even second guesses with regard to the lack of smoothness in what is happening in departments, groups and efforts … as well as thoughts and growth.

Yes.

I will point out that this is why an organization can feel slightly uncomfortable on occasion as employees, departments and groups wrestle with this discomfort, as well as dealing with the ragged edges constantly poking at everyone, but I will also point out that is why the things I mentioned earlier become even more important –the consistency, the clarity and the lack of chaos.

I will also point out that his kind of ‘uncomfortable’ is okay. To a leader it is actually a sign that things are going okay and the organization is not stagnant <and good leaders know how to point out good non-stagnancy to calm uncomfortable>.

All that said. I can unequivocally state that no organization is successful when needlessly exhausted. They can be tired at the end of the day, but exhaustion is a symptom not of ‘a good day’s work’, rather, unnecessary mental stress trying to get things going, understand what to do and what to say and kibitzing over why it is so hard to get what seems like normal shit done.

When an organization is running well, whether the 350 million, 350 or the 35 recognize it, there are many days when the 1, the leader, leaves the office exhausted. And the one is exhausted despite the fact that 349,999,900 people, 341 people or 34 people went to sleep that day feeling pretty good about their day and their needs & wants & hopes took one step forward that day and they are a good tired … not needlessly exhausted.

Oh. Despite the fact the one went to bed exhausted, that one will arise the next day fresh because the organization is ready to go again the next day and not organizationally exhausted (the one – leader – draws energy from a fresh organization).

I will end by pointing out that an exhausted group, an exhausted department or an exhausted organization is the sign of poor leadership. And, most importantly, it is a precursor to signs of inefficiencies and declines in measured productivity.

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

“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.

———-

Why is the word yes so brief?

it should be

the longest,

the hardest,

so that you could not decide in an instant to say it,

so that upon reflection you could stop

in the middle of saying it. “

—

Vera Pavlova

==========

I am a self-admitted lover of “no” in the workplace. I am because I learned at a very early age in business the power of saying a clear cut ‘no.’ In addition I have an inherent distaste for ‘yes people’ and have built a healthy fear (yes, fear) of yeses that create a false sense of positiveness in suggesting the impossible is possible.

No has the power of stopping therefore it can afford to be concise. In fact, in its conciseness it actually can often represent the sharp cleaver which cuts the cord to wasted energy and wasted actions.

And while ‘no’ in and of itself is incredibly powerful, ‘yes’ in its abruptness seems … well … too abrupt.

Too short.

Too simple for a word that does anything but encourage stopping … it more often is the initial push to movement <not necessarily forward but in doing something>.

Yes. <unstated … we should do something.

Yes. <what?>

Yes. <as a statement … as an agreement>

Let’s face it, yes, just like thinking in general, is a quagmire.

It is a quagmire because far too often the majority of yeses are asked without either party <or one of them> truly understanding the problem therefore they have no right to be asking for a solution.

This is important, REALLY important, because business is all about choices – making them or agreeing to them or shutting choices off.

Simplistically every yes is a no to something else. This is a really important point because saying yes as a ‘can do’ person or organization or simply because it is “the mantra” — simply means you will continually fail to recognize limits. I will suggest the limits you fail to recognize are the “truth” ones you blast through as you blindly commit to something believing “you will figure it out as you do it.”

Well.

Sometimes you can figure it out.

But most of the time you do not … or at least not the way it should be done.

Of course, the ‘yes sayers’ hold up completion at the end to justify the ‘yes’ ignoring the clumsy process on the path to completion or even the compromised solution which is represented in the completed action.

I tend to believe at the core of the quagmire is that there is actually more positive thinking & attitude in a ‘no’ then there is in the typical ‘yes’. Yet, on the surface, a ‘no’ appears negative and a ‘yes’ appears positive.

No’s, and I mean ‘non-lazy’ or ‘non irascible contrarian’ no’s, are positive in their ability to sharpen whatever else is about to happen.

Yes’s are more about … well … the energy of obligation. An obligation or a commitment to a larger thing than a simple ‘yes’ often communicates.

And maybe that is where I think Yes fails us the most. It should be longer, more complicated and less brief in its utterance.

It should be reflective of the obligation, the responsibility and the choice of the moment.

It should be larger in its reflection of its overall impact not just on the moment of its utterance but also in the ripples of its effect as it reverberates almost infinitely through a business decision.

That said. I do not have research on this but my guess, based on years of experience, is that more businesses fail and more businesses have lost money, people and wasted energy based on ‘yes’ more than ‘no.’

I am not suggesting we never say yes. For god’s sake … the fundamental bedrock of a business is based on a ‘yes.’

Yes. Let’s go do it.

Yes. We will implement that idea.

Yes. We will hire that person.

But I am suggesting, even as you ponder the flippant three examples I just gave you that yeses echo in eternity.

And while yeses embrace possibilities & opportunities & hope they, uhm, also are wrapped in cloaks of vulnerabilities.

Well. After reading those last two sentences … kind of makes you think that yes “should be the longest, the hardest, so that you could not decide in an instant to say it, so that upon reflection you could stop in the middle of saying it. “

Yes.

I imagine my final thought is to suggest the next time you think of flippantly offering a ‘yes’ to something, you take a moment and ponder the obligation that accompanies a ‘yes.’ For “yes” is not just an agreement to something, it is an obligation OF something.

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

“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.