===========

“The world is not as simple as we like to make it out to be. The outlines are often vague and it’s the details that count.

Nothing is really truly black or white and bad can be a disguise for good or beauty … and vice versa without one necessarily excluding the other.

Someone can both love and betray the object of its love … without diminishing the reality of the true feelings and value. 

Life is an uncertain adventure in a diffuse landscape whose borders are constantly shifting where all frontiers are artificial where at any moment everything can either end only to begin again … or finish suddenly forever … like an unexpected blow from an axe.  Where the only absolute, coherent, indisputable and definitive reality … is death. We have such little time when you look at Life … a tiny lightning flash between two eternal nights.

Everything has to do with everything else.

Life is a succession of events that link with each other whether we want them to or not.”

Arturo Perez Revarte

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

Vague sucks.

And, yet, I would argue the majority of people only really have some vague outline of how the world works, or how effective or ineffective a leader is, or even only have a vague outline of any specific relationship between cause & effect.

This vaguery exists because it takes a lot of work to parse the details, and the appropriate details, and the ‘right’ details to make the outlines less vague and more tangible.

Is this work valuable ? Sure.

Is this work necessary to increase some certainty in Life? Sure.

Do most people do this work? No.

The majority of people have shit to do <other than this type of work>. Generally speaking, that is neither good nor bad; it just is what it is. A lot of pseudo intellectuals and smartish pundits bitch & moan and gnash their teeth over this, but they would lead a significantly less stressful life if they just accepted it.

What this means is that in this ‘vague outline’ people inevitably create a vague/semi solid outline belief. From there they look around on occasion and question that outline. The questions raised either support the vague outline or raise doubts and inevitably some more questions. All the while this is happening more information barrages the vague outline. In this barrage is a confusing mix of real, fake and quasi truths. All these confusing things do in the people’s minds is, contrary to belief, not confuse, but rather make the person more dismissive of the incoming confusion and steadier in whatever vague outline they may have constructed.

Once again.

Generally speaking, this is neither good nor bad; it just is what it is. A lot of pseudo intellectuals and smartish pundits bitch & moan and gnash their teeth over this, but they would lead a significantly less stressful life if they just accepted it.

That said.

I will say that at some point the ‘questions I have about my vague outline’ gain some gravitas. This can happen several ways, but let me point out two:

• 1. The questions themselves coalesce into some easy to understand ‘blob’ from which people who have a vague outline decide “my vague outline is wrong <or sucks>.” Let’s say that this is the point at which the doubts and questions begin to outweigh the beliefs that created the vague outline.

• 2. Someone weaves a narrative using the doubts & questions into a relatively succinct, believable and non-hyperbolic driven framing of an outline which people look at, scratch their heads, go “hmmmmmmmmm …” and decide this new vague outline will replace the one they had in place. Oh. To be clear. This narrative must not only use the doubts & questions to dissolve the current vague outline, but must also offer an alternative vague outline <outlines need to be replaced not simply destroyed>.

The first never happens fast enough to people who just cannot understand how and why some people have decided to live with some vague outline <that just seems ‘not really a smart outline’ to them>.

The second is not as easy as it appears. It isn’t as easy because problems are rarely as clear as we would like them to be and a narrative never lives without the context of all the barrage of real, fake and quasi truths impacting and denting and solidifying a vague outline that already exists. And, to reprise the end of point 2, someone weaves a great narrative to destroy, but forgets to offer an alternative.

Simplistically, this is the story that everything has to do with everything else.

I imagine I have two points today.

First.

We humans have come to accept a certain amount of uncertainty with regard to our lives and our decisions. This uncertainty is also built into the vague outlines we tend to construct for ourselves. What this means is that the construct of our beliefs and thoughts and ideas may be certain to us and, yet, its silhouette accommodates some uncertainty.

I began today by unequivocally stating that vague sucks. And I believe 99% of people would agree that it sucks. But in today’s world the majority of people have enough shit to do that they slot their thinking thoughts time. In one slot they place unequivocal certainty type thoughts. In another slot they place the “I will always be uncertain about this shit and thank God there is someone else at some higher pay grade than I who can be certain about it.” And, lastly, we slot all the shit in which we have formed some vague outline which accommodates a certain degree of uncertainty.

My point here is we tend to make this a binary discussion where the reality lies in a more complex mix of vagueness & clarity, certainty & uncertainty.

Second.

Certainty, in and of itself, has degrees; it is not a simple black or white binary.

People can have vague outlines AND have questions with regard to their outlines and, yet, not want to ditch the outline. “How can you still believe that?” may be one of the most misguided and unenlightened questions that has ever existed.  It completely misses the point in that it assumes ignorance, stupidity or some negative trait in order to hold on to some vague outline regardless of doubts.

A vague outline is a choice.

No more and no less.

We question choices all the time and, yet, remain with the original choice despite some fairly extensive doubts. I say this because, that said, it is silly to point out doubts and questions as a reason to ditch a vague outline. My easiest example is Trump. His followers have a vague outline of what they like and believe about him. We scrutinize them for doubts and questions and when they share them we immediately pounce and suggest “then how can you still believe in your vague outline!?!” <usually said with a slight overall disbelief & wonder>.

Within their lives of doing shit that is important to them they created a vague outline of who and what Trump is, or isn’t, and … well … uncertainty was built into their certainty. The moment they will begin to disbelieve their vague outline is when the uncertainty overpowers the certainty. Until then we should stop acting confused that someone believes what they believe.

Anyway.

I love the quote I opened with even though I hate vague. The truth is that we all live with some vague outlines albeit your vague outline may actually be one of my non-vague outlines, and vice versa. And when they are in conflict then, well, there is conflict.

All that said, while vague sucks there is a reason we do it and this reason is not stupid, nor unenlightened nor ignorant.

It is just damn practical to have some vague outlines.

Life is an uncertain adventure in a diffuse landscape whose borders are constantly shifting.

I am certainly not suggesting a citizenry with ill-informed vague outlines creates a healthy society. But informed versus ill-informed is a topic for another day. For today I am suggesting the majority of people navigate Life and the complexities of the world mostly using vague outlines.

Look. Life is restless. Our vague outlines are necessary to accommodate some of its restlessness. Not recognizing that is either naive or foolish. I would also point out that if you are frustrated by someone’s vague outlines, the onus is upon you to bold the outline on whatever issue you want them to see so that, well, they can clearly see the outline of what really “is.” Just remember. There is a massive difference between vague and vague outlines. Ponder.

====

cesiumadventures:

i just have this persistent feeling of “i’m not doing enough” combined with “i don’t have the energy to do anything” and it just really fucking sucks

====

“Many people are busy trying to find better ways of doing things that should not have to be done at all. There is no progress in merely finding a better way to do a useless thing.”
Source: Ford News
11/15/1922

====

Ever get the feeling you are doing a lot of ‘somethings’ and, yet, you look around and it sometimes looks like nothing? I tend to believe a lot of people feel some version of this. I have a stack of unanswered emails to people I really would like to respond to and, yet, I always have something to do. I rarely have an open minute, by my choice and I like it that way, but some of those minutes mean not doing something else. And therein lies ‘nothing.’ Nothing IS something. It resides in the choices left behind. I am doing nothing with all these emails and people who I genuinely like and conversations I genuinely would like to have and, yet, I have done nothing with them. They are something and what I have done is something and have created nothing in doing so. This may sound convoluted and slightly absurd, and it should.

It is indicative of the slightly warped pretzel logic we place to justify our productivity madness.

It is indicative of something generally happening in work.

Work never stops, we never stop, other people never stop, there are no stop signs, and yet with all this ‘not stopping’ productivity and productive performance has, well, stopped. Okay. Not stopped, but certainly hasn’t matched the amount of non-stoppedness it appears business is doing. I imagine I could say a bunch of things here but I would suggest the nonstop world costs us some creativity and absolutely costs us some critical thinking.

We are paddling so hard we can’t see where we are going or if we are even making any meaningful progress. It’s not like people aren’t trying to give is more advice on how to actually be productive because if you go to Amazon there are something like 100,000 books telling us how we can achieve more. If you don’t want to read, just pick one of the 1000’s of apps you can download onto your already nonstop 24/7 smartphone internet feed. The ‘hustle culture’ (and economy) is more a hamster wheel than hustle. While any ideal business progress trip should be one in which you reach some far-reaching destination, in today’s world it is just a circular treadmill encased in a cage.

This worship of productivity comes at the expense of everything else. It’s kind of like purposefully implementing mediocrity. Now. Within the productivity ideology they can’t see the mediocrity because their scale is biased – they don’t see the sacrifice; they see the achievements. They don’t see lost outcome possibilities; they see pragmatic outcome gains. This self-defeating behavior means a bunch of people are doing a lot of somethings all the while doing some nothings. There is no ebb and flow of imagination or creativity, it is all directed toward the God of Productivity. This God wields metrics of productivity to measure output and achievements, but also, we as human beings.

Look.

I don’t really need to share some research to be able to say, generally speaking, most workers are overworked <this can be time driven or task drive> which, generally speaking, lessens job performance, hence, productivity. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that technology adds on an additional burden to individual productivity stress – we also now compete against automation, AI and algorithms. We fight against the system and technology – in other words “the black box against us.”

Which leads me to the battle between more and zero sum.

More.

Growth, scale, expansion, higher, all are synonyms for “more.” Business is obsessed with more. If you did something yesterday, tomorrow can only be better if there is more than yesterday. It’s absurd and unhealthy. Let me use the business buzzword of the day, Transformation, to point out even that is never really about becoming better; it is always about producing “more faster” (better is a pleasant addition if it happens). ‘More’ simply begets an obsession with continuous output and THAT obsession arcs toward the worst of Taylorism in which Lillian Gilbreth-ism trumps Follett-ism.

The models of work are rewarded if they generate more regardless of whether it is true progress or not.

The models of work get rewarded if they generate more regardless of whether it is meaningful or not (because meaningful means ‘meet outcome objective.’

The models of work get rewarded if they generate more if they can simply be well oiled, or fine-tuned with more oil, thereby supporting the concept of human machinery.

But maybe even worse than treating people like machines is how business treats their work. I will talk about “achievement attitude” under zero sum, but suffice it to say that if achievements are all people truly get measured on <which feeds into what a person will identify as value and meaning> and More is always yelling in your mind, well, all you will focus on is more achievements – quantity not quality. “More” is a horrible corrosive productivity concept. “More” is actually a horrible corrosive concept for the world <invest some time reading Limits of Growth; Meadows/Meadows>.

Zero sum.

I am not sure, but it’s possible “more” could have worked okay in the models of work if we weren’t simultaneously stuck in a zero-sum mindset. In that mindset universe ‘more’ comes at the expense of someone else and, worse, if someone is getting “more” that means less for you.

It’s corrosive thinking and, paradoxically, reductive in nature. The pendulum in society has swung all the way over to achievement is all that matters. In fact, we are in a society where the Value of a person seems to be either driven solely by their outcomes/results or weighted so heavily by the outcomes/results that the ‘effort portion’ has minuscule value.

That’s … well … uhm … bad. Bad for individual meaning. Bad for society. Bad for Life lessons. Just bad.

It is bad because that means many people will ignore the price they will pay to achieve the outcome because the outcome, in and of itself, will contain all the value.

Yeah.

Think about that.

Taken to an extreme that would mean the attempt has zero value and trying and failing has zero, if not negative, value.

Ok.

That is bad.

======

“But he did not understand the price.

Mortals never do.

They only see the prize, their heart’s desire, their dream … but the price of getting what you want, is getting what you once wanted.”

Neil Gaiman

=====

Which leads me to how zero-sum plays a role. That achievement attitude becomes even worse, for society, because it also suggests “what are we willing to do to get what we want” is a zero sum game.

What do I mean?

Well.

You are willing to do anything it takes to get what you want <the achievement>.

The hell with rules … they are for people who don’t value achievement enough.

The hell with guardrails and guidelines … they are for people who are scared to do what it takes.

This attitude cleverly steals away freedom of choice in that it suggests the only choice is the one that ensures achievement.

“Measures of productivity do not lead to improvement in productivity.”

W. Edwards Deming; Out of Crisis

This attitude strips choices of anything truly worthwhile like dignity and respect and humanity because all of those things are not criteria for what is the ultimate value – the result or outcome. Productivity is inextricably tied to achievement which also suggests productivity that does not attain some objective achievement has little or no value. It’s a horrible way of thinking that actually equates productivity with gamification theory. Horrible.

I say all this because zero sum belief sucks the oxygen out of meaningful ‘doing’, or productivity, by sucking out the true freedom to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances and to choose one’s own way in doing things. There is no freedom because only one type of productivity is deemed the winner and anyone not achieving that is a loser.

In the end.

Some people suggest we need to prioritize new ideas rather than productivity. I am not so sure. I think we should be prioritizing meaningful progress – for both individual and the business. While this version of progress is not attached to any direction or quantity of things, it does accommodate productivity <which I believe if it isn’t worshiped can be a valuable aspect of value creation and meaning>. I would suggest the future is actually not about more, nor less, nor any quantity. But. I am not suggesting a business doesn’t have to sell some ‘quantity’ in order to sustain itself, it’s just that any quantity becomes a result of a focus on progress where doing something means something. This thought also suggests the future isn’t going to be solved by working smarter, but rather a smarter way of working. I would also suggest the current way of working is not a logical result of centuries of logical reasoned thinking about how work should be done, but rather a battle between ideas on a way to work. That last thought becomes a semi-important thought because it suggests we don’t need a new way of doing business, or a new way of thinking, or even some magical transformation, but instead we should be seeking out the ideas that exist and maybe lost a key battle here or there. It is not about a fundamental shift, but rather a revisit to the fundamentals. In doing so we change the concept of productivity and progress in business and that begets a shift in systems, policies and practices. Ponder.

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

“Show not what has been done, but what can be. How beautiful the world would be if there were a procedure for moving through labyrinths.”
―

Umberto Eco

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

“You are not going nowhere just because you haven’t gotten where you want to go yet.”

—-

Taylor Swift

====

So. Direction is one of the most stressful discussion in Life & in business. Where are you going? How are you planning on getting there? And, of course, are you sure that is the right direction?

Well.

I never thought I would ever use a Taylor Swift quote let alone use it to make a point. Her quote made me think that “not getting to where you want to be” and “nowhere” can look awfully similar.

But it is not.

Not even close.

The idea of “getting somewhere”, whether in your career, in Life, in personal change, in a relationship, in anything, sometimes seems to dominate our Life. This destination, this ‘thing’ we have envisioned in our mind, becomes sort of a measurement with regard to how we are effectively, or ineffectively, living our life. And in doing so if we are somewhere other than ‘there’ <which may mean we simply just haven’t got there yet>, a lot of people will suggest that means you are nowhere.

That is wrong. Very very <very> wrong.

We spends gobs of time and money trying to answer these questions. If you think about it while it may not sound completely absurd (defining direction insures you are at least not going somewhere completely useless) it can actually look like an incredibly poor investment with a dubious ROI <or what I often call “ROC”: return on choice>.

It can be a stress on your everyday life.

It can be a burden.

It can create an absurdly long list of plans and things to do.

It can also translate into a lot of wasted time (because often where you decide to go isn’t exactly where you end up simply because Life’s terrain dictated a slightly better destination).

I sometimes think this is a reflection of what is wrong in today’s society – this belief if you haven’t achieved something you have achieved nothing.

Most of Life is a reflection of a shitload of journeys and paths and, well, a lot of walking, running, tripping and crawling. Because of that a shitload of people would suggest that most of your life you have been running in place <which sounds silly as I type it> or ‘wandering aimlessly <which also sounds silly as I type it because most times most people are wanting to get to where they want to be> and basically they are suggesting that, uhm, you have expended energy — and got nowhere.

99% of the time those people are just assholes.

Assholes who focus on destinations and not journeys. They only take satisfaction in highlighting specific milestones, objectives and outcomes achieved. They struggle to see the satisfaction in exploration, wandering and the journeys taken to the outcomes.

Look. I am not going to suggest achieving something, specifically, getting to where you want to be is not an admirable and useful objective. Because it is. Getting to where you want to be is aspirational and it implies you want to be better than what you are today. Being better and becoming better is something all of us should embrace.

But I will suggest that simply because you have not got there yet that you have gone nowhere.

In fact, I could argue that simply deciding where you want to be is somewhere.

Yeah. Sometimes just knowing what you want has value in & of itself.

Yeah. In fact, doing something, even something small, is better than nothing and is something other than nowhere.

Anyway. You know what? it’s all exploration even if you don’t care about where you want to go. Why?  You end up somewhere.

Here is the bottom line.

I would guess 90% of us are somewhere other than where we want to be. We may see glimpses of it and we may actually have touched it briefly, but most of us are still in the midst of getting there.

<to complete that equation I envision 5% don’t even try having given up and 5% believe they are there>

90% of us are certainly not ‘nowhere.’ We are simply works in progress trying to get somewhere better than who and what we are today. That means suggesting just because you haven’t got to where you wanted to be is ‘nowhere’ would mean that 90% of us are milling about in some wretched space of nothingness … and that is silly. Most of us are pretty happy and fairly content and typically thinking about being better.

There is a lesson here.

While I imagine Ms. Swift doesn’t philosophize on this thought like Umberto Eco, she has certainly embraced her responsibility & empowerment to communicate the right things to hordes of young people. And for that I applaud her. I do so not only because she is impacting young people’s minds in a good smart way, but because there are a boatload of older people who have been gobsmacked into believing if you haven’t got to where you want to be that you are nowhere <and they do not hesitate to tell a shitload of people that>.

Embracing an ‘outcome is the most important’ Life philosophy is a slippery slope.

I would much rather we embrace a “just because you have not got to where you want to be does not necessarily mean you are nowhere” Life philosophy. You can embrace both but if you begin with the latter you are more likely to not only encourage the right behavior in people you will most likely encourage a more positive view of your own Life.

Lastly.

Okay. All this may sound rudderless. But 99% of the time while this discussion sounds, well, directionless, void of objective & absent of any ‘milestones’, it is none of those things. 99% of the time we have a sense of some destination, we just can’t really articulate it. Now. In a world that has an unhealthy relationship with measurement, achievement & “if it is intangible, can you make it tangible”, that ‘not able to articulate’ is a sonuvabitch to try and embrace.

I sometimes think at end of the end of this type of ‘going somewhere, just not sure where’ journey the people who didn’t try to cram all the plans into the time and simply kept walking knowing they would get somewhere will absolutely find themselves some place better than where they started from and most likely end up somewhere good.

I will say Life can truly be a ‘wonderland’ if you don’t over think it. Sometimes the journey is an exploration and as long as you keep exploring the “somewhere” you get to is richer and, in the case of a business or an individual, maybe a stronger place. Maybe Life, and even business to some extent, is a time to wander.

To explore. To just see what you will see. And see what you will find.

Maybe this is time to remember Calvin & Hobbes: “Any road followed precisely to its end leads precisely nowhere.”

Maybe Alice in Wonderland, Umberto Eco & Taylor Swift and Calvin & Hobbes have the right idea. Nowhere may be a good destination objective.

==========

“The world is full of stories, and from time to time they permit themselves to be told …”

—–

An aboriginal saying

============= 

I believe that the magic and power of a story can encourage and fascinate you.

In prehistory, outside the cave it was dark, but inside they had a fire and somebody was good at telling stories. Every time I write, I think of the cave.

We are one group, outside it’s dark and wolves are howling, but I have a story to tell.

—–

Haruki Murakami

===========

Ok. While I sometimes believe the whole ‘storytelling’ topic has take on some fairly absurd dimensions in business (and fortune cookie wisdom advice), I will admit it’s difficult to discuss stories too often.

The fact is that being able to tell a story, okay, tell the story you want is possibly one of the most important skills anyone can have – in life or in business.

Let me stay on the business side of stories.

Throughout my career I have had the fortune to work with the most unglamorous consumer and B2B products & companies you could ever think of <industrial products, commodity like machinery, etc.> and some fairly glamourous products & companies. What they all have in common is that they have a story to tell and when told well it makes them successful — in sales, in market place positioning, in competitive scenarios, in public discussions, etc.

I used to think storytelling was so natural to everyone I assumed everyone would want to tell their story, or maybe better said, talk about their business, their company, their product, as a story.

I no longer think that.

I haven’t figured out if it is that not everyone can actually tell a good story, or, that business has beaten the shit out of people so badly that the default articulation is a list of functional features and pragmatic benefits. What I do know is that business storytelling, in general, sucks. It is absolutely horrible.

Meaningless metaphors and less-than-relevant analogies and misused quotes are scattered among the useful functional and pragmatic in the attempt to elevate that which is usefully boring to interestingly useful. And because that is the case most people either think storytelling is really really hard or that storytelling really has no place in what they are doing.

That is nuts.

The truth is you can take the most boring of boring, the most functional of functional & most ‘seemingly same of seemingly same’ and wrap it within a story and it … well … becomes compelling, interesting and distinct.

The truth is any business contains the essential parts to create a story … heroes, villains, vivid demonstrations or metaphors, life & death and even mysteries and solutions.

The truth is anyone can tell a story <it is possible that not everyone can write a story though>.

In fact I feel relatively confident is stating that a good story to tell makes everyone better & more interesting.

I do not care what industry you work within or what type of product or service you sell or represent your word is full of stories and, most likely, a fabulous story just asking for permission to be told.

All that said. Someone is most likely sitting somewhere scratching their head thinking … “WTF, that sounds good but I have no clue what to do.”

Aw.

You do.

You do know what to do.

Stop thinking about selling your idea or selling your product/service or even selling your company, think about telling a story.

Shit.

I could work for a nuts & bolts manufacturer and be able to put a picture of two nuts & bolts side by side <one mine and one someone else’s>  which look 99.9% exactly the same … and be able to say … “Let me tell you a story about this nut & bolt … because its story is different than this nut & bolt. They look the same but their story is different.”

Oh.

And my story wouldn’t be solely some manufacturing mumbo jumbo, but rather a story about who counted on it and how my nut & bolt was the best friend to someone and … well … you get the point.

Unfortunately we don’t seem to be in the storytelling business in business these days <although we sure do talk about it a shitload>. Instead we bore down on manufacturing specifications, stress quotients, side by side rankings and a whole bunch of technically important functional aspects.

And you know what?

That shit is important.

Really important.

To be sure … if it is my nut & bolt holding a wing on some plane carrying 300 passengers you can bet your last dollar the technical aspects of my nuts & bolts matter. I don’t argue that.

What I argue is HOW the technical aspects are articulated and delivered. What I argue is that if I can make my nuts & bolts look like a city of ideas through some story … I win.

Stories make presentations more interesting.

Stories make bland functional aspects take on some color <which equals value>.

Stories persuade people think <and thinking equals engagement>.

Stories to motivate us to see beyond the simple nut & bolt.

On a parallel path, suffice it to say, what you say is lost, if you do not master how you say the story. Yeah. It just becomes a bland list of words cobbled together.

Storytelling has been a mainstay of the marketing world since forever. And while it tries to sneak into the non-marketing aspects of the business world it often gets stiff armed by functional communicators – “get to the point” people.

This ‘get to the point’ point is nonsense.

Storytelling doesn’t sacrifice the functional and pragmatic and practical … it actually elevates it to ts highest value. I could argue that stories are the essential driver of value, change & persuasion … throughout the history of business.

Look. I would never tell a business to not show the numbers, graphs and facts. It is important.

But strategic use of a good story can make those same bland things surprise people, make them become compelling characters in a story and instead of being cold hard facts laying on a page they can become things that make us think & feel.

Story telling is important in that it engages people, communicates relevant meaningful information, builds value on some things that can often be difficult to build value on and, ultimately, it makes you, your product or service & your company distinct.

Why? Because it has a story to tell.

The business world is full of stories, and from time to time they permit themselves to be told …

=====

“A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.”

—-

Winston Churchill

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Men will defend most passionately, that which they doubt the most.”

——

Frank Herbert

====

Well. I admit. I try to avoid fanatics. I realize in doing so I am doing so at the expense of debate & discussion. I say this as someone who has dedicated an entire site to enlightened conflict and actually believing positive conflict leads to sparks of knowledge and learning. But fanatics are maddening to debate with. The debate, the intellectual conflict, becomes anything but intellectual or enlightening and the only sparks that occur tend to be ones of frustration. Specifically, they are maddening for two reasons:

• Generalities not specifics

More often than not there is a broad sweeping generalization or claim grounded on ‘common sense.’ Debates are dependent upon specifics. Debating generalities is like swatting at clouds <that is maddening>. Beyond generalities the main constructive base for formulating the opinion is … well … common sense, i.e., “just think about it … its common sense when you look at it!”

This is maddening because how the hell do you debate common sense that is anything but common or of any sense?

<note: you cannot>

• Narrow specifics <or selective specifics>. I sometimes call this “stilt beliefs” or ‘stilted reasoning.’

More often than not a fanatic uses one, maybe two, narrow well-honed factoids. They are stilts upon which the fanaticism balances itself. This is maddening for two reasons:

<1> the factoid is, well, yes, a fact — but selective truth at best. It is a fact selected from a larger group of facts. So it may actually be the truth, but not the whole truth;

<2> whole truth is rarely easy to explain. Truth, in general, is rarely simple. Stilts are simple. Enough said on why that is maddening.

Regardless.

You can tell when you have run into a fanatic because there arrives a point where it is counterproductive to further discuss a topic. Simplistically, that point is when one person crosses into fanaticism. It is typically at this point when a mind closes.

And when the mind closes being right matters more than actual truth.

And when the mind closes there is actually no chance for a rational discussion because you actually cannot even agree to disagree. There is no agreement.

This is because a fanatic must be right and, therefore, if they are right than everyone who disagrees must be wrong.

This is maddening.

I am not sure this last thought is a reflection of a closed mind or simply a stubborn fanatical belief, but with most fanatics their position and belief becomes who they are … a strong aspect of their self-identity.

Even worse? It is an aspect of not only their identity but also their self-worth. Think about that for a second.

In your attempt to get a fanatic to change their position you are actually attempting to undo who they are as well as their sense of worth. Think about that the next time you gnash your teeth over a stubborn fanatic.

Suffice it to say, a closed mind is a bad thing.

Here is my hope when dealing with a fanatic. Sometimes, yes, sometimes … you can say something that has been said a zillion times before and somehow that ‘something’ reveals a new truth. By the way, this is more often than not not a simple truth or factoid, it is more often you stumbling across the moment in their past <or creating a visceral mental tie to that moment> that was actually the foundation for the fanaticism. Somehow you reveal a thought that reminds the person of a thought long misplaced or forgotten which ultimately creates ‘something’ which begins the unraveling of the whole foundation of the fanaticism.

My real point here is that the ‘something’ more often than not does not address the superficial surface fanaticism but instead addresses an underlying underpinning.

Please note the key word I used above – ‘stumble’. You can pick away at memories and try to reveal the ‘tipping moment’ in their thinking but more often than not you just stumble across it … uh oh … at the right time. Yeah. Timing matters too <and you never know about the timing>.

Anyway.

Fanatics are not just maddening but they can also be a little frightening.

===

“Human beings are perhaps never more frightening than when they are convinced beyond doubt that they are right.”

Laurens Van der Post

===

Now. Let me be clear about fanatics. Because some of the things I have written may suggest that these are all people wearing tin foil hates living in their parents’ basement reading up on the Illuminati.

That is not true. I would be willing to bet we all know fanatics. It can be someone you know well, even like most of the time, except for that “one topic.” The one topic for which they reach into their pocket and pull out their fanatic hat and put it on.

Here is where I give fanatics a break. The path I am suggesting is a trying, difficult path that takes a lot of work.

I am a curiosity guy and I walk a curious path. I believe … no … I know that there will always be something yet to be known that can significantly later or even completely undo everything we, or I, know and believe.

In fact … my Life is almost an ongoing quest to learn whatever I can to unlearn everything I know. And, yet, I am confident in my beliefs so that positively impacts how I live my Life and conduct myself. In other words, while confident in my beliefs I am not defined by them which permits me to constantly reexamine them in light of new information. I say all that because I know that the whole concept of ‘unlearning what you believe’ and ‘constantly seeking new knowledge with an eye to altering one’s beliefs’ is not an easy task.

It is easier to establish some beliefs and then move on to expanding the mind on a variety of other things. Let’s call this ‘closing parts of your mind’ rather than simply suggesting someone has a closed mind.

Life shrivels with someone who has a closed mind, but a partially closed mind permits enough growth to ignore the stagnant parts of the mind. Young people tend to be more receptive to the concept that there will always be some unknown fact just around the next proverbial corner that will turn some belief upside down. Older people tend to close off portions of their minds therefore eliminating differing opinions which could potentially alter something they hold true.

I believe <just my opinion> this happens because of the whole self-identity and self-worth thing I brought up earlier.

Young people are still growing into their identity and have shit for self-worth. They are trying out different thoughts and ideas like new clothes. Outgrowing some and ultimately wearing some until they fall apart.

Older people have some things that are ground into their identity & worth.

Anyway. Fanatics actually have an advantage over … well … me at least.

They stridently believe in something. That must be a comfort to them in Life.

I envy them their comfort.

And, yet, maddened by the fact they are so comfortable they won’t explore a different, maybe uncomfortable, thought.

Should we all believe in nothing?  Of course not.

Life throughout history reveals the constant struggle between what we knew, what we know now and what will be known. It is a reflection of a constant struggle for truth which is a malleable concept even on a good day.

So most of us try and find truth when we can find it and as best as we can.

Fanatics don’t try.

Look. The challenge for all of us is to be careful how tightly we dogmatically cling to what we see as ‘the truth’ and how strongly we attack others’ truth. Heck. At any given point we might just both be right … or wrong.

Regardless.

Fanatics have lost that challenge. In fact, I am not sure they even recognize the challenge. I find that maddening. That is why I avoid fanatics.

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

originally published March 2016

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

“Thinking again?” the Duchess asked.

“I’ve a right to think,” said Alice sharply.

“Just about as much right,” said the Duchess, “as pigs have to fly.”

–

Alice in Wonderland

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

Well. This is about ‘impossible versus what is possible’ and the absurd discussions that takes place around this phrase.

Let me begin where I will end <just in case you don’t want to read everything in between>.

Impossible versus possible is the ultimate Life conundrum <at least for today’s piece>.

The ‘let me tell you what is possible’ people are most strident in identifying ‘the possible’ utilizing something called “an objective knowledge approach” <‘the world as it really is’>. They seek to provide their beliefs from ‘nowhere & everywhere’ or maybe better said by providing perspective by looking at it from all angles. Well. Someone named Donna Haraway called this “the God trick.” In other words … it is impossible.

Oops. In order to explain and clearly define ‘what is possible’ <therefore by doing so … by a process of elimination … defining a set of ‘what is impossible’> someone needs to … well … do the impossible.

Yikes. Now there is a Life, and business, truth (conundrum) to ponder.

Ok. With all that senseless nonsense, or was that serious nonsense, out of the way … let me move forward.

If you ever want to have a seriously nonsensical discussion with someone just bring up ‘impossible.’ And as soon as impossible is brought up you may as well quote Alice in Wonderland … ‘I think of 6 impossible things before breakfast.’ Personally, I have a love/hate relationship with the impossible. I truly understand that some things are impossible. Yup. Believe it or not … there are truly some of those out there. But I also have heard so many times ‘that is impossible’ only to find out it was, well, actually possible <assuming you spent some time breaking apart the impossible and putting it back together again in a way that is possible … kind of like the Rubik’s cube style of thinking> that I am quite cynical of “impossible”.

I also admit that I find impossible interesting. Certainly more interesting than the possible. Likely my interest is they both, mixed together, can seen from two different and opposite perspectives.

Anyway.

Alice in Wonderland <and the Looking Glass> are outstanding examples of how to have serious nonsensical discussions on impossible. And it is a good reminder that while it may seem like senseless nonsense <wasted time> to us old folk … it is important serious nonsense to young people.

Alice <as in wonderland> is but a 7 year old in literature but metaphorically she symbolizes all that the youth has to offer. She questions everything  and all questions seemingly directed through an intrepid attitude all the while constantly using her intellect to solve problems. Oh.  And she always speaks her mind.

In fact … the lesson she shares is in her growing belief that very few things “indeed, were really impossible.”

A message all young people have at the forefront of their minds.

It is also a message most old people have in their mental waste can.

Just as all youth in today’s world … Alice is plucky, undaunted, and impervious to the dangers that may lie in world. These attributes typically lead the young to eagerly and  curiously delve into a world seemingly challenged by being stuck only in what is possible. And, just as the young have an aggravating habit to do, Alice literally has to open the door for herself.

—————

Alice finds herself at the Duchess’s door and knocks, but to no avail. This exchange between Alice and the Frog – Footman follows:

“But what am I to do? ” said Alice.

“Anything you like,” said the Footman, and began whistling.

“Oh, there’s no use in talking to him,” said Alice desperately: “he’s perfectly idiotic!”

And she opened the door and went in.

————-

What a marvelous thought with regard to impossible … and possible.

Ah, so what am I to do?  … anything you like.

The elder generation <the Frog doorman> doesn’t limit possibilities by suggesting impossibilities but rather opens up opportunities to what is possible … and empowers thinking. The answer opens up all possibilities for her. She begins to question following tried & true <accepted> beliefs and wondering by just following ‘rules’ it will get her nowhere and that it is within her power to do anything she wants … to achieve her desired results.

In this case? She opens the door.

Once through the door? Alice experiments as she realizes that all the traditional rules and ‘possibilities’ aren’t necessarily the only way to do things … and by experimenting not only does she make shit happen … she experiences new things <impossible things>.

Basically she is challenging what I believe philosophers call logical possibility and impossibility. I probably do not have this exactly right but this philosophical thought is something along these lines:

There are some things that we simply can’t imagine regardless of how hard we try, since they’re inherently contradictory or nonsensical. And then there are many other things that we improperly judge to be impossible for no other reason than that they don’t conform to our established ideas about how the world normally goes <Hume called these ‘matters of fact’>.

Matters of fact constitute one of two categories into which Hume sorted the things about which people make inquiries and exercise their reason. The other category is relations of ideas. Relations of ideas pertain to the truths of mathematics <2 + 2 = 4>, pure logic <frogs are frogs> and “every affirmation that is either intuitively or demonstrably certain.”

Therefore Hume suggests because the negation of any true statement of this sort is impossible it’s unimaginable <like 2 + 2 could add up to anything but 4>.

Anyway. Imagination is essential to this type of thinking – Alice’s as well as the young. In many ways imagination is the same as … yet opposite at exactly the same time … reality. Just as the impossible is simply some warped version of possible.

This may all sound absurd … as does anything that seems impossible. Impossible rationally discussed remains in the impossible category, unfortunately, it is only when you think irrationally that impossible becomes … well … possible.

How absurd is that?

Ambrose Pierce wrote in the Devil’s Dictionary: Absurdity – A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one’s own opinion.

That which is deemed impossible is often simply a thought encapsulated within one’s own opinion.

Which is nonsensical in itself.

Making sense of the nonsensical is serious stuff. And it takes some imaginative thinking. Because, frankly, most nonsense about ‘impossible’ is actually provisional … circumstantial. In other words … change the circumstances and you can often discern a completely new & unexpected rule of cause and effect which ultimately makes the initial impossible … well … possible.cWe often get frustrated by that which we expect just to ‘be’ as we challenge what we understand is the natural order of the world or the ‘accepted rules of what is … and what will be … if you follow this thinking.”

I know it is frustrating to me <but I like ‘impossible things’>.

All that said.

It makes the everyday world is frustrating to those who challenge impossible things because this type of thinking challenges most people’s desire to fit experiences in a logical framework where they can not only make sense of the relationship between cause and effect but also draw up a list of rules to insure impossible is clearly defined <and can be avoided>. And, yet, a quest for true knowledge would suggest ignoring those ‘impossible rules’ as often as is feasible.

<that all made my head hurt>

Ok. Back to Alice as an example. Alice is on a quest for true knowledge. Wonderland <or youth> is a place where one can release inhibitions, to release preconceptions of ideas and to start really questioning to gain true wisdom and … I assume … true knowledge.

In its youthful insanity, in its complete separation from the world of adults, one can begin the long journey to true knowledge and defining truth in that impossible things are often quite readily possible.

Making the possible from the impossible is a journey. With obstacles and twists and turns … and often some discussions that will make your head spin like the girl in The Exorcist and spew forth green stuff:

In fact … Alice shares a discussion like this:

“… I believe I can guess that,” (Alice) added aloud.

“Do you mean that you think you can find out the answer to it?” said the March Hare.

“Exactly so,” said Alice.

“Then you should say what you mean,” the March Hare went on.

“I do,” Alice hastily replied, “at least – at least I mean what I say – that’s the same thing, you know.”

“Not the same thing a bit!” said the Hatter.  “Why, you might just as well say that ‘I see what I eat’ is the same thing as ‘I eat what I see’!”

“You might just as well say,” added the March Hare, “that ‘I like what I get’ is the same as ‘I get what I like’!”

“You might just as well say,” added the Dormouse, which seemed to be talking in its sleep, “that ‘I breathe when I sleep’ is the same thing as ‘I sleep when I breathe’!”

“It is the same thing to you,” said the Hatter, and here the conversation dropped, and the party sat silent for a minute, while Alice thought over all she could remember …

Whew. What a delightful episode in Wonderland or, uhm, is this a business meeting I was in?

We older folk can twist words using preconceived thoughts to design impossibilities better than anyone. And the young struggle to unwind the tangled web of reasoning because ‘impossible’ is a roadblock they aren’t willing to admit exists until they actually run into it.

The young rarely hesitate to discard preconceptions <those roadblocks> when they come across situations that seem to obviously refute them. In their youthful vim & vigor they display a consistent readiness to encounter reality on their own terms. An attribute, or character trait, essential in the discovery of truth … and the abolition of the impossible <we older folk have stated as truth>.

Obviously I am overstating the youth versus older folk. Because we older folk don’t come up with our ‘that is impossible’ crap willy nilly. Our ‘matters of fact’ beliefs are based on what we have experienced — seen, smelled, touched, and tasted. It is impossible <oops … didn’t mean to use that word there> to observe a future objectively this way. It was Hume who suggested that the only reason we don’t think that the world will radically change tomorrow is that it hasn’t ever changed in this way before.

It was also Hume who believed all of our beliefs about ‘unobserved matters’ rest on the one key assumption that the future will resemble the past.

This may sound irrational but there is no rational way of convincing someone they are wrong about this or, as a corollary, that tomorrow will be different.

You are stuck. Stuck in what is possible and the impossible behind some door you cannot see behind.

<back to Alice>

What does Alice do in this case? She literally opens the door for herself.

“What am I to do?”

The Frog Footman’s response … “anything you like.” The response opens up all possibilities. She has the power to do anything she wants. She has the opportunity to define what is possible. Possibilities are like opening a door that you have either been told will not open or you hesitate to open because of some preconceived notion <like in Alice’s case … she seeks permission>.

Anyway <here is the big close>.

The Duchess keenly observed, “Everything’s got a moral, if only you can find it.”

The moral of this rant/observation/babble?

Geez.

I am not sure I am qualified to offer a moral to this story. But maybe a thought on the impossible <or a couple of thoughts>.

First thought.

While there are certainly ‘impossible’ things there are far more possible things than we believe. In fact, maybe the problem is that most of us struggle with the infiniteness of possibilities and therefore seek to expand the ‘impossible’ to decrease the possible <and make it slightly more palatable and less stressful>.

Sound nuts? No more nuts than arguing something is impossible only to find out somebody made it possible.

Second thought.

Logical thinking about impossibilities is actually illogical <if you want to think about it effectively>.

Logical thinking shouldn’t see possible or impossible but rather possible but inappropriate actions and decision.

I say this because we are ultimately confronted by an infinite number of possibilities. Sometimes we can resolve them through simple rules and yet sometimes we need additional rules to decide which of the simple rules to use.

And when completely unfamiliar situations arise we have to imagine new rules <or use what has been believed in the past> that include or discount the previous ones therefore either redefining rules or creating new ones <in a never ending cycle>. Using that kind of logic … the only mistakes we can truly make are in our application of rules … choosing one over another. Maybe the only mistake is to believe something is impossible.

Third thought.

Impossible is all about fear. Yup. Because the possible is comfortable. It is the known. It is the pleasant company of friends in a warm comfortable room with your favorite drink in hand speaking of this and that. The impossible is the unexpected factor. It is … well … fear.

Fear as the sudden shattering discovery of a reality that while it may only decide to reveal itself at the moment … has always been present, simply unseen, in your warm comfortable room. It is a fear embodied in a crushing end of an ignorance … or simply an uncomfortable disruption of easy comfort. Impossible means being swept into a vast emptiness of bottomless black depths of oceans where, as you are driven deep, you have the unpleasant certainty that your feet are far from any steady ground. It is a fear in which unlike a dream <or nightmare> you are unsure you will awake and see the familiar you left behind when you fell asleep.

Enough poetic descriptive … impossible is about fear. And overcoming it.

Anyway.

Remember <please>.

In order to explain and clearly define ‘what is possible’ <therefore by doing so … by a process of elimination … defining a set of ‘what is impossible’> someone needs to … well … do the impossible.

Which begs me to conclude with some words from my friends at TopModels:

‘Begin by stopping.

Stop believing every study you read.

Stop believing every platitude <capitalism needs growth, education is the key, etc.>.

Stop believing there is such a thing as objectivity – you will always find somebody who thinks exactly the opposite is ‘objectively true.’

Start to be curious – and critical – about the attitudes <and beliefs> of others and about your own.”

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

“But today’s society is characterized by achievement orientation, and consequently it adores people who are successful and happy and, in particular, it adores the young.

It virtually ignores the value of all those who are otherwise, and in so doing blurs the decisive difference between being valuable in the sense of dignity and being valuable in the sense of usefulness.”

―

Viktor E. Frankl

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

“The world has changed so much.

You’re either doing really well and everyone expects you should leave to take what they perceive to be a better job – or you’re not doing well and you should get fired.

The job is a good fit.  You do a quality job, be successful, you have good times and great times – the overwhelming feeling in our country is you can’t do that. That’s not possible.

You either need to be climbing or you need to get fired.”

——

Ben Jacobson <the basketball head coach of Northern Iowa Panthers>

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

(originally written in 2015)

So.

I am all for outcomes.

I am also all for ‘valiant attempts’ and I certainly believe trying is significantly more important than not trying … but … at some point … you gotta have some results.

That said. The pendulum in society has swung all the way over to achievement matters. In fact we are in a society where the Value of a person seems to be either driven solely by their outcomes/results or weighted so heavily by the outcomes/results that the effort portion, how hard & how you ‘play the game’, has minuscule value.

That’s bad. Bad for society. Bad for Life lessons. Bad for business. Just bad. It is bad because that means many people will ignore the price they will pay to achieve the outcome because the outcome, in and of itself, will contain all the value.

Yeah. Think about that. Taken to an extreme that would mean the attempt has zero value and trying & failing has zero, if not negative, value.

Ok. That is bad.

======

“But he did not understand the price.  Mortals never do.

They only see the prize, their heart’s desire, their dream … but the price of getting what you want, is getting what you once wanted.”

Neil Gaiman

=====

This thought becomes even worse , for society, because it also suggests “what are we willing to do to get what we want” is a zero sum game. What do I mean? Well. You are willing to do anything it takes to get what you want <the achievement>. The hell with rules … they are for people who don’t value achievement enough.

“The hell with guardrails and guidelines! They are for people who are scared to do what it takes.” This attitude cleverly steals away freedom of choice in that it suggests the only choice is the one that ensures achievement. This attitude strips choices of anything truly worthwhile like dignity and respect and humanity because all of those things are not criteria for what is the ultimate value – the result or outcome.

I say all this because by recognizing the enemy, by recognizing the issue or the problem, I can choose to face it. I would suggest that everything can be taken from you but one thing — the freedom to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances and to choose one’s own way in doing things. I would suggest that between any beginning and any end, or outcome; let’s just say that there is a space. And in that space is our power to choose what to do, how to do it and maybe even how to respond to whatever shit happens in that space.

I would argue within that space lies our growth and our freedom and, well, our value. And I believe more of our value is derived from that space than any outcome or number of achievements we will ever make.

I would argue that while achievement actually had three components <a> the initial step into the attempt itself, <b> the ‘space’ or whatever takes place in-between the step that begins and the final step that represents an acceptance that an outcome has occurred and <c> the result itself … it is the wretched hollow in between that defines not only the outcome but who and what we are as a person.

Now. To be clear. All three phases deserve personal credit.

Deciding to make the attempt, to take the step and try, is commendable.

Doing your best during the attempt is commendable.

And an outcome, failure or success, if you have done the best you can do … is commendable.

I am simply saying, should you follow through on all components, that it is the ‘space in between’ that ultimately creates the value.

Regardless. I would argue that we need to remind society of this and businesses for sure. And while this societal attitude may be doing is darndest to blur the decisive difference between being valuable in the sense of dignity and being valuable in the sense of usefulness I tend to believe the rising younger generation of workers, doers and thinkers are sensing the value in “the space”.

I tend to believe that the rising younger generation not only senses, but seeks; you can maintain dignity and achieve usefulness in terms of outcomes. We older folk shouldn’t suffocate this attitude and rather breathe Life into that belief <and empower it so that they can maybe create a generation of business better than the one we created>.

Look.

Results do matter. Achieving an outcome is important. And ‘winning’ is always preferable to ‘losing.’ But none of these things should ever come at the expense of dignity, respect and honor.

Achieving with dignity.

Winning with respect.

An honorable outcome.

That should be the definition of an outcome generation … not just ‘achieve, win, outcome above all.’

<insert a sigh here>

I have been trying to avoid using Trump as an example of shit that I write about, but on this topic it is difficult to not do so.

Trump embodies value solely found in outcome <or win>.

Trump embodies the wretchedness of ‘soulless competition.’

Trump embodies winning is all that matters <at the expense of everything else>.

I say that because if society is challenged in its current ‘achievement is all that matters’ focus we will now have as our main role model the epitome of ‘achievement is all that matters.’ For anyone who believes that how you win matters, like I, this is going to be a day in/day out battle for the soul of society.

Everyone deserves to win.

Everyone should have the opportunity to win.

Everyone should experience ‘win.’

But. Everyone needs to remember that the value of ‘the win’ is not in the win itself but rather in the space that exists between that first step and the actual outcome.

In the end.

The pendulum in society has certainly swing way over to achievement orientation and not with any real benefit (that I can discern) with regard to increased, or even enhanced, outcomes & results. In fact. It seems like in our enthusiasm for results we have stripped the meaning out of any results we have actually achieved. To me, that seems like hollow achievement which then translates into a hollowing of society on a grander scale. Yes. This is leading to a grander narrative around Purpose & meaningfulness but it would behoove us to have a tough discussion over achievements & how we have an unhealthy fixation on achievements in society.

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

“If you answer your own question, you’ve lost.”

—-

Peter Bregman

===========

Narcissist: n 

someone who is excessively preoccupied with themselves.

===========

“… is Donald Trump an intellectual?” Trust me. I’m like a smart person.”

——

Donald Trump at CIA

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

“Our brains are wired to reward us for talking about ourselves.

But droning on about yourself is a horrible way to make a good impression.”

—

Lydia Dishman

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

So.

In my career I was never particularly good at ‘selling myself’ or ‘reporting on oneself’ as I am referring to it today. I always believed I shouldn’t have to talk about anything I had achieved … that the work, the thinking and the outcomes would speak for themselves.

From a career success standpoint that was most likely a significant flaw in my style.

From a business consultant standpoint that was most likely a significant plus in my thinking.

I don’t care who you are or what business you are in at some point someone better be talking about you. If they are not that means either you are a ‘nothing’ in the scheme of things or you are doing great things but doomed because no one knows.

That means at some point you have to get the word out.

That means every business, and every business leader, will sit down and say “I have all these things I want to say about myself/my business and I want to say them” – this could be to the general public, peers or even customers.

Now.

While I tend to think the whole concept of ‘the customer is king/queen’ is slightly misguided … at its most basic foundational core it simply suggests that if you aren’t paying attention to the customer and only paying attention to yourself you are not only implementing a narcissistic approach but one most likely doomed for failure.

But … in order to build value you have to often tell them some things about yourself and what you are doing <and not just in response to their questions or requests>.

In business you learn this lesson fairly fast <because to not do so can smack you in the face quickly> if you want to build value beyond ‘order taker.’

Dialogue, or at least some version of ‘listening & responding’ and “give & take”, is actually a fairly natural thing for us to do. Science says that humans, being social animals, are programmed to use communication as a vital tool to survive and thrive.

Uh oh.

But research also tells us something else.

Research also tells us that our favorite subject to discuss is … uhm … ourselves.

People spend 60% of their conversations talking about themselves

<80% when on social media>

The reason why is fairly understandable … it feels good <that is from real research not just my opinion>.

In fact … Harvard psychologists discovered that individuals were willing to give up money for the opportunity to talk about themselves.

Okay.

I tend to believe we all know that the ideal conversation should be a give and take where it is around a 50/50 split on words and sharing.

Uh oh.

The problem with that?

That not only means staying quiet half the time … but actually listening during that time.

That is a double whammy tough challenge for anyone.

But you know what?

If you have been in business for any amount of time you get it … you may not like it … it may not come naturally … but you understand it is a vital tool for being successful in business.

This all leads me to my topic today … how do you share news about yourself given all that I just said?

Most people understand this but, in terms of believability and building some ongoing ‘brand value’, it really does matter who says what.

I stated this in a white paper I wrote years ago:

And a quick note on Who has permission to say What.

 

The ability to make your brand a megaphone for this group of people is mostly about who you are as a brand already in their minds. A brand is a set of convictions that surround a product or service in the Consumer’s mind. These convictions are created through genuine involvement – a participation with this product or service either mentally or physically. Now, people like brands. They like having a comfortable relationship where there is a certain amount of trust. Maybe it is simply that with all the decisions we are forced to make every day it is nice to know there is one less decision to be made.

Because of this relationship a consumer has with a brand there are some things a brand just cannot say. Or I imagine they can say anything they want, but as in any relationship, they need to understand the repercussions of that communication. Just like a husband telling his wife “you look fat” (and the response that generates) as well as a wife telling a husband “you are mentally disturbed” (and what makes you credible to tell me that!) there are ranges of things a brand can tell the consumer and be credible.

Pushing, lecturing or forcing are rarely effective no matter the relationship but even more so when the brand – consumer relationship is suspect (or unclear).

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

Suffice it to say … when you decide to report on some shit you have done you also have acknowledge that everybody carries around a set of perceptions about you <whether you are a brand or not>.

What I mean by that is the moment I stand up in front of people almost everyone in the room will be filtering through what they know about me, what they think about me and what they may be open to believing about me.

That’s just the way it is <whether you like it or not>.

I say that because if you want to report on how you are doing and what you are doing … well … you have to think about how to go about doing it. And, no, it is not a easy as stepping up in front of people and just reporting.

I would suggest there are basically three avenues with regard to who is going to say what you want to not only say … but what will actually be heard.

• Offer the news yourself <giving yourself credit>.

This is the worst option. This offers the narrowest path to successfully communicating anything good about yourself.

Too humble and it sounds disingenuous, possibly that you are hiding something, sometimes suggests there is nothing to say or simply doesn’t offer enough detail to make what you say meaningful.

Too confident and it sounds hollow, unbelievable, hyperbole and possibly you are hiding something <usually something bad>.

Most of us who have had some success in business believe no one can explain what we have done better than ourselves. We would, 99% of the time, be wrong.

Before his Oval Office meeting with Theresa May, Friday morning began with a tweet – the @Potus account used to quote himself, with an embedded video of himself, while citing his own personal Twitter account.

Tooting your own horn, giving yourself credit … no matter how humble you try and spin it … will most likely earn, at best, 50% of the true value of the achievement. Yeah. I just made that formula up … but it sound about right.

Truth & candor is elusive on this path — even if you are truly speaking truth with candor. Everything you say about yourself, through your own mouth, immediately gets filtered thru a colander of skepticism. If you don’t realize that by the time you have hit middle management you are either clueless or you don’t care.

• Have someone who obviously works for you offer the news <and credit you>.

This is semi-effective. Significantly better than standing up and saying it yourself but when delivered by a paid employee it is always viewed thru a cynical filter. Listeners will be skeptical but dialogue, questions & answers, can truly make or break this avenue.

That doesn’t mean it cannot be effective and, in fact, if you have a fabulous authentic spokesperson this can be a gangbuster way of sharing news.

Truth and candor wins the day for you on this. If your spokesperson is elusive or has a dubious relationship with truth you are screwed. If your spokesperson is credible, truthful and authentic … your wins will be lauded as wins and your losses/mistakes will be viewed more favorably <you earn points for the attempt>.

• Say nothing yourself, have your people say nothing <or little> and have a 3^rd party offer the news <and credit you>.

This is the most credible and, frankly, the most truthful if you are seeking to know how you are doing as a leader. Unsolicited credit is the most powerful. This is tricky because if not encouraged there is only silence. Too much encouragement and it appears to be biased or “paid for” endorsements. But nothing makes you more credible, your achievements more valued and your thinking more appreciated than if someone, unsolicited, gives you credit.

Ok.

Moving on.

Look.

Leaders, if they are worth half a shit, always question themselves and maybe even encounter a sliver of self-doubt on occasion. And depending on your personality you will manage those feelings in a variety of ways. Overall, more often than not, a leader will err on the side of defending their character, decisions and direction like they are in a cage match. Uhm. Not a lot of listening but rather aggressive “telling what you know about you, your character, your decision and your direction.”

In doing this it is always tempting to create a ‘majority’ in your head which supports whatever you report about yourself <mostly because most good sane business people really do think fairly rigorously about the shit they do> but unless you are a deaf bombastic asshole … you know that the majority of people will have at least a sliver of questioning with regard to whatever you say and do.

And even then … even if you fuck up the whole “let me share some news about myself and why I know what I am doing and why I am great” stuff … typically most business people recognize that they … well … have to recognize the listener … have to recognize the receiver of this self-reporting.

Now.

If you actually have some listeners you need to recognize that you have … most sane business leaders always remember to 100% avoid two things:

• “I don’t have respect for you” attitude.

If you are a sales person who has been promoted, you almost always respect the sales department more and the accounting department with … well … less respect. Or maybe the legal or HR department isn’t your favorite. Well. It doesn’t matter. You manage them all. Agree or disagree your job as a leader is to get everyone in line and going in the right direction at the fastest effective pace. Simply saying “go” just doesn’t hack it. And not respecting other departments, or anyone for that matter, doesn’t really help you communicate what may be important to you <because if they do not feel important they will treat you & your words similarly – not important>.

• “You need me more than I need you” attitude.

Great leaders never tangibly communicate a symbiotic relationship but the net response for what they state suggests a positive symbiotic relationship. That said. A sociologist named Charles Derber identified something called Conversational Narcissism.

Conversational Narcissism suggests that the speaker elevates themselves to a place wherein they are at the top of the hierarchy <however hierarchy is defined>. “The best schools” and “the best teachers” and self-proclaimed “very intelligent” and having one of “the best IQs” would be some of the signs. Attitudinally this suggests they need you more than you need them.

Well.

Every business person with half a brain knows, whether they like it or not, they need all those people to make it all happen and work and create the desired outcomes.  No man is an island. We need people.

Diminishing those you are going to need is never a particularly good strategy.

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

It’s dangerous talking about yourself too much because you find yourself talking in sound bites.

—-

Emily Mortimer

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

Anyway.

People, in general, are skeptical of progress and success until it is not only apparent but has been established <so they know it is going to stay in some form or fashion>. They feel exactly the same way about your achievements. I mention that because the timing of communicating achievements matters.

Unfortunately, in business, there are times when you want to announce a win or success or achievement faster than you really should because it seems like “we need a win.”  Don’t do it.

Here is a business truth.

Success and achievements are like all those pistons and hoses and mumbo jumbo under the hood of your car. If your car is tuned up and working the way it should the car goes, gets you where it should go and maybe even gets you their faster than some other people on occasion. Personally I believe in reporting on oneself you should never refer to oneself … always refer to the car. Because if the car is doing what it needs to do enough … well … you are gonna get some credit at some point.

By the way … if you are a business leader and a lot of what I shared today is news to you … well … you are either clueless or you don’t care.

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

“The human condition can almost be summed up in the observation that, whereas all experiences are of the past, all decisions are about the future.

It is the great task of human knowledge to bridge this gap and to find those patterns in the past which can be projected into the future as realistic images.”

====

Kenneth E. Boulding

——————————–

“Sureness will always elude you.

The detective will always circle around what he wants, never seeing it whole.

We do not go on despite this. We go on because of it.”

=====

Sara Gran

—————————-

Well.

We business folk talk a shitload about innovation. Shit. Even I have written some bullshit about ‘innovation being the lifeblood of any ongoing business’ <in my defense I may actually have anchored that thought by suggesting “restless thinking” itself is the lifeblood of any ongoing business>.

Innovation is one of those broadly defined words which people grab onto whenever they want to sound … well … like they are representing some fresh thinking <versus the old way of doing things>. And while that may be so innovation is significantly different between an entrepreneur and an established company. Well. they may be the same in intent but they tend to have different challenges in order to reach the intent.

That said.

I have said it before and I will say it again <and again> that innovation whether you are an entrepreneur, a start up or an existing business is very very <very> rarely associated with anything ‘outside some box’ but rather assessing, evaluating, analyzing that which is WITHIN the box in an unconventional way.

It is mostly about looking at the patterns and things of the past and project out to some envisioned future state.

And, inevitably, while we blab about innovations and innovators we start creating some weird perception that innovators are some different people who live somewhere outside of whatever box the rest of us live in therefore can see shit we cannot see. In this alternative business universe to be an innovator you must naturally be a disruptor.

Simplistically this suggests the business world naturally evolves into enablers and disruptors.

It’s crazy. And … well … it is wrong.

Here is a business truth.

The great thinkers and innovators live right inside the same box as the rest of us. They see the same shit as we do. They do not necessarily take more risks than we do and they do not seem to embrace chaos very well.

In fact.

The best business problem solvers are not innovators nor do they invest a lot of energy discussing innovation.

Rather.

They understand the proper roles of experiences, they don’t make trite statements like “if we don’t look to the past we are doomed to make the same mistake” and they do their creative thinking inherently.

While it may not be popular to state … they are simply a different type of enabler. They enable what could be to … well … be.

And while there is another weird perception that they are mad scientists who dream up insanely imaginative ideas … I would suggest:

• They know what they’re doing.
• They know how they’re doing it.
• They know why they’re doing it.

In other words.

They are not making shit up. They are not finding anything outside of any box. They simply use what exists in a different way.

But they don’t necessarily call it innovation. In fact … many of these people get confused when it is called innovation. To them it is simply grasping the patterns of the past, recognizing the experiences that matter, and deciding that something that should be done that … well … matters.

The whole idea of being called some “Innovator” often confuses them because to them it is simply aligning information and ideas that matter. Innovation sometimes confuses them because they simply see it as enabling past learnings & patterns to come to Life <just in a different way to you & I>.

<You can typically uncover the ‘innovation posers’ by the fact they call themselves ‘out of the box thinkers’ and call the thinking they do ‘innovative>

They also have an innate ability to see outwards, to see what could be and, yet, question what is yet to be.

And the good ones?

Their ideas are never really in some clear ‘that’s impossible’ space … they all have at least a glimmer of ‘possible’ somewhere within. I imagine this is so because there is always something of ‘patterns of the past’ inherent in their so-called innovative idea. There is always a healthy aspect of enabling some aspect of the status quo or ‘what there is to work with.’

But you know what they all have in common?

Some good experience and an innate ability to make some decisions based off of some relatively disparate information <most of the information reflects what is existing>. In other words … they are really really good at asking the inevitable and ‘oft-asked’ question in business … what must be true to make it work?”

—————————-

“Failing to strengthen an idea by throwing tough questions at it is a disservice to the idea itself. The key question is “what must be true for that to work?”

It’s a powerful question that quickly separates high-potential ideas from the blizzard of distracting ideas that can result in lost traction.

Ideas are not treated as precious pearls to be polished but as sparks born of friction.”

===

Mark Payne

———-

“There are so many good ideas that get thrown out for being “too unrealistic” when, in reality, they might just need some tweaking and a little creative thinking to give them legs to stand on. If the idea is good enough and will deliver excellent ROI in the end, it might be worth a little extra time, effort and money up front.

So, sit down with that “too-big” or “we can’t do that” idea and give it a chance. Write down all the things that need to be true for it to work; then, tackle those things one at a time until you have a sound, realistic frame for your concept.”

===

The Garage Group

———————

Anyway.

I imagine one of my most important points today is that innovative ideas are more likely to come from people we may think of traditionally as ‘enablers’ rather than some disruptive jerks running around trying to set the world on fire. And if you think about that <and maybe try and believe it> … well … think about the most basic enablers in your life.

• Do you know the name of the person who picks up your trash?
• Do you know the name of the person who stocks the shelves at the supermarket?
• Do you know the name of the person who made the bowl you put your cheerios in this morning?

These are the semi silent majority of enablers in our world. And while we far <far> too often take for granted the labor which keeps the world running we absolutely ignore these people as possible ‘disruptors.’

Enablers play an important role in the ecosystem of … well … things. Just google this thought and you will get a bunch of semi-intellectual writings on the ecosystem of how things are done and created and the role of enablers <versus “Engagers, Enhancers, and Embedders”> in the world of things.

It is a little embarrassing to see how we so easily slot people into some space.

And while I do believe some people are inherently better at thinking and critical decision making I do not believe that there are ‘innovators’ and ‘enablers.’

Look.

We certainly need “maintainers” to keep the world going and stuff appearing on shelves for us to buy and to make shit for us to use … but that doesn’t mean they are not also capable of ‘innovating.’ To me … enablers, maintainers and disruptors are all 99% the same.

Not everyone wants to assume the innovator or a disruptor mantle but that doesn’t mean they aren’t capable of contributing. And I also do not believe it is wrong to believe your Life “dream” is a steady typical hour workday, with a reasonable commute, making enough to afford a home, food, healthcare, education for their kids and a little more to have some small luxuries … in other words … okay with not being rich, but not okay with being poor. In other words … slotting yourself into some self accepted ‘enabler’ status.

In fact … I would suggest that those people are the engine that keeps the world running … they are “the enablers of all things” just as so-called ‘innovators’ are “the enablers of new things”.

Each plays their role to enable the world to actually work properly and enable ideas to flourish & leaders to do their gig successfully.

And you know what?

Each enabler, whatever their specific skill & experience is, will always circle around what he wants, never seeing it whole. We do not go on despite this. We go on because of it.

Sure.

The world is enamored by ‘leaders’ and ‘disruptors’ and whatever seemingly unconventional thing is out there. But what if we stopped being enamored by ‘out of the box’ crap thinking and simply suggested all of those milling around inside the box will enable that which needs to be done and will create that which will be done <implementing & ideation>. If we do that then … well … it kind of seems like we have the experience on hand to decide what makes the world work and ultimately reject the crappy things that just clog up the engine.

I admit.

I get tired of all the disruption and innovation talk. And I can honestly say I have worked with maybe the best packaged goods innovation team in the world and have certainly worked with some of the best, most talented & smartest, ‘disruptive thinking’ people in the world.

Yes.

The world.

What I can unequivocally say is that the best forward thinking ideas, startups/entrepreneurs/large company portfolio thinking, has all come from experienced thinking and not amateurish pie-in-the-sky thinking. The ideas are grounded in some ‘new view’ of existing patterns and a pragmatic view of unconventional thinking. And none of the ideas were outside of any box but a fresh way of creating something people want from things inside the box.

While I love young people and their minds and thinking … the best idea come with experience. That doesn’t mean that everyone with experience actually does come up with ideas … just that experience enables the best ideas.

And it is quite possible that experience enables you to navigate the ‘unsureness’ and permits you to go on despite it.

Oh.

And everyone is an enabler. Don’t forget that thought.

Mostly because the best of the best so-called innovators most typically see themselves not as innovators … just people who are enabling what could, and should, be.

……………………. Hugh McLeod …………………..

Ok.

Working in the marketing business I often find myself in some heated debates about whether advertising & marketing is “selling” (or it is often stated “oh, so you are in sales”).

Here is the answer. It’s not sales. It may not even be selling (in the traditional sense).

Sure.

Ultimately marketing & advertising wants to “sell stuff” but the craft of communications itself is not about selling.

Or convincing.

Or persuading (in some weird and creepy way) someone to do something they don’t want to really do.

Is it about “persuading” in the sense I want someone to “choose me!” to be on their wallet team? Sure.

Is it about persuading someone through some trickery to buy or do something that is bad for them? Nope.

Because in the end It is really about attitudes (creating or aligning to a ‘truth’ – a real truth not a made up one) and behavior (understanding why someone does something they do and inserting a choice into their existing behavior … and sometimes modifying that behavior if you can truly offer something better for them as an alternative).

So marketing & advertising is really about informing so someone can make a choice – whatever is the best choice for them.

Therefore. Marketing & advertising is not in the selling business.

It is in the choice business.

And while choices have dollars & cents attached to them and features & benefits and all that truly functional crap … a person’s final choice preference is never any of those things. A choice may be made based on them (that truly functional crap) but typically it is only made that way for lack of an alternative. And that is why communicating “choice” is an art. Because communicating choice is about education and emotion and, well, hope.

Because the bottom line is that people want to make the choice that gives them the most hope.

Now.

That may sound hopelessly lofty but its not. In fact it is what marketing & advertsing & frankly just about any consumer business is all about.

We are in the hope business.

Hope of something (it doesn’t have to be some big audacious hope … sometimes it can just simply be some small glimmer of hope in an otherwise hopeless day).

Yes.

This is truth (and some businesses may cry & weep & gnash their teeth … yes, I just wanted to type gnash).

People don’t really want cheaper prices.

People don’t really want better technology.

People don’t really want faster answers.

People don’t really want more time.

People don’t cooler features or more flashing widgets.

People even don’t really want more money at the end of the month.

None of that really matters to customers.

They want hope.

They want to know that they are going to be ok.

And they want to know that it can get better for themselves.

In a world where natural disasters wipe away lives in a second and leaders make decisions that take billions of dollars from hard working saving & investing people the only thing people can truly hold onto is a belief of something better.

Yet.

In our ROI-driven marketing world we not only seem content to pretend that a “faster, cheaper, better” is what people want but we also relentlessly pursue ineffective marketing communicatiosn initiatives expounding upon a litany of usefless features and functional doo-dads.

And we are wrong. Dead wrong.

People want hope.

In a lot of ways ‘the people’ are no different than you & I (because oddly enough we are people also).

They want to be listened to.

They don’t want to be lied to.

They don’t want you to talk over them.

They want you to validate their concerns.

They want their questions answered.

They don’t want you to ignore them.

They want you to inspire them.

They don’t want a sales pitch.

They don’t want you to be annoying.

They don’t want to hear about you.

They do want a distraction from real life.

They don’t want to be pressured.

They want to know that you have problems too.

They want a consistent partner.

They don’t want you to fake it.

They want truth in answers (the first time & every time).

They don’t want you to tell them what they want to hear.

They want to feel like you care.

They want you to hear what they aren’t saying.

And most importantly …

They want more than what they have (not materialistically but “happinesswise”)

They want more than what they expect (not just functionally but in life)

They want something better (not just functionally but in life)

They want optimism (based on truth not blarney).

So.

Enough of that.

People want hope.

(that is the common denominator in all the things I just typed)

And if you aren’t providing that in your marketing you … will …. not … be … successful.

Sure.

You can buy some sales and a “consumer relationship” with lowest prices & coupons and cool features and some functional widgetry but those people aren’t buying “you” they are buying the ‘feature of the day.”

In my words? You have bought a date not a relationship.

And you have missed an opportunity to be a hero. Instead you are a salesman.

You have missed an opportunity to have offered,and given, hope.

C’mon. be honest with yourself as you read this.

Think of all the times that were hoping that someone really cared about how bad you hurt inside. Or recognized the pain.

So ii guess if you really feel like you have to ‘sell’ … then sell hope.

Because as Hugh Macleod drew in his cartoon at the beginning of this post … if you can sell hope you can get someone to buy anything.