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

But resounding with the truth of things prophesied,

But of things with truth resounds

Но    вещей    правдою  звучат

No v’eshchej   pravdoju   zvuchat

Its lips are covered with blood!

Lips covered with blood

Уста, запекшиеся  кровью!

Usta, zap’vekshi’esa krovju!

——

Ophelia’s Song: Alexander Bok

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

“Beyond a doubt truth bears the same relation to falsehood as light to darkness.”

–

Leonardo da Vinci

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

59squared.

3,481.

3481squared.

12,117,361.

12,117,361squared.

1.5 billion.

That’s three degrees and I am at almost 1/5^th of the entire world. Yeah.  The numbers are really not that neat, but you get the point. With a single event, a single death, one person can set off a chain of events that will affect hundreds of thousands, millions and even billions of people.

Some people call this “6 degrees of separation” <although I showed it to you as only 3>. I didn’t make up the squared concept. In some form or fashion it reflects the truth of the internet of things and connectedness and it shows the likelihood that the majority of us have some connection to any event in which 5, 59 or 559 people are part of.

I say this because it makes a lot of things, well, personal.  The main point here is that a person now has access and is aware of more people <true friends as well as web based friends> and can have more frequent communication due to the ‘digital revolution’.

Yet.

Social media is simply the fact that the traditional benefits of an acquaintance network <personal or professional> and friendships can be more expansively realized than before <it amplifies>. This means that truth resounds more quickly & clearly & bluntly than ever before. The other truth is that our own experiences, and Life, can then be at the mercy of crowds of friends & acquaintances — crowds providing unsolicited input & feedback & experiences all influencing hordes of additional people’s thoughts on a daily basis. This means whether you are present in one place, or not, you can be impacted in the present place you stand. You are a nomad in which the world remains your home.

Our world is now one large network consisting of two basic things – people and connections. And while many times we look at this as some forced or constructed network <Facebook, twitter, etc. provides hubs and constructs> the reality is that most people networks & connections are organically constructed. So while we like to draw out nice symmetrical shapes to define how connections work and networks are constructed the reality is that networks are more often not symmetrical.

The unique patterns in the connections determine the shapes. We reach out in asymmetrical ways to places, events and thoughts and bring them near in seconds. In addition the ties between the connections can be complicated – spanning from intense or passive.

In the business world we try to characterize networks and connections in a variety of ways. The trouble is that people are not that orderly and certainly not stagnant and they actively reshape their connections, interests and networks all the time.

But I am not here to discuss how the internet can, or cannot, affect personal relationships or a sense of individual isolation but rather this is a thought on how the internet can make things, and Life … well … smaller.

On most days the ‘quasi-truth’ that resounds in the echo chambers of what we talk about and ‘think we know’ is that the internet is isolating us … disconnects us from reality and social interaction.

So … is it possible that the internet increases connection and decreases connection at exactly the same time? Yup. The Internet connects and it isolates.

The usual assumption that most of us make about our computing and communication environment is that we are ‘always’ connected. Indeed, most of us are ‘nomads’ when it comes to computing and communications. We live in a disconnected world much of the time as we travel between our office, home, airport, hotel, car, coffee shop, bedroom, etc. We now recognize that access to computing and communications is necessary not only from one’s `home base’, but also while one is in transit and/or when one reaches one’s destination.

It is an anytime, anywhere access world. It is also, paradoxically, a ‘be anywhere at any time’ world.

That is the connected aspect which creates the whole disconnected aspect.

Well. Let’s just say we feel slightly disconnected in a connected way, of course, until something happens that tightens all the lines of connection.

It is within moments like that where the supposed 6 degrees of separation becomes less degrees and more links all of a sudden the 59squared aspect of connectedness occurs.

The world gets smaller … in fact … really fucking small.

We are brought together and something that happens to 5 people, maybe 59 people, or even 559 people, becomes an experience within our own grasp.

Which brings me back to truth and resounding.

The majority of our social networking constructs today are on the internet <or have a foundation on the internet>. Simplistically, we, the people, are connecting via the internet. What this means is that the internet muffles or amplifies our voices, events and truth <as well as lies unfortunately>.

What this means is that … well … an event, a moment, a death, an injury, resounds … resounds as in 59squared.

What THAT means is we have to face a truth whether we want to or not. Now. At that point we have a choice – see what we face or don’t see what we face. And if we refuse to face it we will remain disconnectedly connected in our little asymmetrical networks of friends & acquaintances.

That was a sad sentence to type.

At this point, my conclusion, I imagine it may be relevant to remind everyone of 59squared and the fact that I can do one thing, one right thing … or one wrong thing … and it will resound.

Choose your ‘one thing’ wisely.

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

Up to a point a man’s life is shaped by environment, heredity, and the movements and changes in the world around him. Then there comes a time when it lies within his grasp to shape the clay of his life into the sort of thing he wishes to be. Only the weak blame parents, their race, their times, lack of good fortune, or the quirks of fate.

Everyone has it within his power to say, ‘This I am today; that I will be tomorrow.’

The wish, however, must be implemented by deeds.”

–

Louis Lamour

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

So. This is about living Life and personal velocity (progress with momentum). I have written about self esteem and self image and living life, but until now I have never found a quote that summarizes a belief I have always had lurking in the back of my head.

“Then there comes a time when it lies within his grasp to shape the clay of his life into the sort of thing he wishes to be.”

How awesome is that? (pretty awesome)

It is absolutely true that a lot of what may hold us back from our dreams, or maybe more importantly, being whatever it is we want to be isn’t our fault <or in our control>. Life throws a shitload of shit at us and a lot of it is completely out of our control. It would be foolish to not recognize that.

But.

The days when nothing seems to go right.

The days where dreams seemed to have vanished.

The days where ‘not drowning’ is the focus instead of ‘swimming.’

All those days are gonna happen – to all of us. And it is on these days where it becomes really really easy to focus on excuses. But. We do have power to shape our tomorrows. Ignore the excuses and recognize that even if circumstances make things difficult, improving things is NOT impossible.

Sure. Sometimes a little ingenuity is required.  Sometimes you almost have to trick circumstances. Sometimes you have to zig when Life zags and sometimes you have to take some risks and get a little lucky.

Which leads me to these words:

“That I am today; that I will be tomorrow.”

Absolutely … most people underestimate what they can do today.

Absolutely … most people over estimate what they can do tomorrow.

Despite that … it still comes down to two things: action and objectives.

Actions.

What I am tomorrow depends on what I do today. My actions today make me who I am tomorrow. You get it.
This is all about first step, baby. Takin’ that first step. You constantly hear “I’ll do it tomorrow”. And when it doesn’t happen tomorrow, it becomes the next tomorrow and the next and …. well … you get it (and I will explain why under objectives).

But. While you hear that … what is actually the truth? What do people really do? (and you just may not always see it)

Here is the truth behind actions and this thought. People who decide mentally to “do something” actually, uhm, do something. No shit. They do take action. They do begin to “shape the clay of their life to become what they want to be.” They do.

Then what is the problem?

Objectives.

Doing is often dependent upon how we view our objectives and this sometimes gets mired down in meeting the sometimes farcical absurd expectations in the mind. That said. Let me take a minute on ‘objectives.’  Scott H Young wrote in May 2006, in a piece called “Balancing Today and Tomorrow“, about a nifty concept called “velocity based thinking (or goal setting)” versus positional goals:

—————————

How is it possible to balance living in each moment and the concept of personal growth and improvement? Doesn’t personal development imply a certain dissatisfaction with where you are in life? At the very least, doesn’t an obsession with personal growth indicate that you are constantly living in the future, rather than enjoying each moment? How can we remove this apparent dichotomy and get the improvement we desire along with satisfaction now? In other words, how can we live for today and still strive for tomorrow?

The old position based paradigm told us to focus on where we are in life. If we have a big house, a nice family and are in good health, then we can be happy. If we are poor, miserable and alone then we are depressed. Pretty simple. In this paradigm, our main focus is on our current position.

Some take this position based thinking to a slightly higher level when they don’t think about where they are but where they are going. Instead these people draw their level of happiness from the position they feel they will be in the future. Although this is an improvement, the cost of being unsatisfied with today is simply too high a price to pay for this paradigm.

There is an alternative paradigm, however. This is a velocity based paradigm. In this paradigm, where you are doesn’t matter. It doesn’t even matter where you are going to end up. From this perspective, our focus not where we are going, but rather, the rate we are getting there. This perspective tells us that being homeless or a millionaire makes no difference. It is only the rate at which they are improving that distinguishes them.

The major distinction between a velocity based goal and a position based one is mostly in how you view the goal. Positional goals are usually viewed as a means to achieve something. If I set a goal to lose x pounds in three months, then what I am pursuing is the goal itself. Velocity based goals take a completely different approach. The purpose of a velocity based goal is to serve to direct, focus and amplify the growth you are experiencing right now.

Imagine life is like climbing an infinitely large cliff side. Positional thinking tells you to try and get as high up the cliff as you can. Positional goals are used to reach new plateaus on the cliff. Velocity based thinking tells us that getting really high up on the cliff is irrelevant given its infinite nature. Instead velocity based thinking tells us that the true experience of life has to come from the rate at which we are climbing the cliff. Sitting at one notch of the cliff for too long is boring and unsatisfying regardless of your height. Velocity based goals in this sense are not used to reach the plateaus themselves, these goals are used to encourage, push and measure the rate at which you are climbing.

The key difference between positional goals and velocity based goals is simple. If you fail to achieve a positional goal, this is usually very demotivating. This is often why so many new goal setters fail to continue with the practice. The pain of failing to achieve when you’ve tried your best is often too great. Velocity based goals remove this problem entirely. Because the goal was simply a servant of directing and pushing your own growth, as long as you know you were trying your best (maximum velocity possible) then the goal was successful regardless of whether you underestimated the deadline necessary.

A velocity based paradigm is actually far more effective in improving our position.

The reason is actually rather simple. Positional based thinking is built on the notion of competition. As a result, we strive to make leaps ahead in our position based on where we are compared to others. If we are on the top then we slow down, for what is the point of trying really hard when you are already in the lead? If we are on the bottom, negativity and pessimism often cripple our growth. Position based thinkers tend to only achieve a maximum velocity when they feel they need to increase their position, yet that positional increase is achievable. Velocity based thinking doesn’t have this weakness. People who truly live this ideal are at a maximal velocity all of the time. Being at the top or bottom holds no distinction to these people. Rich or poor, strong or weak, healthy or ill these people are always traveling at a speed which is the most they can possibly achieve.

—————————-

I have always been a Velocity believer but what I like about personal velocity is it isn’t about frickin’ milestones and moving up the ladder and crap like that. It is about actions and objectives in a “movement” framework. And movement at your own pace. Its not a competition, but rather just with a goal of improving personal being. Judging yourself against … well … yourself I guess.

And with that I get to complete the circle on this quote and thought:

“That I am today; that I will be tomorrow.”

The only really important word L’Amour uses throughout this thought is “I.”

It’s not about competition.

It’s not about goals and objectives.

It is about I. And what “I” wants <or needs>.

That said. Life is tough enough without having to have someone else tell you how to ‘progress’ personally. Go your own speed. Fuck what anyone says.

Sure. Business weighs you down with meaningless milestones & expectations all the time.

Sure. Society, in general, crams goals down your throat all the time.

And, sure, becoming who you want to be “tomorrow” takes lots and lots of work.

But. I would suggest you are actually minimizing your chances of success if you always go the speed of what everyone else is demanding of you. Maximizing your ‘self success’ is most likely found in finding, and going, your own velocity.

Anyhow.

I love this quote.

Love it mostly because I like the way it gives the truth instead of some pithy inspirational flippant quote. I like it because while it frames time in a today-tomorrow dimension it doesn’t say how fast it should be, or needs to be, done. You choose the velocity in which it happens.

This I am today, that I will be tomorrow. Words to live by.

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

edited from original post from August 2010

=======

“I am the sea and nobody owns me.”

Pippi Longstocking

======

i would fight myself if i could

(letthechipsfallwheretheymay)

========

So. “Not being owned” sounds like a simple thing. Yet. Over and over <and over> again we permit something, or someones, to own a part of you.

It can be direct or it can be indirect.

It can be consciously or subconsciously.

To be clear.

This is not a society thing <albeit society is a nasty twit on occasion>; this is a self thing.

And this is not a corruption thing <albeit money is a nasty twit on occasion> … this is a self thing.

So what do I mean by a self thing?

One of the very very few things you can actually control in life is “self ownership.”

Owning who you are as a person. Owning your integrity. Owning your character, dignity and moral compass. And, I imagine, owning your behavior & attitudes. These are all things clearly in your control. These are all things, clearly, you own.

Now. This ownership isn’t easy. It isn’t because what you own, well,  there are a shitload of people and things and Life are constantly seeking ways to steal it. Yeah. I said steal. They try to wrest all of, well, “you” out of your control so they can steal it and replace it with something they would prefer (or want).

Please note: I will also say owning a good security system will not do shit for you.

You need to learn self-defense. And by self defense I actually mean defending against your self <and not someone or something else>. You have to choose to fight – that is your choice.

Fight against some nasty instincts <which more often than not head you in the wrong direction>.

Fight against temptation <of which the world has an endless array it constantly parades in front of you>.

Fight against some internal mind games <think doubt, fear, acceptance, etc.>.

Regardless. Many of us flippantly state “I am my own person and nothing owns me” and, yet, under the glaring spotlight of truth & reality we will find that more of us is owned by someone or something than we would like.

So what do we do when that happens?

Many of us shrug our shoulders when faced with this harsh truth and say “those are not the important things” or “that’s just Life.”

Well. Here is some harsh truth you better get a grip on. It is not ‘just Life’ and they are not just ‘little unimportant things.’ It is your Life and they are your things.

More of us should stop, take a moment, and think about whether we want to react to external ownership efforts <stealing> or proactively “fight myself” over the right to own myself. Yeah. Sometimes you not only have to be aware of what you own, you also have to be aware enough to fight your instincts to let them be stolen. Let them? Yes. We do it far too often because its either not important enough in that moment or maybe just too hard to fight at that moment. Be careful. Be careful because those moments can add up fast.

Anyway.

Each of us is the sea and no one owns a sea. Do not be owned.

Ponder.

===========

“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.

“I am a strong person. But every once in a while I would like someone to hold my hand and tell me things are going to be OK. “

Unknown

——–

Well. We so often talk about ‘strong people’ as being these pillars of granite, solid and seamless in moments of need or challenge, unflinching in the face of whatever it is they face. But more often strength is not a solid piece of granite. Shit. Many times its not even anything solid. It may be a shield or a shell or it may be that the person has the ability to put a strong hand forward and stop what needs to be stopped. But in all these cases strength is neither a complete solid wall nor does it not have some weakness or maybe some fragile aspects in which to balance everything. 

———

“It is one thing to be brave in front of others, perhaps for fear of being branded a coward and becoming diminished in their eyes, but another entirely to be brave when there is nobody to witness your courage.

The latter is an elemental bravery, a strength of spirit and character.”

John Connolly

———-

Oddly strength is, well, a paradox <or in some sense a contradiction>. It is about setting unequivocal limits and yet having no limits. It’s about adapting, yet unwavering.

So. Let me discuss this limit thing for a moment.

Emotionally strong people do not really need constant action and excitement or even a crisis to define themselves and their lives. This suggests they naturally just put some limits on things. This is not to suggest that they don’t enjoy excitement in their lives, but they aren’t ‘doing’ junkies. This means their ‘strength’ is usually defined by some self awareness. Awareness with regard to some character type things <which are embodied in actions and behavior decisions>.

Let’s call these our ‘limits’:

–           just don’t do some things

Suffice it to say we all do things that we don’t enjoy doing, but we should never do things that we don’t want to do. There is a nuance in that, but an important nuance. The strong self aware understand that nuance and almost always manage to figure out what they need to do — not at the expense of ‘what they don’t want to do.’ This translates into that when it comes to character defining decisions there is always a line. The line isn’t about what you enjoy doing or what you like or dislike … it is about … well … character. And being able to live with yourself and look in the mirror.

–        saying “no”

Suffice it to say … if you can’t say “no,” you will get taken advantage of. I will not suggest you won’t be taken seriously, but I will suggest that if you cannot say no you will forever live on the slippery slope of credibility and trust.

Saying “no” reminds people that they cannot control you. Only you control you.

–             it’s really about plateaus … not limits

Face it. There are only plateaus, and they are not meant for you to stay there, but only resting places for someplace beyond. Please note I did not say ‘someplace higher.’

“Up” is overrated.

It is more important to move anywhere <mentally, physically, career, Life> than it is to move ‘upwards.’ I’ve always believed in pushing yourself further and taking on new challenges. I believe this because I tend to believe there is no such thing as that infamous trite cliché ‘being the best you can be.’ “Best” is a relevant thing … at least to the moment. Maybe it is better said that ‘best’ is contextual.

There is always room for growth and change and new possibilities of being the best you can be.

Anyway.

Strength is tricky. It is partially inbred as an attitude, but it is also forged thru the furnace of Life.

—–

“Sometimes you don’t realise your own strength until you come face to face with your greatest weakness”

Susan Gale

——-

And maybe that is why strength is never solid. Because strength is often about weakness. The chinks in your armor define your strength … uhm … not your theoretically solid seamless armor.

Which leads me to my final thoughts.

Strength is nothing more than doing what it takes — with character. In order to be strong we will inevitably embrace some different variations of our self. This naturally happens as we encounter knew things and new ‘weaknesses’ we never knew we had. Within those variations are some aspects of solidness, but other aspects are adaptable and resilient in their ability to morph to the situation.

And, in the end, I imagine strength in a person can be defined one way:

———

“I endure.”

E. Lockhart 

————

Ponder.

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

I used to tell people we use research to INFORM decisions and not MAKE decisions.

Then.

I told people we use numbers to INFORM decisions and not MAKE decisions.

Then.

I told people we use data to INFORM decisions and not MAKE decisions.

Now.

I tell people we use algorithms to INFORM decisions and not MAKE decisions.

Me

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

“An idea of working based on three pillars: science, insight and faith. Science because I’m a social scientist by training. I believe in data, robustness of information, making sure you’re on the right track. Insight because if you’re not able to draw insights from research, you’re not a strategist, just someone observing the data. And faith because you never know what’s going to work, so you always need a bit of faith to get everyone started.”

Laura Chiavone

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

I believe great companies have one common infrastructure characteristic: culture. Good companies can be grounded in systems, processes, operations, etc, however, the step up to ‘great’ demands a culture (which is always implemented by people) to elevate the ‘infrastructure aspects. To be clear. “Culture” is not some ‘thing’, or values, or some nebulous feeling, it is an emergent consequence of how people interact with each other within a business. It is not what someone does or doesn’t do, it is what happens when people do things with each other. I thought of this because Mike Walsh has a new book, The Algorithm Leader, which suggests that the most successful companies of the future will support/augment/enhance that culture infrastructure – with algorithms. Now. Before anyone defaults into thinking this translates into “empty soul, technology order taker” company, or even holocracy (ponder how polar opposites could be relevant to the algorithm topic), let me share some thoughts on how I believe the thinking suggests structural value creation lift: for business & humans. To me this will occur through a balance of stability (knowledge infrastructure), uncertainty (quests versus missions) & understanding of Antifragility (selective redundancy maximizing untidy opportunities).

Let me pose some thoughts on the relationship between algorithms and antifragility upfront.

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

“It is optionality that makes things work & grow.” AntiFragile

Maybe algorithms shouldn’t provide answers, but options. Maybe, more importantly, we become a little less comfortable with the need for construct and more comfortable with using algorithms as dynamic application of ‘movable construct’ at the right time & place.

“The antifragility of some comes necessarily at the fragility of others. In a system the sacrifice of some units – fragile units or people – are often necessary for the well-being of other units or the whole.” AntiFragile

Maybe algorithms should evaluate tradeoffs, fragility versus antifragility & well-being factors (of units & whole).

“The crux of complex systems , those with interacting parts, is that they convey information to these component parts through stressors.” AntiFragile

Maybe algorithms should not highlight solutions, but rather stressors or what Donella Meadows called ‘leverage points.’.

“There is a category of things that we can call half invented, and taking the half invented into the invented is often the real breakthrough.” AntiFragile

Maybe algorithms shouldn’t seek new innovations but rather ‘half invented’ ideas ripe for innovation maturity.

“Meaningful progress is non-linear.” How To Lead a Quest

Algorithms should enable an organization to identify progress paths to explore and discover rather than simply meet the needs of present identified ‘paths’ of progress or solve present identified issues & vulnerabilities.

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

Full disclosure on my business beliefs. Throughout my career I have always felt comfortable by making the less certain decisions just certain enough that someone would go “well, it seems riskier, but, if you own it, go do it.” I say all that because I believe all Future of Work discussion should be grounded on the relationship between certainty & uncertainty – for the business, the people within the business organization and people’s minds/attitudes.

Algorithm leadership.

Most people want certainty therefore they let research make decisions, use numbers to make decisions, show data to make decisions and, increasingly, will suggest algorithms make decisions.

This is just a different type of efficiency couched in efficient operations. It will be called “efficient decision making.” The problem is this efficiency is just an attempt to strip a decision of uncertainty and, well, the best, most effective; decisions always carry along some burden of uncertainty.

What made me think about this? I just finished rereading AntiFragile (Nassim Taleb) and reread Mike Walsh’s first chapter of his new book The Algorithm Leader.

The former is about figuring out how to maximize from disorder or uncertainty while the latter is not becoming too dependent upon seemingly ‘certainty.’

—

“The future of companies, regardless of size, will be shaped by algorithms.”

Mike Walsh

—

Ultimately, it will be humans who use the shapes created by algorithms to assess options, evaluate antifragile components and navigate asymmetrical uncertainty.

It within this dynamic environment in which we should note business is inherently fragile. HBR once said “business is a quivering mass of vulnerabilities.” I say that because as a pendulum swings one way it will inevitably want to swing the other way. We inherently feel the fragile pendulum swing and start seeking to build ‘un-natural’ antifragile aspects to create a sense of antifragility. Aspects like systems, process, rules, KPIs, data/dashboards and, yes, algorithms. Depending on how fragile we see, or feel, the business to be the more likely we use the created mechanisms to ‘tell us what to do.’ We must fight against those instincts.

Frankly, this is where generations DO become relevant in discussing business. Older workers, 50somethings, can be an impediment by seeing past experience as ‘certainty’ . On the other hand, some 50somethings can actually be a bridge between some certainty-type learnings and younger people who are more comfortable with disorder (but they don’t necessarily have the expertise do discern the best bridges between certainty & uncertainty).

Here is what I do know. Business people inherently abhor risk, business organizations inherently gravitate toward the ‘safest’ and numbers, research, data & algorithms look like life rafts in a risky, safe seeking business world. That said. I also know progress is rarely found without some risk and is often found on ‘not-the-safest’ path. Algorithms create a false sense of ‘right thing to do.’ any leader who leans on algorithms too much isn’t leading. Period.

Uncertainty leadership.

For this I lean in on How to Lead a Quest by Dr. Jason Fox. In times of uncertainty a business does not need business ‘heroes’ but rather people aligned on a quest and leaders who embrace the uncertainty of a complex interconnected multi-dimensional business world.

—-

“You must learn to be still in the midst of activity and to be vibrantly alive in repose.”

Indira Ghandi

—-

Contrary to popular belief I would suggest a highly successful algorithmic leader is likely a 50something who has navigated research, then data, the ‘dictating’ decisions challenge gauntlet, & who were more likely to see how seemingly unrelated disparate fragments could be coalesced into decisions and futures that the numbers/data didn’t completely support, but also did not completely discount. That was a long winded way to introduce the idea of “data decipherers”. This type of leadership invaluable to an organization more & more steeped in numbers, dashboards, data & algorithms.

Jason Fox calls this “shining a light on the path before us.” Leadership will not use algorithms for ‘squinting into the future but rather to identify the stepping stones in a sea of uncertainty. They will offer people moments of some certainty without promising a certain future nor even promising steady progress organizationally. It will be more about uncovering options, making choices to alleviate stressors, so that teams can breakthrough while others provide the organization with the redundancies to protect an organization from uncertainty vulnerabilities.

Here is what I do know. Psychologically businesses will arc toward a belief algorithms will provide an increased tidiness and symmetry to business. that is a false sense of tidiness. Business will become increasingly untidy, the paths will become increasingly complex, therefore business will become increasingly uncertain with regard to the best, and proper steps, necessary for progress. Pragmatically business will need more, and better, leadership comfortable with uncertainty despite more numbers, data and algorithms.

Antifragile leadership.

Crisis, disaster resolution is rarely about resources available, but rather people* availability.

• * ‘people availability’: this is all of physical energy, skills and mental energy combined.

Here I lean in Taleb’s AntiFragile. We tend to build redundancies incorrectly, don’t assume for disorder well & only enhance fragility in plans. We too often see AntiFragile as a “leadership concept” when in reality it is best absorbed by agile/adaptable teams.

Risk management almost always solely focuses on resources necessary to sustain, and manage, foreseen crisis. As Taleb points out the largest flaw in that is most crisis do not look similar to ones on the past (they will have similarities but still be unique). In addition. Most organizations build in redundancy safety nets as, well, a net.  Because we dislike fragility so much we start building in antifragile everywhere. We tend to think of leadership as “what if” redundancy design. Antifragile leadership should be more ‘aligning resources to meet different scenarios.” Some people would call this ‘agile.’ I would not. I would simply call this pivoting (I am old school) based on the Law of the Situation. Great businesses have always been able to pivot to meet market challenges and opportunities. This is pivoting – no more, no less.

This is where I would view using algorithms a little differently than other people. Algorithms tend to look at opportunities when I believe they could be better used to identify stress points and stressors. Most good leaders are best as problems solvers or maybe better said “removers of obstacles to opportunistic behavior.’ (that doesn’t mean they don’t optimize existing operations/situations just that where good leaders get paid the big bucks is getting moments/situations unstuck). I would also argue identifying stressors permits smarter experimenting and tinkering.

Here is what I do know. Algorithms, used properly, permit people to stop just optimizing for the present and start attempting to optimizing the future. Yes. It may mean being less efficient in the short term (sometimes), but, done well, will create a more effective long term construct.

Conclusion:

I think the smart businesses of the future will be “directed to act” by algorithms, but not managed by. The latter demands acceptance of algorithm as qualified to make us to do something behaviorally, the former demands we accept algorithms as something that ‘informs’ our doing. Somewhere in between is the decision of how much we, people, are accountable for thinking. Algorithms inherently encourage us to believe business is not best when it is random. Yet. The best businesses resist the urge to suppress randomness and permit people to be more accountable for some untidy decisions with some untidy outcomes.

All businesses will exist, in some form or fashion, grounded in algorithms. I am fairly sure that’s a given. The challenge will be to not get consumed by algorithms.

To realize algorithms do not give answers, but outline options.

To realize algorithms don’t define redundancies, but rather where and when to apply redundancy resources (therefore help to define how to create proper redundancies).

To realize algorithms don’t necessarily create innovation opportunities but rather find opportunities to ‘reinvent’ ideas.

And.

To realize algorithms will not replace people, but rather augment minds and skills OF people. Ponder.

==========

“Life, too, is like that. You live it forward, but understand it backward.”

Abraham Verghese

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

“It’s the one thing we never quite get over: that we contain our own future.”

Barbara Kingsolver

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

Thinking about what legacy you want to leave behind can make you start thinking a little bit about what you may want to stubbornly stand for and demand of Life and what you may decide to compromise with Life to insure you have something, i.e., some progress to show at the end. A significant part of this grand bargain we negotiate with Life is how we decide to compromise with those around us and those who affect the arc of our lives.

Ah.

That word “compromise.”

Therein lies maybe one of the most difficult topics of the current generation.

The topic is that the concept of compromise, meeting someone half way, giving something up and getting something back, is now a nebulous concept.

Why? Because I am not sure I know where the hell half way is.

And I tend to believe a shitload of people are standing with me, on one side or the other, not really sure where the hell half way is.

And if you cannot even see the middle ground how the hell can you figure out how to make a stand on it?

This gets compounded by a massive online communal world in which we all live side by side where even the marginalized people <real or perceived>, nutjobs & experts, now have a place to gather into likeminded groups and share as much a space as mainstream views. For good, or for bad, online any group of people can organize & mobilize & challenge the status quo … or pick & choose which status quo fits their view. The internet amplifies discourses critical of, well, any status quo you can think of.  And, as anyone could expect, all the critical discourse triggers a corresponding equal backlash from those who fear an uprooting of their beliefs <and the self identities that are inevitably attached to these beliefs>. Needless to say much of that backlash is a bit unhealthy and a lot unmoored to accepted reality.

It just becomes one huge mosh pit of criticism and cocooning of likeminded people.

Likeminded people – all who are angry.

Within all of this situation & anger civil discourse tends to be tossed in the trashheap. And maybe worse is the fact there is this ‘digging in’ aspect where we refuse to see any merit in other people’s opinions. Sadly, I can only conclude that we have lost the ability to converse, discuss, debate and have a dialogue with one another.

It seems obvious <at least to me>, but if we could figure out how to come together and compromise, that we could go a long way toward not only creating a better version of society in general, but it may give me, and all of us, at least a fighting chance with regard to where we make our own personal stand and where we compromise and how we attain the future that we contain.

As long as people cling to unbending attitudes & beliefs, the divides between us will not deepen, but will remain an unbridgeable divide.

I tend to believe most of us want better that that.

I tend to believe most of us would be willing to work to make this a better and more civil world to live in.

And if you do not embrace this thinking?

I would remind everyone that America is representative of a great compromise. The U.S. Constitution is possibly the greatest Compromise ever negotiated <it created a nation>.

But as a first step to bettering this entire situation we need to figure out how to better define Compromise.

Far too many loudmouthed people have ripped the meaning out of the word, twisted the value of the word making it seem valueless, and ultimately created an environment in which  we demonize the entire process of trying to reach compromise.

Compromise no longer means understanding your differences and working together toward a common goal, but now it seems to represent weakness, losing and not being strong enough to get what you want. This attitude and unwillingness to work together creates a dysfinctional society where the unwavering stance seems to be “don’t compromise, stick to your guns, don’t give in to the other side”.

Sigh.

Look.

I find it hard to believe that the majority of America is really that selfish and that stubborn. Sure. I know the people most passionate about any issue tend to be the ones less willing to compromise on them. And, yeah, I would guess most of us are fairly passionate about ourselves – what we decide to stand for … as well as what we will decide to sacrifice within compromise to attain some progress. But within this wacky world where no one seems to want to compromise anything on anything … well … shit … some of us are trying to think a little bit about what you may want to stubbornly stand for and demand of Life, and what you may decide to compromise with Life, to insure you have something – some progress to show at the end.

It seems like the situation we are in has arisen because we have permitted the stubborn voices of the radical marginalized <real and perceived> to drown out the pragmatic voices, the majority, of realistic positive compromise. If we want society to start working again we need to embrace compromise — and let it retain the positive definition which has served it well through time.

To end this I will go back to the beginning.

The “I” aspect.

I tend to believe all of us, with the intent of finding the best version of ourselves from which our ultimate legacy will be defined, will seek to find the balance of being stubborn and demand that Life bend to us and our principles and compromise where we make a grand bargain with Life in order to continue progressing.

Uhm.

If we believe this, then why wouldn’t we want this in Life and in business and in politics and in … well … everything.

There was a book that discussed this. In The Spirit of Compromise <Amy Gutsman and Dennis Thomson> they note that Americans support general compromise as an idea and like the idea of ‘other people’ working together to get stuff done <statistics support this in a variety of studies & polls>.

However. The authors then note that support for compromise breaks down when it addresses specific issues <Americans are much less likely to support a compromise on a specific issue>. What this means is that, as with most things in Life, we enthusiastically embrace the conceptual behavior and balk at the actual behavior.

I shared that to say compromise is complex and simple.

What I do know is that we contain our own future and building that future demands that we will have to make some compromises.  That is simple.

Making the specific choices is complex.

And while I am mostly interested in my own future and making my own compromise choices, I tend to believe we would all find the better version of ourself contained within if the society as a whole were more willing to refind the value in compromise. Yeah. I just suggested our best version is not an “I” thing but rather when we are part of the weave of societal fabric, i.e., “We” thing. Ponder.

—–

“True freedom is where an individual’s thoughts and actions are in alignment with that which is true, correct, and of honor – no matter the personal price.”

=

Bryant H. McGill

——-

This is about managing people, chaos <that is inherent with groups of people> and leadership.

I have written several times about my college job, quasi-security guy with a company called Contemporary Security Company <CSC>, and it made me think about another good business lesson I learned. I call it corralling chaos.

Maybe it is simply managing people.

Whoa.

Comparing chaos to managing people?

Yup.

Look. Unless you want to hire a bunch of clones or do some mind meld trick upon hiring someone, you are going to inevitably have a wide variety of specific skilled people, a mosaic of personalities and characters and, well, humans being human within your purview.

Anyway. I learned this very quickly as a youngster at CSC. And, by the way, I didn’t learn this because I was some brilliant leader or insightful organizational behavior person at the age of 18 … I learned it out of simple survival. Once I became a supervisor I definitely had a ‘Bruce team.’ A small group of guys who I always selected <or they selected me> to be surrounded by to manage and utilize.

In hindsight I was a little different than some of the other supervisors. I liked using the same guys even though the assignment was different. I liked tweaking each guy’s ‘comfort zone’ to show them how to adapt. I think I subconsciously recognized that it probably helped me out under a variety of assignments in that these guys … and these guys were wired differently … wouldn’t take a cookie cutter approach to how they handled things.

Not only did they see that things could be done differently <than maybe what their first instinct was> but also they became comfortable with some things out of their comfort zone.

The best example I have is two guys who were with me whenever possible.

They were book end personalities.

Lamont.

African American. Sharp & smart. Took life seriously. Scowled a lot. Maybe 6’ 1” and 280 pounds of hair triggered whirlwind of aggression. You only walked up to Lamont from behind very carefully. I vividly remember walking up behind him and tapping him on the shoulder … and he spun around with a semi graceful martial arts form <… c’mon, how graceful can a 280 pound guy be> … crouched and coiled to part my head from my shoulders.

I also vividly remember his eyes were laser-like and seemingly completely clear of anything but ‘destroy.’ Without relaxing … he said ‘little buddy … you shouldn’t sneak up on me like that’ and then he uncoiled.

Dave.

White suburban kid. Maybe not the sharpest knife in the drawer. 6’ 2” and chiseled 220 pounds or so. Played defensive end at Orange Coast junior college. Easy going … smiled a lot. The first time I met him on the job I saw him wade into a drunken brawl of maybe 6 guys and singlehandedly blow it up with maybe only one punch thrown by him <which admittedly put that guy out of commission>.

These two guys became the bookends that held most of my teams together.

Lamont was like an assassin.

Dave was like a bull.

Lamont I restrained.

Dave I released.

Both could intimidate in their own way, but their instinct was always to act with power of action and not words.

My bosses struggled to understand why I always wanted them — no matter the assignment.

Lamont was often seen as uncontrollable <therefore they hesitated to want to put him in more ‘delicate diplomatic’ situations>.

Dave was often seen as ‘not too smart’ <therefore they hesitated to want to put him in situations where he may have to think on his feet>.

Beyond the fact I saw how these guys could be used effectively I probably more recognized that situations my bosses ‘foresaw’ within an assignment more often became unforeseen actions & consequences.

Security at some event with zillions of people wandering around <many drinking> all with an attitude that ‘hey … I paid to be here … so I can do pretty much whatever I want’ is inevitably one of much randomness.

Interestingly … that describes the business world fairly well <without the drinking>. Managing people isn’t really about plans & planning, or even having a plan, it is more often about how to deal with what happens when the plan breaks apart.

Look. Plans and planning and all the things under those headings <business plans, contingency plans, succession plans> are all good things … uhm … until they aren’t.

All the plans that once bring order, continuity, and control often become rigid obstacles to progress and adaptation.

Lamont, Dave … shit, whatever personality I was supervising, I found that most people are trying to do what they believe is in the best interest of the organization.

I also found the trouble was often they may not have the same point of view on what that is. And, yes, that leads to some version of chaos.

You can have two people conducting themselves with the best of intentions and trying to do the right thing.

Both options are valid.

Uh oh.

But the conclusions they reach end up in direct conflict with each other.  This creates confusion <with each other as well as those around them seeking cues on what to do>.

A lot of the supervisors around me did two things.

One.

Bitched & moaned about ‘the guys they managed’ and said ‘they just don’t get it.’

Two.

Picked people for their team that they could ‘control.’

Me?

I guess I decided to take responsibility for getting out of the chaos. I assumed from day one that it was me responsible for allowing chaos.

I also assumed I couldn’t control anyone — certainly not someone like Lamont or a number of other highly wired individuals I liked to have on my team — but I did assume I could point them in the right direction <with regard to attitudes & actions>. I picked guys for my teams who could get shit done. And get shit done within some principled behavior guidelines.

I kind of assumed my role was to ‘be still amidst the chaos and active in repose’ <Indira Ghandi>.

Be a compass as it were.

Look.

I certainly didn’t understand all the real thinking behind good management and leadership at that age.

What I do know now for sure – good leaders provide a compass.

A good leader helps others think through implications that can impact the broader team’s goals and objectives.

Once people have orienting values and principles, their ability to think and operate independently accelerates.

Good leaders hold people, themselves included, accountable to a set of values and principles. And leading is often measured by how you deal with the times which inevitably occur when the leader needs to confront a difficult decision that puts principles to the test.

Corralling chaos is all about getting comfortable with being slightly uncomfortable.

My guys recognized that always sticking to the plan without fail provided a false sense of security. They knew from experience that there needed to be some flexibility with “how” the “what” is implemented.

They embraced the purposeful discomfort and I rewarded the purposeful discomfort.

I left room for serendipity.

I left room for what is called “interaction with an unintended outcome” <Scott Doorley, Stanford>.

Some smart guy, Atul Gawande, states there will always be people who excel and thrive in complex and chaotic environments. People who “have a better capacity to prepare for the possibility, to limit the damage, and to sometimes even retrieve success from failure.”

Well. I agree with that and I don’t agree with that.

I agree that some people are better than others at the ability to quickly assess situations and take decisive action based on their experience and instinct.

I don’t agree that anyone and everyone can become better and hone this ability. In fact … part being a good leader is trying to figure out how to maximize this ability within employees <because it enhances autonomy which increases organizational efficiency>.

I have no clue if I am particularly strong with the ‘capacity to prepare for unintended consequences.’

What I do have a clue on is that no matter how strong I may be … I can’t prepare for everything and can’t solve everything and I can’t be everywhere at all times.

I liked having a variety of skilled people available … no matter how difficult they were to manage.

Why?

It increased the likelihood the team could handle any ‘unintended consequences’ as they arose.

CSC taught me a shitload.

It taught me very quickly that when supervisors complained that people are working against each other, that they are not aligned, that they don’t seem to ‘get it’ … that they are full of shit.

It taught me first & foremost that a supervisor needs to look in the mirror.

Anyway.

Is chaos a bad word to use when discussing people management?

Aw.

Probably.

But here is what I do know.

I would rather corral chaos than ‘light a fire under someone’s ass.’

Is that a management style?

Sure. I imagine so.

I imagine it is actually a management or leadership choice. And when I look in the mirror with regard to management style I am okay with what I see. And I thank my CSC job for helping me be okay with it.

—-

If interested, after you read this post, you can visit his past CSC ‘learnings’ posts:

—

<learning to say no>

https://brucemctague.com/big-fred

=

<practicing actually means more relaxed>

https://brucemctague.com/the-wall

=

<action has its time>

https://brucemctague.com/there-is-a-time-to-talk-and-a-time-to-act-part-1

=

<gaining perspective>

https://brucemctague.com/what-you-do-not-see-at-a-concert

—

This is about music and some things I learned doing my job in college as a security guy <for a company called Contemporary Security who I have nothing bad to say about> walking around in a cool yellow tshirt that said “SECURITY” on it telling people what to do at concerts and sporting events and trying to only get into altercations I knew I could win.

To be clear. I loved this job and enjoyed the guys I worked for and with. Good organization and, in general, good culture and fellow employees.

In addition.

On a professional “acquiring skills for later” level I learned a lot at this job; some basics that if I had not paid attention to would have represented missed opportunities for learning. I learned shit i have applied in business to this day. I have shared a number of these learnings from this job.

Anyway. I hadn’t thought about this job in quite some time. And then I saw that Steve Perry <ex-lead singer Journey> performed in NYC for the first time in a long time. it reminded me of one of the best moments that you don’t see at a concert.

In the good ole days there were things called stadium concerts. These were day long concerts where a full lineup of great bands would queue up and play one after another and the best of the best would end the day.

Ok. They still have these. But now they are events <like Bonnarroo or Glastonbury> when, in the way back machine, pretty much every big stadium in America had these events.

The one I remember was in the Los Angeles Coliseum and Journey headlined <I think there was also The Babys – with John Waite and Johnathon Cain … who had not joined Journey yet, Aerosmith, The Motels and a couple other bands I cannot remember at the moment>.

Because I didn’t have anything else to do that day I volunteered to work the sound check the day before the concert as they set up the stadium <yes … they set up things the day before so that as the gates opened up on show day at some ungodly early hour the bands only needed to have their ‘set up’ put in place as they entered stage>.

On that day each of the bands just strolled in and did what they do to warm up and make sure the sound system was set up the way they liked it. And each band does it their own way.

That day I was standing at the sound system which was set up maybe a third of the way back in the stadium directly in the center of the field in front of the stage. A mass of confusing boards and little blinking lights and knobs and such all managed by maybe two guys chugging black coffee like they had been in a desert for three days and who looked like they should be in a homeless shelter.

Random people walked around the stadium and my job was to make sure any of the random people who did not actually belong near the million dollar valued sound system didn’t accidentally come by and twist a knob or something.

After Cheap Trick had rolled thru their sound check (a separately amazing experience), it was Journey’s turn to tune up and do sound check.

Please remember.

I am old.

This was before they had wireless mikes so everyone was wired up and was limited by how far a cord could go and their ability to not get tangled up in their cord.

Neil Schon and the drummer just kind of got things started.

And if you haven’t seen musicians playing nothing, and everything at the same time, you haven’t seen and heard music at its best. It just this rambling incohesive brilliant musicianship.

Oh.

And then Steve Perry wanders on stage in jeans and a tshirt holding a mike just watching the other guys play.

And without saying anything all of a sudden the band eases into a song almost one by one, but all together, and Steve Perry casually eases in with vocals in his distinctive clear voice.

It’s the kind of thing that is so stunningly easily beautiful that you just have to stop whatever it is you are doing and stare.

Time kinds of stops.

You are in the middle of a stadium and while people are still moving and there are the regular noises of people doing what hey need to do … and yet … there is nothing else but the music.

To be clear. Even people who are used to this recognize special moments.

People around me stopped.

Even the sound guys, who you knew had heard his dozens of time, stood still for a moment as it all synced up on stage.

The moment passed, but the band seemed to shift seamlessly from one song to another and on occasion stopping to tune something or just talk amongst each other.

They had been doing this for a while and, me being me, had stopped paying attention and was kind of mindlessly listening. And all of a sudden something felt different about the music and I started paying attention. The music sounded different.

I turned around and Steve Perry was standing maybe 10 feet away from me facing the stage … singing.

Now, remember, this was before wireless microphones. He had been wired up to walk all the way from the stage, maybe a 1/3rd of the way into the stadium, walk with his microphone to the sound system, and hear what it sounded like from the audience perspective.

I don’t remember the song. I wish I did.

I do remember a nonchalant Steve Perry, his voice crystal clear, pitch perfect, watching as the rest of the band clustered on stage watching each other work their way thru the song. I remember Steve Perry stopping and watching as Neil Schon effortlessly worked his way thru a solo and then seamlessly picking back up with vocals as Neil slid out of the solo and back into the song.

I remember Steve Perry looking over at me <ok … maybe he was looking at the guys in front of all the knobs and boards> and smiling, as he sung, and give a thumbs up because he liked what he was hearing.

Look. With my CSC security job I saw a lot of shit that most people do not see at a concert, but this was a special moment. Watching professionals be professional and doing the little things like switching some perspective to get a sense for the grander experience, well, you can learn a lot of you pay attention.

I am sure warming up and sound checks created great moments that most people never see all the time.

To me this was just another little glimpse into what makes great bands and great musicians great.

So.

Professional learning? Beyond the obvious practice & rehearsal <for the musicians and the ‘support for the presenters’… perspective.

Yup.

Perspective.

How often in business do we fall into our own little groove and fall into sync with the people around us and … well … we think all is good. We think it is good because it feels good. Perry stepped out of the onstage groove and got perspective. He wanted to see what the people saw and heard. He wanted to hear what the sound guys heard.

Oh.

And he took himself out of what I would perceive is a good comfort zone. All by himself, away from the others he is most likely in subconscious sync with on stage, he sings … they play. He … well … disconnected from the comfort zone in a way.

That, my friends, is stepping out of the comfort zone for perspective.

I stored that learning away in my ‘future professional thoughts to to remember’ in my pea like brain.

I still use it today. Even when things are going right … and they feel right … and maybe even because they are feeling right, I like to figure out a way to gain some perspective.

And, frankly, we all need perspective.

Anyway.

To end this. I wanted to share a clip of what this behind the scenes looks and sounds like from the good ole Journey days, but I couldn’t find one of Journey.

So I thought I would share this fabulous clip of Stevie Ray Vaughn during a sound check. I was fortunate enough to see Stevie play maybe three times before he passed away.

Regardless.

This is a reminder of how good these musicians really are. 

—–

“Stevie just waking up then warming up. Insane how good can you really be that tired? This was filmed Jan 1986 by Greg Savage of Savage Guitar Design.

How can that guy just walk up, plug in and play like he’s been playing all day long? The man was a natural.”

Stevie Ray Vaughan – Sound Check

——–

—–

“People aren’t always what you want them to be.
Sometimes they disappoint you or let you down, but you have to give them a chance first.

You can’t just meet someone and expect them to be everything you’re looking for and then be angry when they’re not every hope and aspiration you projected onto them.

It’s foolish to believe that someone will be what you imagine them to be. And sometimes, when you give them a chance, they turn out to be better than you imagined.

Different, but better. “

Chloe Rattray

—–

Well. This is about expectations and how having expectations is bad <disappointing> and good <people like to strive toward expectations>.

No matter how cynical you are, or skeptical with regard to whether there is truly ‘good within all’, pretty much everyone expects everyone else to be the best version of who they can be.
The trouble is that our version of your ‘best version’ is … well … ours. Unfortunately, this “ours/you” expectation tends to be a pretty high standard for which the person we are eying at the moment has to meet.

We tend to not only expect people to be ‘like us’ in the ways we consider positive attributes, but then we also attached a wish list of expectations <based on some fairly idealistic thoughts of how people should be .. and how we see ourselves>.

Well. That brings to mind a Marilyn Manson quote:

—-

“Find out what’s really out there.

I never said to be like me, I say be like you and make a difference.

Marilyn Manson

—-

People are rarely what we expect them to be and they are rarely like us. And, frankly, we don’t want them to be like us, we want them to be like, well, themselves. But this creates the uncomfortable situation in that we then have no clue what to expect.

So what do we do? We fall back on ‘us’ <our bias & attitudes & beliefs> and build our expectations.

This is, frankly, silly if not stupid. We should focus instead on ‘different, but better.’

Me? Over the years I have become significantly better at setting aside expectations of people and permitting them to build what I should expect of them. Even then I have to constantly remind myself that people are less consistent than what I would like <to expect>.

I guess I believe people can change. I say guess because I think we are a little flippant with that thought. Flippant because I think we are more hopeful than reality suggests. Most people really don’t change that much. They may evolve as they grow, but people tend to be the people they were <just maybe a little more here and a little less there>. To be clear, evolving involves some iterative change usually driven by new experiences.

And that’s okay.

Now. There is the inconsistency factor. Inconsistency is good in this case albeit confusing to others and makes it difficult to discern ‘what to expect.’

But.

Everyone is inconsistent because Life is inherently inconsistent and therefore we make mistakes. That’s kind of the way it is. If everything was always consistent, the odds of us making as many mistakes as we do now would decrease significantly.

Unfortunately everything is not consistent <except in its inconsistency> and therefore, unfortunately, we make a shitload of mistakes.

Oh. And mistakes shape expectations as much as successes do.

Now. This means also means how you handle the mistakes matter in terms of setting expectations for people. If you own up to them, adapt, make some adjustments and move on … well … the mistakes don’t accumulate like a snowball but instead remain individual flakes you meet as you progress and are manageable in their smallness. Frankly, anything less ‘owning up’ is counterproductive, self-serving and carries a hue of non-accountability. I will also note that under the glare of circumstances ‘beyond our control’ <let’s call that Life’s shit> it is certainly aggravating, and sometimes even a little unnerving, when people don’t own up to their mistakes and we waste time & energy flailing about seeking blame.

Regardless. People aren’t always what we expect.

And, oddly, we get disappointed even if they are actually just a different version of what we said we wanted <expected> and THAT may be a better version <but we are so disappointed we didn’t see it>.

Oh. Another thing about having expectations.

There is a really nonsensical thought that is strewn throughout the World Wide Web with regard to ‘have no expectations and you live in the now” … or “have no expectations and you won’t be disappointed.”

What bullshit.

Utter nonsense.

Regardless of the fact our expectations are sometimes misguided and that we far too often judge people on some really out of whack expectations, expectations are part of Life.

They set standards.

When we expect nothing from anyone while we may save ourselves from being disappointed, it comes with a cost. With lower expectations we make less of an effort. We have convinced ourselves that fighting for things that are pretty important in life are no longer worth fighting for as a standard. And while some of our expectations are unrealistic the horizon aspect should almost always “best version of.”

Well.

That is a good expectation. And if you have it, or them, others around you tend to see them, feel them … and absorb some of the pressure to meet them.

Yes. It has been proven over & over again <research> people do better when more is expected of them. I am fairly sure this cause-effect is called the Pygmalion Effect. Study results have shown some consistently significant ‘better’ associated with this effect.

A guy named J. Sterling Livingston is the one who wrote in 1969 about the Pygmalion Effect <named after the mythical sculptor who carves a statue of a woman that is brought to life>.

His title also pays homage to George Bernard Shaw, whose play Pygmalion explores the notion that the way one person treats another can, for better or worse, be transforming.

The influence of one person’s expectations on another’s behavior isn’t a recent discovery. More than half a century ago, Albert Moll concluded from clinical experience that subjects behaved as they believed they were expected to – “the prophecy causes its own fulfillment”. Livingston stated that creating these positive expectations is remarkably difficult, but I would argue setting ANY expectations is difficult, but, we should do so.

Expectations challenge the status quo; even if the status quo is good & right.

That’s okay too. Affirmation is often as powerful as change. Accepting the status quo and not making any effort to push ourselves and those we care about to become better is almost like giving up hope for anything better.

Now. Expectations must always pass the test of reality before they can be translated into any real outcomes. Expectations must have more gravitas than the fluffy power of positive thinking or some generalized confidence that ‘it can & will happen.’ People are not motivated to reach for unattainable shit — they need to have some sense of realistic and achievable. Suffice it to say encouraging one to strive for unattainable goals is simply encouraging the eventuality of ‘give up trying’ and ‘settling for results that are lower than they are capable of achieving’.

Regardless. We need to and should have some pretty high expectations of people. All people. And while I know it seems counter intuitive to suggest that we should idealize what people can be, okay, some people, with regard to expectations because it would most likely means a shitload of disappointment.

But, I remain steadfast in believing we SHOULD have expectations and we SHOULD set the standards high.

Research shows that while we will be disappointed initially the people themselves will be more likely to step up to meet some of the idealized expectations.

Our expectations can drive ‘better.’

The cost? We bear the cost in that we get disappointed. Shit. I will pay that price. It would be selfish to think otherwise.

People will disappoint us with regard to our own expectations.

People will more often surprise us if we are open to a different better version of our expectations.

But all of that is kind of irrelevant. It doesn’t matter how you feel … get over it … it is the objective that matters. Steven Covey said it the best:

===

“Treat a man as he is and he will remain as he is.

Treat a man as he can and should be and he will become as he can and should be.”

Stephen R. Covey

===

Yes. It is foolish to believe someone will be as you imagine they will be.

But go ahead.

Have expectations.

Be prepared to be disappointed and, more often, surprised by something different and better. Ponder.