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

Why are we so full of restraint?

Why do we not give in all directions?

Is it fear of losing ourselves? Until we do lose ourselves there is no hope of finding ourselves.

————-

Henry Miller

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

Wimp. Gutless. Chicken. Wuss. Mamby pamby. Spineless jellyfish.

Pick your word.

That is what business has become.

Yeah. I know. Harsh.

Go boldly is just not a phrase you hear often in business anymore.

Not even whispered.

Heck.

Not even kiddingly.

Instead we use words like ‘managing risk’ or ‘planned change’ or “restrained response is necessary” or “we need to follow the process” or … well … any other chicken shit scared-to-do-what-needs-to-be-done word or phrase.

Now. To be clear.

Everyone talks about being brave — “let’s be bold”. Yeah. Everyone sits in meetings and waves their hands enthusiastically or look around sternly making statements and actually talk about bold thinking and bold moves and, well, being bold. Attend any planning meeting or transition meeting or change meeting, in fact, pretty much any meeting in a business office and at some point someone will throw the ‘let’s be bold’ card out onto the table.

What happens next?

Everyone looks as Bold sits there on the table within the reach of anyone. Sitting there on a plate like everyone’s favorite donut .. all the while everyone looking at it is on a diet.

Oh, so tasty.

Oh, I can’t touch it.

This most typically happens in some snazzy meeting room and when someone starts talking about the direction of the business and change, but it also comes up when talking about some new initiative, some new ‘creative thinking’ or … well … anything that may appeal to younger employees or anyone who truly wants to do something good, or spectacular, on the business. 

Conceptually … the desire is there. So why is there no real bold behavior?

We are in a mamby pamby business world.

We are in a ‘let’s stick with the tried & true <safe> to maintain whatever growth we just celebrated in our last meeting” <which was most likely really crappy but justified by a verbal ‘better than the competition’> world. We are in a “let’s be edgy but don’t scare off any potential customers” <which those people most likely aren’t a viable revenue stream anyway> world.

Unfortunately for these spineless shits sitting around conference tables … reality in today’s business world is that we are actually in a “smart bold actions at the smartest time” <but … uhm ,.. apparently no one is smart enough – bold enough? – to identify the smart time>.

It sucks.

We are now living in a “rationalize minuscule change as bold actions’ business world. It is demoralizing as well as a less than effective business strategy.

All that said.

This lack of boldness strikes deepest during transitions and change. And I can logically explain why.

Change in business scares the shit out of any manager & leader.

Okay.

It scares the shit out of 99% of business people <mostly the older more experienced>.

Yeah, yeah, yeah … change sounds great, but in practice it is a shitload like chaos. You plan, but as soon as transition hits its full stride the plan is … well … no longer a plan.

Ok. It is the remnants of a plan.

This means many managers are left with scraps of a plan in their hands and this means that many managers are left to make their own decisions and left to their own devices. This also means that many managers find out they are gutless chicken shits.

Why do I say that?

In their minds ‘go boldly’ is defined by “implement the plan.” Boldly implement the plan to the nth degree.

Without a plan? The cold fear of the unknown and being unsure freezes boldness.

<sigh>

Wimps.

We have become a business world of wimps.

And this lack of a bold muscle can cost you in a variety of ways.

If you do not go boldly you will not only never find success, frankly, you will also ever find “you”, as in yourself, as in “what I am capable of.”

By the way … bold does not mean ‘stupid’. Bold simply means attempting to control your destiny – your personal one and your business one. And in doing so … well … you are letting the chips fall as they may by managing the chips as well as you can.

In Greek this is called Kairos. Kairos is the ability to adapt to and take advantage of changing circumstances.

The concept suggests you have an opportunity to manage what fate has in store for you … if you manage the circumstances as they arise.

And how does this relate to ‘be bold’?

Well. Kairos suggests that fate has a whole array of possibilities to shove your way – not just one in particular. Uhm. That means, if you buy that thought, depending on what you do and how you act and what you say … uhm … Fate just may end up offering you a possibility other than what it thought it was going to offer you a moment ago. This also suggests some boldness increases the odds in your favor with regard to fate. I personally do not think this is ‘fate favors the brave.’ I believe it is less about bravery and more about simply boldly acting upon what your experience suggests is the way to go as a way of managing your Fate.

I could argue that 90%+ of business people do not balk at the idea of ‘being bold’, but balk at actually being bold.

I could argue that the % may even go up higher during business transition <change> times.

Yeah. Even with a real challenge and the authority and space to operate “bold” is unfortunately very very low on the list of business behavioral attitudes.

What is high on the list?

“Restrained response” …

“Restrained behavior”

“Restrained risk.”

I have one word for you.

Wimps.

“Restrained” is for all the fucking wimps.

Look.

We need more smart bold non-wimps in today’s business world.

We need less chicken shit, scared to move, business managers and more bold managers who seek possibilities with a 360 degree view … without restraint … and the desire to do the right smart thing in any direction.

Lastly. Better than any whizbang cultural “happiness mojo” initiatives, being bold, embracing bravery within the business actions, will increase the energy of the organization, attract young people & increase overall productivity as well as engagement (which is the real prize in a business).

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

“Theory is good; but it doesn’t prevent things from existing.”

—-

Jean-Martin Charcot

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

“We must live in the best way this existence that has been given to us, embracing the flow of events. It is up to us to try in every moment of our life to do our best.”

—

The Branches of Time

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

So. A better business world. I imagine everyone feels this is an important objective, but:

• Not everyone would define better the same
• Not all better is created equal
• Not all businesses believe a better world is the way to become better

In fact. On the third point I would suggest this is where ‘business improvers’ (consultants, gurus, futurists, etc) step in and play a role. The majority of business fixers fall into one of 2 camps:

1. The “let’s make your business run more efficiently” people. They’ll discuss process, simplification and digital transformation. Yes. They’ll couch efficiency in some nice fluffy narratives, but in the end they are simply suggesting the machine isn’t running as well as it could and needs to be finetuned or rebuilt. They see behavior as the be all end all.
2. The “people potential” people. They’ll discuss, well, people. How to get people to work better together, how to build an environment in which they are engaged (with caring AND process/tools/digital) and how to foster a healthy culture. They see attitudes as important as behaviors.

That said.

Ask any business leader and they will:

(a) always believe something in the business could be better &

(b) always be seeking to make things better.

Period.

I do not know one leader who is completely satisfied or, on the flip side of the coin, believe a business is maximizing its potential & opportunities.

Here is where different ‘betters’ start coming into play.

Most leaders address a desire to be better transactionally (albeit they may, on occasion, frame it as a ‘structural organizational betterment’). Yet, “better”, when one views it from a ‘world’ perspective, demands addressing structural elements. This includes engagement (which far too often business people think of transactionally).

Ah. Engagement.

Everyone knows the key to maximum productivity and maximizing business potential is engagement. Always has been and always will be. I would note that ‘engagement’ fans always focus on ‘people’ (working together, understanding vision, embracing meaningful work). but engagement, in a business eyes, often expands out to engagement with process, engagement with technology, engagement with machines/production lines, engagement with ‘system tools’ of which people are often the most critical aspect, yet, business will measure engagement “with” something, not “by” someone. That phrase distinction may be one of the most important thoughts I will share today. Ponder it.

But let’s go back to the people/human component … and transactionally. Despite all the discussion around culture (which is when people decide how they want to behave on a coherent fashion) the truth is most businesses try to ‘create engagement’ (which is a problem in & of itself) through transactional methods (which is a problem). Carrots & sticks.  Incentives. “Bribes” (free lunches, ping pong tables, flex times, laptops, etc.). Not only is this not effective (at least in terms of creating long term systemic behavior), but it also shows a lack of understanding in what people truly care about.

All that said.

The business world knows it needs to change. I would suggest younger people feel more strongly about structurally addressing this then older business people who have learned to suffer/live in the business environment & therefore feel more like transactional things are the most pragmatic ways to ‘change it.’

The issue is that the gap between ‘knowing’ and actually ‘doing’ is a real sonuvabitch to cross.

I would suggest the key to crossing this gap is not in the ‘specialists’ or the experts in how things are already being done, the key exists in people who know enough about some specific skill to lay a pragmatic foundation and have the ability to see a new way to build to possibilities. I would suggest there are a number of these people out there who embrace that idea – Daniel Mezick, Perry Timms, Gustavo Razzetti, Neils Pflaeging, Edwin Van der Geest, the Corporate Rebels folks.  While each of them may approach it a little differently, the business world needs more of these type of ideas/people if it truly wants to get better. We need more connectors, aligners, maybe call them the chiropractors of a better way of doing business and a better world.

Look.

Better business needs a structural change. Period.

Better business needs a vision, not transactional changes. Period.

Better business needs an attitudinal adjustment (toward organizational structure, toward how people skills can be maximized, toward how productivity is viewed, toward what businesses role in community/society is). Period.

Now.

I have hesitated to use Purpose because I believe (a) it is used improperly 90% of the time and (b) it is actually better to focus on engagement & contribution and Purpose/results will be an outcome. Purpose is the reason for which something is done or created, the reason for its existence, its use, and its usefulness. Usefulness to others is the mechanism of purpose’s well-documented positive individual and organizational effects. When individuals and organizations think and act with their use to others at the forefront, they’re being purposeful and making their unique contribution (source: Zach Mercurio).

—–

“When purpose is embedded into an organization’s culture, it constantly reorients people to focus on contribution.”

—–

I often translate for all my business leader friends who see “purpose” and panic that it is some nebulous ‘save the world’ bullshit:

“if the people are engaged and focused on contribution they will be more productive, generate more high quality output, be brand ambassadors, be innovative (yes, they will want to contribute ideas to the business itself), be more effective in their behavior (service, customer interactions, vendor relationships, communications) and, you know what? … you’ll be more profitable too.”

source: Zach Mercurio

Or. As Zach shared with me:

It’s actually a basic business principle that’s been dressed up by “thought leaders:” Purpose is contribution, or if you like, “value creation.”  Purposeful organizations and their people focus first on contributing and on creating value. They trust that the effects (results) will follow. As Drucker once said, “Profit is not the purpose of a company. It’s the test of its validity.”  The more valid your contribution, the more results you’ll see.  Every “financial result” is mediated through a human being. Human beings who experience meaningfulness and purpose are far better mediators than those who just “need to get the numbers up!” Frantic leaders (i.e. traditionally-minded business leaders) focus first on producing results, but the problem is you can’t have get an effect without a cause.  You can’t have a result without a contribution.

Anyway.

I will say this entire ‘better business for a better world’ topic is fascinating.

While we credit Millennials for the refinding of our business soul (its partially whatever we call Purpose, but its mostly a simple recognition that something is wrong in the way business is being conducted and there has to be a better way) the truth is that this has nothing to do with age or some generational labels. Mary Parker Follet in early 1900’s. Drucker in the 70’s. Toffler in 1985.

They told us this is the way to do business, but when we chose Friedman (with a good dose of Gordon Gecko) business started down the slippery slope of dollars over contribution & responsibility (not Purpose).

The issue now is, as we all know, getting off a slippery slope is hard (you cannot climb back up off it, you need to jump off and restart or get pulled off by a helping hand) so those on it are, well, on it. i find while we suggest it’s a love of the status quo more often than not most business leaders know they are on a slippery slope and can’t get off it.

I am not a Millennial and i have ached for changes like this for, well, forever. Drucker outlined all of this in New Realities 1990, Ewen in Captains of Consciousness 1976, & the Geckos ignored it and the non Geckos (like me) were not strong enough to fight it.

I will say that now we fight.

In the end.

A better way of doing business for a better world.

This is an incredibly difficult topic to navigate. A business first & foremost needs to be successful to survive and its objective is to do things to survive/thrive. And, yet, the path to do so is actually to NOT think about business, but rather think about people, attitudes & maximizing their potential. There is a delicate balance of two truths – a business needs to be in the business of doing business and people are at their highest engagement when they are doing things not because it is business but meaningful. therein lies the paradox. and within that paradox resides the potential.

But. There has to be a better way and we know there is.

Drucker clearly knew this.

Simplistically, while engagement is the key to productivity, contribution is the key to the future of business – a better way of doing business for a better world.

If people contribute, feel like they are contributing and the business, itself, contributes to the greater world the highest level of value (contribution) has been achieved.

I would argue in doing so the business itself will also attain its highest level of effective productivity, solid efficient productivity and consistent profitability. I am not sure what more a business could desire. I am also not sure how that isn’t better business for a better world.

—

“You can’t just lump things into two categories.

Things aren’t that simple.”

=

Donnie Darko

——–

“… for one thing I’m glad

the goal of enlightenment means being stupid

enough to slip out the door

each morning & live. With no second-guessing,

no poses,

just this leaning & slouching

the experts term … hope.

So people like me cannot be held guilty.

In our travels

we’d never laugh at passing streets,

we’re not like those grins they have

plastered to the sides of every bus. “

=

David Rivard

——–

So. This is about Life and tying things up with a colorful bow versus living with some <the> gray. Ok. Let’s call this ‘living with uncertainty.’

Well. Let me state a couple of obvious things about uncertainty. Uncertainty is a bitch. And uncertainty pretty much sums up about 99% of Life.

Bottom line?

Life is certainly uncertain <there is a conundrum>.

Guarantees are never guaranteed. A truth today can be very different than a truth from yesterday.

Control from one moment to the next is slippery, elusive and … well … uncertain … at best.

Now. Despite the fact I want to discuss Life, and gray, I will begin with the human eye because, well, it is interesting and it will help me make a point. The human eye is capable of seeing any shade of gray and a zillion different colors. Ok. Not a zillion. But, in total, the eye can distinguish over 500 shades of grey and over 2.7 million colors <although I found another source that suggested over 5 million colors>. <source: NZ Eye Institute>

By the way <let me digress>. I found it interesting that grey can also bring any color to life.

Apparently grey often contains other colors  ranging from yellowish to orangey-brownish to purplish, bluish and greenish grays and, apparently, depending on what hue of gray you use their psychological effects on people can be quite different.

Anyway. I began there because gray has a bad rap in today’s world. Black & white have a significantly better reputation. It is unfortunate because Life exists mostly in a palette of grays. Yes. We live in a world of uncertainties and contextual truths of … well … grays. I imagine that makes ‘vivid color moments’ of clarity that much more special.

Conversely. It can be quite unsettling given the unfortunate fact the majority of time we dwell in the gray.

Looking back on my career, and Life, I have found I can live, if not feel quasi-comfortable, with uncertainty in most things.

Even decisions.

Huh? Well. Honestly a decision is most often a reflection of judgment. It is a choice between alternatives <none of which are solid blacks or whites>. Choices are rarely a simple choice between right and wrong. It is often at best a choice between ‘almost right’ and mostly likely a ‘probably wrong’.  And much more often you are making a choice between two choices of which neither is probably more right than the other. This is because ‘right decisions’ tend to grow out of the friction and conflict of divergent thinking <sometimes just opinions> and out of contemplation and consideration of competing alternatives.

We make lots & lots of these decisions. Lots.

Compound that with a thought I read somewhere: ‘every decision is like surgery.’ While we may flippantly suggest that we make decisions and ‘move on’ more often it is an intervention into a system and therefore carries with it the risk of shock, pain & recovery.

Ouch.

This actually means that I receive a vivid, visceral, color response for making a gray decision.

Well. Welcome to Life. And maybe worse? <or at least something to think about>. Your decisions are dabbling in the shades of gray and yet you have to be committed to the decision <which will firmly place actions on a black or white path>, if you want any hope of progress.

Yup. Because, if you do not, nothing will change. You will end up endlessly wandering around outside that ‘box’ <because all the shades of gray actually reside in ‘out of the box thinking’ without any clear or vivid direction>. No one really tells you this, but all the vivid colors and vivid moments and vivid decisions in life actually reside inside the box.

It is inside the box you actually can be an adventurer.

It is inside the box that you make a stand. Make a commitment. Make a decision that provides a little spot color … a little bright light … to the box.

Just think about it a little.

You can go outside the box if you want to but you will most likely end up doing something that seems right to you and maybe feel good. But most likely only because you are outside the box all alone without anyone to criticize or even see. That’s not an adventure. An adventure is a complete experience. 

It is inside the box where it happens.

—

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. 

For, indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

Margaret Mead

—

In dealing with a shades of gray Life you do have to be adventuresome and committed.

I posted the above quote maybe in the first two days I started this whole enlightened conflict site thing. With life mostly made up of shades of gray it is really only the thoughtful committed people who have a chance to bring some color.

The color may not be appealing in some cases, but, who cares? I don’t like everything every small group of committed thoughtful people say or do <and in fact I sometimes, in weaker moments, question whether they are truly thoughtful and maybe they should be committed to some loony bin rather than trying to be people committed to something>.

But then I understand. I understand that their commitment makes me more thoughtful. And I am okay with that. They point out that life does reside in grays, but that greys DO contain other colors and bring colors to Life.

Anyway. In a world in which so much resides in shades of grey I tend to believe it pays to be thoughtful and less flippant about decisions particularly if it truly is an important decision <although I will admit sometimes it is difficult to discern the really important from just ‘the important’ … shit … the grey thing again>. Maybe it helps me to suggest that with so much grey we should remain committed to doing “what is the right thing to do” <versus what maybe everyone else is suggesting be done>.

Why? because it is truly the hope to building some aspect of color into the greys. And maybe that is where I am going with this rambling.

Enlightenment resides in discerning the hues of color found in the greys of Life. The vivid moments are so few and far apart that waiting for them, or investing an entire life to seeking them, means you miss out on the enlightenment life has to offer you. So maybe we should seek to be part of the thoughtful and committed small group of people who don’t bemoan the shades of grey but rather embrace the colors within … and thoughtfully tease the colors out for others to view.

Look. I tend to believe we try far too often to categorize things in black and white – in extremes and binaries. We do so in the attempt for clarity as well as to make it distinct and stand out.

Unfortunately, even with the good intentions, many times truth <and colors> lies somewhere in the middle — in the shades of gray as it were.

Good people can do bad things.

Bad people can do good things.

Bad ideas can end up in good places.

And colors can peek out between the many shades of gray.

Enlightenment can be found ‘in the box of gray’ if we would stop eying the random vivid elusive colors we envision somewhere outside the box.

Look. Inside the box may look a lot like a grey place to reside, but only if you don’t recognize that it is, in fact, within grays that colors reside.

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

“A boss creates fear, a leader confidence.

A boss fixes blame, a leader corrects mistakes.

 A boss knows all, a leader asks questions.

A boss makes work drudgery, a leader makes it interesting.

A boss is interested in himself or herself, a leader is interested in the group.”

—–

Russell H. Ewing

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

This is not about threatening employees about making mistakes <i.e., ”you are gonna get fired if you fuck this up”>, but rather threatening employees who are exhibiting behavior that isn’t what you want from them. This is also less a thought about managing individuals, but more about managing a culture and groups of individuals – exploring systemic behavior issues.

Now. I have to tell you.

Having managed a shitload of people there has certainly been some point where I wanted to threaten my employees if not just strangle them <and I am sure the feeling was mutual on occasion>. Most of us just take a deep breath. Maybe close the door of their office and throw something. And then calm down enough to realize that most employees’ actions & behaviors are derivative of our own leadership.

As a corollary to that thought, if the actions & behaviors reflect a more systemic issue and not just some random individuals, well, you know it is reflective of your own leadership <or lack of leadership>.

Ah … “most of us.” Well. Not “all of us.”

Management by fear is the go-to tactic of the old generation of business leaders. They were also the ‘benevolent dictators’ <sort of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Men of Hitlers> as well as the dickheads who treated everyone like shit except the ones who did exactly what they were told to do.

Once again, about the only business people who believe in this type of management are:

<1> those who have never run a larger organization which demands cultural alignment for effectiveness,

<2> managers over the age of 55 — mostly white ones,

<3> weak leaders, or

<4> narcissistic arrogant dickheads.

=========== 

“I suppose that leadership at one time meant muscle; but today it means getting along with people.

Indira Gandhi

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

Threatening employees with forced confidentiality agreements, law suits, sweeping statements of firing a shitload of people, and even “you are either with me or against me” type threats is not only stupid but it is less than effective.

That doesn’t encourage the best behavior, which is self-motivated, but rather all this does is create ‘forced behavior.’ Now. I am no behavior expert, but even I know if I am forcing a certain type of behavior and, ultimately, that behavior is never absorbed as ‘self-affirmation of what I believe and like”, well, the first chance an employee gets to ‘unforce themselves’ they are gonna do it.

Here is what most of the good leaders know.

You can never, and I mean never, absolve yourself of the behaviors of your employees. You are either complicit or encouraged or simply an enabler. You are, whether you like it or not, responsible for your employee’s actions.

What does that mean?

If they do things that piss you off you, most likely, have pissed them off.

If they show you little respect, you, most likely, have shown them little respect.

If they show you lack of loyalty, you, most likely, have not earned their loyalty or shown behavior that deserves loyalty.

If you do not recognize anything I just wrote as truth, you, most likely, just threaten your employees every time they do something you don’t like.

Look.

I have absolutely talked to an individual employee about their expense reports.

I have absolutely spoken to an individual employee about their behavior in the office.

I have absolutely sat down with an individual employee about what they should, or should not, be saying to people outside the office.

But, more importantly, I talk with the accounting department, the HR department and department heads to find out about what the organization is systemically doing with their expense reports, behavior in the office and talking outside the office before I speak with any individual.

I don’t think I was a particularly great leader, but even I knew that systemic behavioral issues were my issues — not their issues. I also understand that threatening employees, or even the trite ‘carrot & stick’ thinking, was ineffective if you wanted to build a culture where individual employees didn’t cheat on their expense reports, didn’t do stupid shit in the office and didn’t say the wrong things about the company outside the office.

A leader knows threats are stupid if you have any desire to build a long term culture. You set expectations, provide a vision that people can be proud of and the reward is not anything individual monetarily or even ‘keeping your job’ but rather the employee looks around and sees solidarity – the prize is being part of a team aligned on an objective.

Some leaders don’t see that. All they see is bad behavior and offer threats to seal the cracks in the system. All that does is mask the problem not solve the problem. All that solves systemic organizational bad behavior is good leadership — not threats.

Fear, despite what some may suggest, is not a particularly great motivator in business.

=========

“Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future.

—-

Niels Bohr

——-

“The future is purchased by the present.”

—

Samuel Johnson

===========

“If the people in this room were right just 1 percent of the time, we’d all be telecommuting from Tahiti, eating dinner in pill form and having literal sex with our virtual selves.”

The Futurist (James Othmer)

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

Around the new year everyone gets into the prediction business. Basically, a shitload of people become “futurists.” Well. I wrote in 2011 the whole ‘futurist’ career was bullshit and suggested I could never be one. Let me begin by explaining where “Futurist” began.

The “Manifesto of Futurism,” written by Filippo Tommaso Marinetti was published on the front page of the French newspaper Le Figaro on February 20, 1909. It proclaimed the desire of the author, and his fellow Futurists, to abandon the past and embrace the future.

The point here on the whole concept of a “Futurist” is that their very existence is disdainful of the present.

Anyway.

Should we have an eye to the future? Absolutely. To not do so is to remain stagnant with regard to thinking.

Should we ignore the present? Absolutely not. If there was ever a time that a Futurist discussed the present, now would be the time.

Future thinking is purchased in the present. In other words, something existing within the present – most likely some type of behavior is the future opportunity. Saying that permits me to say that I believe Futurists, or the label/title, is kind of silly. Suffice it to say looking at trends and envisioning ‘what could be’ doesn’t need a title. And you certainly cannot earn a living doing it if you get paid for successful futuristic prognostication.

Why? Because the probability of being right is very very low. Pretty much every so called futurist <excepting maybe Toffler & Drucker … who never called themselves Futurists> has had an incredibly poor success rate in outlining future trends & behavior <and sometimes even attitudes>.

“The futurist was never cutting edge or far ahead of the curve. He was often only just a few minutes in front of the pack, or a couple seconds ahead of the global zeitgeist, or at least of the middle american one. It is rare, and a gift, to be able to see something was going to be big in a mainstream way months and sometimes years before your hipsters, your early adapters, your so called thought leaders embraced it.”

The Futurist

Moving beyond simply slamming futurists, in my mind I believe futurists shouldn’t predict they should inspire thinking <which could beget the future>. This kind of career activity is sort of like NASA, i.e., unintended innovations and learning.

The truth of a trend spotter or a ‘futurist’ is that they steal <reassemble> the thoughts of others and repurpose them for slightly different purposes under the guise of ‘recognizing disparate facts that impact the bigger picture.’ Once again, I do not begrudge them. That takes a skill (I highly recommend both Mike Walsh books, Dictionary of Dangerous Ideas & The Algorithmic Leader as he is what I envision a Futurist SHOULD do). Its just that many of the so-called Futurists take advantage of a world where it is acceptable to not to know the answers to the questions that the world asks every second of the day. It’s okay to not know what you want, where you want to go and who you want to become.

It’s okay to wonder.

It’s okay to question and ask.

And it is okay to not to know<although those listening then take it as gospel>.

And what’s not okay is to stop wondering. So the faux Futurist steps in and uses all of those to create answers (to unanswerable questions) and create a made up future world everyone can think about.

Ok. All that said.

Here is a truth <and Futurists clearly understand this>. The people they are talking to don’t really want wisdom. Those people just want shortcuts to getting more. Therefore if the message doesn’t match the ‘more’ desires ultimately it doesn’t engage the listeners because it doesn’t contain the inevitability of something positive.

It may sound cynical but nowadays a message needs a sense of some guarantee that prosperity will never end <that is a thought from the book>. And therein lies my biggest issue, the fact that trend watchers are seeking future prosperity versus discussing empowering present prosperity.

That “seek future vs. empower present” is the issue we should skewer 99% of so-called Futurist, predictors, over.

The truth is that the future is actually found in the now. Uhm. I mean that future ideas are actually found in the now. Note that this ‘now’ is not just in thinking, but in doing.

Thinking about what is happening now <attitudes>.

Thinking about what is being done today <behavior>.

Say what? How can it be futuristic if it is just a derivative of something in the present?

Well. To me real futuristic trending type thinking has to have a slightly pragmatic foundation residing somewhere in the minds of the rising generation. The real, the truly meaningful, behavior shifts occur not within a generation, but within transition of generations. Therefore any pie in the sky type thinking has to be made up of some pie that <simplistically> the kids of the present have an interest in eating of. For any future type ideation will live or die not with existing attitude generations but more so in evolving attitude generations.

To be clear. People’s attitudes do, and can, evolve as they age and experience things <and they are exposed to new and different attitudes and behavior>. But that isn’t futuristic thinking, that is simply critical mass thinking (I recommend Mark Earls “Herd” for this).

It’s a different ability. That is someone who can look at existing trends and attitudes … mostly looking at those that reside in fractions or in the minority of minds … and figuring out which ones will actually gain enough traction to attain the critical mass to ‘evolve’ the majority of attitudes.

I say that but also suggest that this is often a Sisyphean task.

Attitudes are imprints. They are almost like tattoos. Once established they are almost impossible to remove.

Think about how the past minority point of views have shifted to a majority more mainstream view acceptance and, yet, there still remains a solid steadfast unrelenting minority attitude system in place. Evolution of attitudes is like glaciers. And they also tend to follow generations … and not single generations. Early adopter generation transitioning to a vocal minority generation to a majority acceptance generation and ultimately a generation who not only has the attitudes but behavior is established.

Ok. Last thought on predictions.

Toffler co-wrote the 1970 book Future Shock and also Power Shift and also The Adaptive Corporation <all of which I have sourced so often it is embarrassing>. And while some of his writings were off base and some a little bit of a stretch, most of his writings were incredibly insightful and we are living much of what he outlined then – today. He predicted the rise of the internet, the impact of the internet on the workplace, how technology would affect sociological norms as well as labor needs and he even discussed the decline of the nuclear family.

In general, he foresaw the larger impact related to technological advancement.

And far too often we ignore what he wrote and had the foresight to point out. My point is far too often today’s experts and pontificators act like what is happening today is some seismic shift reflective of an earthquake happening before our eyes.

They are wrong.

What is happening today is the tsunami occurring on our shores from the earthquake which occurred under some deep ocean decades ago. And that is what Toffler outlined for us. And that is what I wish far more people would invest the energy researching to better understand why things are happening in the here & now (not just Toffler but the underlying attitudinal shifts).

As I write I can look up on the closest bookshelf and see my well worn copies of Future Shock and PowerShift. Toffler writing should be mandatory for anyone who wants to discuss current trends and current business issues. And you, and I, should demand that they do so. To not do so is to commit professional malpractice. At its least worst it reflects intellectual laziness to discuss what is happening today without the proper background.

Well. Paradoxically … future ideas are actually best found in looking backwards — at those who are coming up behind … the young. Futurists have to look forward, but seek truth in the young. Their predictions will never come true if there isn’t a pragmatic realistic foundation to be found within the youth. With no traction, the idea, shit, any future type idea will die.

As I type that it sounds so obvious, yet, it seems like futurists and trend identifiers seem to focus on today’s people and gaze at the horizon.

Shit. What do I know.

I am not a futurist. I am not a predictor. I like to live in the present & make sure I have a future to be doing something in. I also know that past behavior is NOT a predictor of future behavior. So what do I know? Predictions are shit.

—–

“I think as you grow older your Christmas list gets smaller and the things you really want for the holidays can’t be bought.”

=

(via hefuckin)

—–

Merry Christmas. Well. It’s scary how true this quote is.

Christmas sometimes seems simpler when thinking about the past. But it most likely wasn’t. It is just when young your list was long filled with things you wanted and the list was, well, a clear cut black & white list.

Today? Beyond the fact an ‘adult list’ is shorter … it sometimes seems like Christmas has descended into a trashy, crass, excessive, shallow <or hollow>, lighted plastic capitalistic driven spectacle. From a broader perspective Christmas has become a ‘retail event’ from which a lot of people step back from the joy of giving and assess the economy <not happiness>.

Yet. From a purely economic perspective Christmas spending is an inefficient way to drive growth. In 1993 an economist named Joel Waldfogel described what he called the “deadweight loss of Christmas” which is the concept of the fact that everybody pays too much for what nobody wants.

Anyway. But when you get past all that cynical pragmatic crap you see lots of the things you really want for the holidays which can’t be bought. The raw, non corporate branded, humane, caring and kind things.

————–

Dorey Walker: I don’t think that there’s any harm in not believing in a figure that many do acknowledge to be a fiction.

Kris Kringle: Oh, but there is. I’m not just a whimsical figure who wears a charming suit and affects a jolly demeanor. You know, I… I… I’m a symbol. I’m a symbol of the human ability to be able to suppress the selfish and hateful tendencies that rule the major part of our lives. If… you can’t believe, if you can’t accept anything on faith, then you’re doomed for a life dominated by doubt.”

Miracle on 34th Street – 1947

—————

Let’s call them ‘the little big things.’

I reflect on this thought knowing that gifts have never mattered to me even when I was really young. But that doesn’t mean I ‘got’ Christmas. I imagine, at my best, it was just an event where you were able to develop thoughtful lists which expressed something beyond simply ‘giving a gift.’ This elevated me above Scrooge status, but never really elevated me to an ‘understanding what Christmas was really all about’ status.

Today? Well. As usual. I am a work in progress. But I do see my list shrinking and I seem to get closer to one thing. One idea. Hope.

I think many people may treat the event & time as a gift giving occasion or a time to gather or even a time to reflect … but I am beginning to think Christmas offers a glimmer of ‘what could be’ more than anything else. Sometimes it may simply be a small glimmer but it is …well … a glimmer.

A small piece of hope for the future.

A small spotlight on when hope appeared in the past year or so.

And while context matters, in that whatever is happening in the world around us, I tend to think regardless of the context as we get older our lists get smaller because we get closer to the one thing that really matters. This also means that the closer you get to that one thing the less important all the other things become.

Oh. I also began to realize that if I am only to give one gift to the people I know it is to insure they see Hope even if it is for but one minute. This is not to suggest I believe I can make anyone actually believe in Hope.

You cannot.

However, I do believe you can show that Hope is there … possible … and attainable <in some form or fashion>.

It can be found in taking one minute to show a young employee that the best version of whatever they can be is attainable.

It can be found in taking one minute to tell a good friend that the dark<er> bridge they are walking on does have an end <and there is good solid ground with some grass & trees on it to stand on>.

It can be found in taking one minute to hand that homeless person you have seen for the last 11 months standing there at the corner a $10 bill instead of a $1 bill <and say ‘I hope it gets better’ … uhm … when do you think is the last time they have heard a stranger say they have hope for them??>.

None of those things have really cost me a thing, and I have given one little gift that I doubt was on their list of ‘what I want this Christmas.’

Just think about it.

Ok. Beyond Hope and believing and speaking of big … and small … let me shift to “the big man”. Santa Claus himself.

It’s a small thing … but believing in Santa Claus is important. It creates a smallish type hope that good resides and visits everyone. And, yes, the best example of this is “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.” And, yet, there continue to be millions who not only doubt Santa Claus … they deny his existence. They are called Santa deniers <and it is called Santa Denial>.

Silly people.

I say that because a writer recently took on Santa denial quite well. And this writer offers us a great reminder why we should believe in Santa Claus:

=

Addressing Santa Denial:

Santa-denial has existed for far too long and I cannot understand how Santa deniers are allowed to promote their views. Why are these people tolerated in today’s modern media?  Science has long shown that Santa Claus is real, and those who claim otherwise are invariably in the pocket of the big toy companies, who don’t want people thinking they can get free playthings and so will pay for their products.

But the evidence is beyond any reasonable doubt, and the arguments of the Santa deniers have been repeatedly debunked. But, just to refresh your memory, here are some of the more typical ones and why they’re wrong:

===

If Santa has a workshop at the north pole, why has nobody ever seen it?

Santa’s workshop is located in a very snowy region that very few people can access, so it’s unlikely that many people would get to see it. It would theoretically be possible to view it from above, via an aircraft or satellite in a polar orbit, but what would Santa’s workshop look like from this perspective? A snow-covered building on a background of ice and snow? That’s basically just blank whiteness. And infrared scans can be tricky with snow. It’s a fallacy to assume that something isn’t there because you haven’t seen it. You can’t see oxygen either, but try denying that it exists and see how far you get.

=

How can a human survive prolonged periods in sub-zero conditions?

Santa has several features and properties clearly adapted for cold weather survival. His large girth and dense beard and hair are obviously meant for insulation, in the manner of polar bears. Of course, enduring below-freezing temperatures for months on end requires a lot of calories for a warm-blooded mammal, hence Santa needs to get through millions of mince pies and glasses of milk in one evening; he’s building up resources for another frosty year.

How is it possible for a sleigh with millions of toys in it, pulled by reindeer, to fly?

Admittedly, the whole “flying reindeer” thing does seem very far-fetched, and this is a fair accusation. Investigations suggest that the flying reindeer image is a distortion of the truth, in that reindeer are native to the Arctic so Santa may well keep reindeer on his premises and perhaps they did pull his sleigh originally. But there is substantial evidence now to suggest that Santa powers his sled with the energy obtained from a precisely controlled quantum singularity.

Basically, Santa has access to a small black hole, which he uses to perform his duties. It’s likely that a miniature black hole struck Earth at some point in the past (don’t worry, this wouldn’t have been as disastrous as many think). Some argue that it came down in the arctic regions, hence its discoverer (Santa Claus) built his workshop on top of it. A black hole singularity can provide a lot of power, so this is the most likely explanation for the energy consumption of a busy workshop.

Once a year, Santa fits the singularity to his vehicle and uses it to travel the world. Black holes have exotic properties that allow them to distort space and gravity, so traveling with millions of toys in a confined space won’t be as impractical as it would be under normal spacetime rules.

=

It’s impossible to visit every child on Earth in a single night!

You’d think so, but remember the singularity mentioned above? They distort time too. The time period might feel like months for Santa in his own personal gravity well, but it’s mere minutes to anyone observing from the outside.

So, regardless, How can Santa keep track of every child being naughty or nice? As uncomfortable to realize as it may be, Santa’s approach hasn’t always been the most rational. It is traditional for every child to send Santa a gift list they have written themselves, so in the old days Santa was able to use the questionable science of handwriting analysis to determine who had less-than-pleasant personality traits (along with some educated guesswork based on the list itself; a child who asks for live scorpions or chainsaws is likely to have suspect motivations).

However, with the arrival of the internet and surveillance culture, it’s relatively easy to keep track of everyone. Especially if you’re a powerful industrialist like Santa.

=====

Why does Santa deliver toys and items with the branding of corporations?

Outsourcing!

Duh.

Plus, most children these days ask for specific items made by corporations, who jealously protect their copyrights by legal means. So either Santa sources the toy from the original makers, or the child goes without.

Is that what you want, Santa deniers? Children waking up empty-handed on Christmas morning? Despicable!

===

Why are there so many Santas in shops and grottos?

Those aren’t all Santa. They’re men in costumes. How gullible are you?

===

<note: If you still deny there is someone called Santa Claus … well … you have no soul>

<source: a delightful writer named Dean Burnett >

————

And, everyone, please have a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.

―

“You know, sometimes in life you can get kinda stuck and you feel like you should have changed chapters by now, but you can’t.”

==

Wish I Was Here <Aidan>

——————-

So. There are ruts … and then there is just being stuck. They are significantly different.

………………………………….. RUT

Getting in a rut is sliding down the slippery slope of the everyday grind of Life.

You simply fall into a space where day in and day out you are checking shit off your list and justifying the relatively unsatisfying Life space you are in by showing everyone, and yourself, the list of things you have checked off.

Getting stuck is a more frustrating Life situation.

This is where you know you are not where you want to be and doing things you don’t really want to do and … well … you are stuck. You have shit on your list or at least one important thing on your list, which you want to do, but day in and day out you look at your list and that little nasty shit of a thing never gets checked. And, what is worse, you know you are stuck usually in two ways:

Your own head.

In your mind you may not recognize it for a while … but then it hits you … I am not moving. I am stuck.

This sucks.

Others around you.

You may not recognize it for a while because you feel like you are moving, and you may actually be moving, but then it hits you … everyone else is moving faster. Life, which often looks blurry in the midst of all the shit you want to do, now looks clearer but everyone around you looks blurry. They are moving and you are not. You are stuck.

This sucks.

Suffice it to say … getting stuck sucks.

And getting stuck happens all the time with everyone.

You have most of your shit together.

You know what you want.

You know what it takes to get what you want.

You probably even know the path to getting what you want.

And, even with all that, you are stuck.

Yup.

That sucks.

But here is the worst aspect of being “stuck.”

More often than not when you get stuck you will find that you are, well, between who you are and who you want to be.

You know there is a better version of you, but you are stuck being the current version of you. It may not be a bad version, it may not even be a sucky version, you just know there is a better version.

That sucks.

Anyway.

Ruts are actually relatively easy to get out of. Ruts, more often than not, occur because you permit them to happen … so you just have to stop permitting it to happen.

Getting stuck is usually really difficult to get out of. Stuck, more often than not, occurs DESPITE the fact you are doing whatever you can to not permit it to happen.

If you google “get unstuck” you will get over 200,000 results in .48 seconds. The majority of those results are about ‘changing attitudes’ or ‘simple techniques to get unstuck’ or even ‘breaking habitual patterns.’

Most likely none of this online shit will help you. Mostly because the advice is more about getting out of a rut and not about getting unstuck.

But I would also suggest there ain’t a shitload of advice because … well … getting unstuck is difficult, there are no ‘simple techniques’ and your ‘stuck’ is most likely contextual & situational.

Being stuck is frustrating. Sometimes even maddening. And sometimes it makes you angry. Yeah. It sucks.

I don’t have some secret to share about how to get unstuck. All I know is that it sucks, it feels sucky, and you have to sometimes suck it up and be creative in your pursuit of what you want to get unstuck.

Oh. The other thing to keep in mind.

The opening quote says you feel like you should have changed chapters by now, but you can’t.”

Remember.

The “can’t” is just for now.

You may beat your head against some wall for awhile but eventually people who get stuck get unstuck.

That is because, unlike the whole rut situation, you are aware of what is <frustratingly> happening and you want more and you know what you want <and being stuck ain’t it>.

Trust me.

Getting unstuck rarely happens as fast as you want it to, but, I will say that people who get stuck, well, 99% of the time figure out how to get unstuck. So while getting stuck sucks, the majority of us know how to get unstuck.

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

“liberty, equality, fraternity.“

——-

 “liberty and justice for all.”

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

So. I just spoke with a good friend in France and we ended up discussing politics. Ok. Not politics, per se, but rather how politics is conducted and how the ones trying to get elected tell everyone not to be confused on the issues … then proceed to tell everyone shit that confuses the real issues <and us> … and then people who are, in general, confused about what the people they are voting for really stand on some issues as they duel each other with tactics <but smear each other with overarching lies>. 

That is par for the course in every election these days.

Someone can be called racist … and they are not.

Someone can be claimed to “let anyone across the border” and they have no plans to do that.

Someone can be called a liar … and they actually stretch the truth less than the one making the claim.

Someone can … well … let’s just say … excepting an ardent, focused, few … for the everyday schmuck it can be really quite confusing.

Unfortunately, all the confusion does is mask the truly important decision.

For France it is the doctrine of ‘liberty, equality, fraternity.’

For USA … despite Thomas Jefferson and other’s temptation to head down the same path … we settled on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all.

Yet. It never seems like we talk about this enough.

Politics seem to revolve around what I, as a business person, would call tactics. Immigration, health, jobs, security, etc. Yeah. Important shit, but tactics to meet the objective. And all this talk about the tactics truly seems to confuse us, the voters & citizens, about the overarching objective.

And politicians shamelessly use and stretch the meaning of tactics to morph them into something that the objective demands when, in reality, it does no such thing.

That may be the most heinous thing a politician does these days.

We should almost demand each of them to put up the objective — what the country, the ‘one nation’ <not “under God” … just ‘one nation’> stands for and demand that every time they make some ludicrous claim or offer some distorted thought about past country behavior that they explain to us how it meets the objective. In other words. Tie all the tactics to the grander idea that all the people really believe in.

Uhm. Oh yeah. Just a quick reminder to my American readers on the whole “under God” aside I just offered.

The US founding fathers centered everything, Constitution and Bill of Rights, on one core idea — liberty and justice for all. While some important stuff surrounds that core, they are the trappings of what makes up the core.

I say that because our founding fathers did not write the pledge of allegiance. Nor did the pledge we all stood up and speak in our childhood schoolrooms originally include “under God” <even though the original was created by an ordained minister in 1892>. It was only in the spring of 1954, after US Congress had voted with some controversy, to insert the phrase into the Pledge of Allegiance — partly as a cold war tactic against “godless” communism.

——————–

The original Pledge read as follows:

‘I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.’ He considered placing the word, ‘equality,’ in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans.

[ * ‘to’ added in October, 1892 ]

—————–

All Americans should remember that core of the pledge of allegiance is the ‘republic for which it stands,’ which, I could argue, is the concise phrase for One Nation – an ‘’executive summary’ if you will of the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. The pledge unequivocally states that to make that One Nation idea viable we must specify that it is indivisible. This is a word, and a thought, used by Jefferson, other founding fathers, Daniel Webster, Lincoln and almost every visionary leader the country has ever had throughout speeches & writing.

No one should be confused by what the core of the country doctrine is … nor what the Founding Fathers desired … liberty & justice for all … one nation … indivisible.

<and shame on any politician who suggests otherwise>

Anyway. About the only thing I am sure of during an election is that there will be rampant confusion among those who are actually voting and unrelenting adamant fervor of what everyone should not be confused about <tactics>.

As a nation France stands square on the doctrine of ‘liberty, equality, fraternity.’ Until someone comes along and says “no, that’s not right, lets change it to bla bla bla …” that is what makes France ‘One Nation’.

Not baguettes.

Not great coffee.

Not mastering the art of wearing a scarf.

Not even a semi-haughty attitude on occasion.

One nation.

The moment a country ignores that which makes it one and gets confused by what some politician suggests is an important tactic that doesn’t really match up with ‘oneness’ it no longer is a country with a doctrine or a soul. It remains divided by tactics and empty of an objective.

As a business guy. As I read that last sentence, for a business, I hear the tolling of the death knell.

Without oneness a nation is no longer a nation. And a tactic, NO tactic, will never insure oneness … only an idea can.

Outside of America, France is my favorite country in the world. I always think, and wish for them, liberty, honor and lack of confusion … because clarity is the path to oneness.

And be clear … the idea which makes France one is ‘liberty, equality, fraternity.’

And be clear … the idea which makes USA one is liberty and justice for all or, if you would prefer, e pluribus unim (out of many one). Don’t let any tactic or any blowhard promise take your focus off of that. In the end the one thing we should demand of any politician, any leader, is to attain the objective of oneness, of unity, of liberty for all. Absent that we are just talking tactics. And, in business, that’s a fool’s errand and we are not a nation of fools.

(your job as a manager is to make it easier for people to believe in themselves and what they do)

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

“Once we believe in ourselves, we can risk curiosity, wonder, spontaneous delight, or any experience that reveals the human spirit.”

e.e. cummings

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

“Trust yourself. Create the kind of self that you will be happy to live with all your life.

Make the most of yourself by fanning the tiny, inner sparks of possibility into flames of achievement.”

—

Golda Meir

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

Today I am rambling about the psychology of managing employees, specifically, an aspect of managing that I would call “believing and non-believing management.”

No. This is not about motivating employees.

This is more about unlocking employees – unlocking potential.

This is more about that seemingly nonstop discussion you have with employees where you curb the overreaching confidence in some and instill some confidence in others.

To be sure. If you talk with enough people who have managed groups & companies and you will notice that at some point someone will bring up “I have to be a psychologist.”

To be clear. Do business managers have to be psychologists to be effective? No. Not really. But playing the psychologist role on occasion certainly doesn’t hurt.

I am fairly sure what I am discussing has some high falutin’ organizational behavior ‘management principles’ published and formal white papers with long esoteric discussions on employee personality types and some personality testing voodoo.

I am fairly sure, okay … certain, it is possible to be a competent if not good leader without understanding all that personality crap. In fact I could argue, and I have argued, that personality tests trap individuals into some defined box in which if any of their behaviors don’t fit that box from that point on they will be mismanaged because they aren’t doing what the box said they would do.

Anyway.

Most good managers clearly understand that different people are motivated by different things and that different things can inhibit the potential of each employee.

Suffice it to say, in my mind, it really all comes down to one basic management principle: possibilities & pragmatism management. Unlocking each employee’s potential is almost always a balance of pragmatic doing and getting them to envision what they are possible of.

Simplistically, your objective is always to free your employee to be their best and do their best.

Now. Sometimes this means stripping something away and sometimes this means adding something.

And that is where my whole ‘believing & nonbelieving management’ comes into the discussion.

More often than not while you are teaching & coaching skills and pragmatic ‘here is what you need to do’ crap you will find yourself facing an employee who is either bursting with belief in themselves and their abilities or semi-frozen in an ‘unsure of what to do and if I can do it’ attitude.

Both need some attitudinal adjustments.

The ‘belief’ employees run the gamut from the young employee who is sure they are smarter and better than you <or others around them> to a senior sales guy who hasn’t met a sale he couldn’t make <doing it his way if only the company would get out of the way>.

The ‘nonbeliever’ employees also run the gamut from young & inexperienced to older doing it for the first time or even mid level employees dealing with something completely unrelated that has pricked their confidence bubble in some way.

And, no, I certainly do not consider any of this ‘cheerleader engagement.’ In fact I would suggest that any manager who does needs to rethink their thinking because this is all about believing & not encouragement.

Yeah. Managing people certainly can contain some aspects of ‘enthusiasm management’, but one of the most basic manager self-survival techniques you learn <or die> is how to manage without too much investment of self. Therefore I have always viewed this aspect of employee management as simply assessing their ‘believe level’ and adjusting appropriately to enable the true potential to be there when it counts.

As a manager you always hunker down on the pragmatic aspects of what needs to be done first.

Always.

It is kind of your heuristic trick to assess any attitudinal challenges to getting the frickin’ pragmatic aspect done.

But you always keep an eye, and an ear, open during the pragmatic assessing the ‘possibilities of whether the shit will actually get done and done as well as it can be done.’

This is the place where you look at the employee and assess the ‘belief factor.’

Some are easy to read. Some are a little more difficult. And, no, I cannot offer some trite generalism here.

Exuding belief believers can come in all shapes & sizes & behaviors.

Nonbelievers can come in all shapes & sizes & attitudes.

And it can get even trickier.

Tricky because the same employee who was bursting with blind belief one day will be the same employee sitting in front of you the next day discussing a completely different project or task … semi-frozen in non-belief. What that means is everyday, you (as a manager of believers & nonbelievers) cannot assume the person you dealt with yesterday will be exactly the same person they are today.

Yes. I just said that.

That sounds incredibly painful and inefficient, but it’s not of you believe you are in the believing management business. why? Well.  Zach Mercurio has an idea how to navigate this.

Research shows a 400% increase in employee productivity after meeting just one person impacted by their work.  That’s one way (and an effective way). But the point is you are seeking to not inject confidence  or belief, but rather to encourage belief to emerge naturally. This is emergent motivation or fostering intrinsic energy. That is believing in oneself and when you align it in believing n what you are doing AND aligning that with belief in the business vision and who and what the business is achieving, well, you have maximized the believing business.

I would also note a couple other things Zach Mercurio has stated (relevant to the believing and non believing business):

• 83% of people say meaning in work is a priority
• Regularly show people how their work helps others
• Connect people to the beneficiary of the work
• Show people how they matter
• Place contribution over achievement.

The interesting thing in this is:

• Technology is not about believing, it just enables people who believe in something, desire meaning, to do things to the benefit of people.
• Achievement and meaning are inextricably connected. While doing, with a purpose, is important it, ultimately, needs to have a benefit and, maybe most importantly, a benefit to people in some way. I point this out because it is this combination, or equation, that equates to contribution.

Look. The fundamentals of effective management are pretty much the same everywhere.

But this ‘possibilities & pragmatism management’ thing I am discussing takes some commitment. It doesn’t take being a psychologist you just have to be committed to managing the individual ‘believe’ gauge. And this means being committed to both stripping away some unnecessary <or risky> belief and bolting on some belief where needed.

Unfortunately this can sometimes take a fine subtle touch … and most of us everyday manager schmucks aren’t always subtle. Nor are we particularly talented at balancing both possibilities & pragmatism.

I imagine I wrote this not to offer any “how to” guide to anyone. I wrote it because I just faced it and thought about it.

In one day I had to ponder the talented more senior sales person almost blinded with belief charging ahead <not particularly aligned with what the company thought was best practice> and an extremely talented younger person threaded with the burden of nonbelief.

In one day I had to ponder how to deftly encourage a little less blind belief and thrust some belief upon another.

And that is most likely a typical day for a manager.

I didn’t care about personality type.

I didn’t confer with any HR people.

I didn’t go online searching for ‘communications techniques.’

I didn’t do so not because I didn’t want to … but because managers mostly don’t have time for that shit.

You gotta deal with what is in front of you and get shit done and get the best out of your employees.

My last point.

For all the talk of technology, algorithms and ‘digital transformation’, technology cannot make someone believe or non believe, only people can.

Period.

Believing and non believing management.

Possibilities and pragmatism management.

Kind of two sides of the same management coin.

—

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

=

Charles Darwin

—————————-

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

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

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

Adapt or die.

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

You have to be flexible.

You have to adapt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Think small.

Think day-to-day.

Think “me.”

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

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

—

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

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

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

Machiavelli

=

Bottom line.

Always think about how can you adapt.

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

Regardless. Make change your constant companion and friend.