==========

“Win the heart and the mind will follow.”

~

<not really sure any philosopher actually said this>

=========

“The philosophy behind much advertising is based on old observation that every man is really two men — the man he is and the man he wants to be.”

~

William Feather

=======

Well.

I admit. I am constantly surprised that business people, and communications people in general, lose sight of what is important in positioning their business and what they want to say. This thought pertains business to business as well as consumer and analytics driven tracking as well as, well, suffice it to say – everything.

It starts off well.

More often than not conversations begin with ‘what makes us different/distinct’ … good solid practical meaningful “Hey. I got something that can actually provide some value to someone.”

It ends up usually not so well.

More often than not it ends with some version of “here is what we need to say <about us and ‘it’>.”

Let me be clear. That is important. It has to be. Ultimately you need to say something to people to distinguish your space in people’s minds and inevitably make a sale or create some engagement/purchase. You have to offer some practical value to match the dollars forked over. But far far too often the conversation gets dragged down into the sinkhole of practicality. And this seems to happen far far too quickly <like right at the beginning>.

It is like everyone gets stuck on the rational mind aspects. And, frankly, it is a pretty easy place to get stuck. Rational is rational and when it comes to ‘wallet type’ discussions even some fairly experienced behavioral thinking business people get sucked into this back hole of practicality. And, yet, even as this black hole seems to start sucking the entire galaxy of collective thinking in the room, in the back of everyone’s mind they know that if somehow, someway they could connect their business proposition to a potential buyer’s heart, not just their mind, it is better for the business <they may not be able to articulate the exact whys of why it is better … but most business people know in their gut that a ‘heart connection’ is meaningful>.

But this is almost exactly where this whole slippery slope of mediocrity and practicality discussion seems to veer off into the absurdity which actually encourages business people to sat in the practicality zone.

The next often incredibly absurd conversation as everyone ponders how the business can reach into people’s hearts and not just their minds relates to ‘emotional connection.’ As in “we need to get people emotionally engaged if we want to differentiate in the long term.” This is business people’s version of James’ “win the heart and the mind will follow.”

Absurdly, from that point on the conversations inevitably get steered into some practical discussion of how to get people emotionally involved <as if we could pragmatically convince someone to be emotionally involved>.

That looks crazy even as I write it.

Yes. Practicality and rational has a role. In fact its role is essential to the greater need. The rational enables the “heart” possibilities.

But. It is the ‘heart’ aspects which shift success from “we sell something” to “people covet/want our something.”

Yet. Most business people are pretty rationale so they approach emotional connection, uhm, rationally. Words come out of some sage manager like “what can we do to create this emotional connection?” I always want to lean forward and say “well, remember that girl in high school you liked and decided you were going to get her to like you? … how did that work out for you?”

You cannot actively pursue getting someone to like you. you cannot actively, rationally, build an ‘emotional connection.’ You can truly only control you, your business, your product, your organizational culture and the character which embodies all of that. Once you believe in that and it is truth and not something another sage manager has crafted to be in some poster that appears in the cafeteria> you are on your way to … well … start dating potential users & buyers.

====

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

Audre Lorde

===

The other aspect of this emotional connection discussion that I seem to always be banging my head against the wall is the … well … let’s call it the aspirational aspect. You can emotionally connect with another person because they are a soul mate … or … you can connect because you see a better version of you with & within them <I am sure there are other ways but let me stick with these two>.

I love the latter in building businesses. By thinking about it, by pursuing it, a business will inevitably find themselves actually aspiring to consistently ‘be it’ day in and day out. In other words … if I find myself actually tapping into ‘the person who I want to be’ aspect of potential users & buyers I tend to kind of feel like I <the business> has some responsibility to actually BE a better version for thebetterment of self <and customers benefit in my self belief>. The business positioning actually feeds the business as well as feeds the business success.

Regardless.

While I babbled about some different dimensions of this discussion inevitably a successful business has to at least think about three aspects of their business:

the aspirational component: how am I making lives better or people better

the emotional component: day in and day out what emotional benefit do I offer <this is like the character or personality to which people will gravitate>

the rational component: day in and day out what functional benefit do I offer <what do I actually do>

You gotta discuss all three. Aspirational keeps the horizon in perspective, the emotional insures you stay true to thineself and the rational insures you keep everyone’s eye on the ‘how we make our money’ ball.

Anyway.

I speak with lots and lots of business people. And this discussion remains one of the most consistently discussed and one of the most consistently mishandled aspects of creating a successful business.

I learned a long long time ago in business it is all about aligning “head, heart & wallet.” That doesn’t mean it is easy … but it is what it is with regard to business success.

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

All are architects of Fate,

Working in these walls of Time;

Some with massive deeds and great,

Some with ornaments of rhyme.

Nothing useless is, or low

——-

Architects of Fate

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

I don’t really believe in fate. And it appears good ole HW Longfellow didn’t believe in it either. He wrote a beautiful poem called The Builders (see below) suggesting that we, the people, are architects of fate.

In fact.

The beauty of what he writes (and this is a truly awesome thought) is that everyone does something, no matter how small or how large, that builds the structure of life. Yes. Every one of us, each and every one, plays some role in constructing the great construct of Life we all live in. That is a really nice thought. And a nice reminder that no matter how inconsequential we may feel or the things we do we play a part in the tapestry of life.

Now.

This is also true in business. I say that as a business guy with a long history in the service side of the business world.

The side of the world that you often feel helpless, often having to react, and often being forced to move about at the whim of someone else, and often feeling like you are not really doing anything important (because it is hard to see how what you are doing really matters).

Having said that and knowing that a lot of people really do feel this way I pull Architects of Fate out of my backpack.  I use this poem several times with companies to remind us, employees, that all our actions have consequences. Yes. Even the smallest actions.

Longfellow’s  words should encourage everyone to believe each action contributes to the structure of who we are as a company and what we do. Now THAT is a valuable thought in every organizational behavior or culture sense. It is an even more important valuable thought a leader should have (because if they do they will inevitably encourage all employee to feel that way).

And when everything is aligned. When everyone believes they can be an architect. It becomes a valuable thought in encouraging each employee to understand that their actions contribute to the architecture of the fate of the organization (no matter how inconsequential they may actually feel buried down in the mailroom or the bottomless pit of account receivables department or the office manager ordering heavy stock paper for the copier because someone is bitching).

I would also point out the practical side – productivity & output. It was my good friend Luke Sullivan who pointed this out in his book “hey whipple squeeze this” – thinking & creating matters but if there is no output there is no satisfaction. Real work. Actual things we do for customers or actions we take in front of customers. Each of these actions is a part of the overall tapestry of the architecture of the company. He also points out that each action often begets another action (in that once you have done something once it begins to feel more ‘okay’ to do it again … I would call that a slippery slope discussion).

Anyway.

As we hustle our way through each day trying to make sure we cross off everything on our to do lists and make our bosses happy and answer customer’s questions and requests it is good to remind ourselves we are truly architects of fate. It is good to remind people tht everything they do contributes to the grater architecture of what is and, maybe most importantly, what will be.

This pertains to your job, personal lie and the greater Life in general.

My advice? Be an architect. Go build.

The Builders

All are architects of Fate,

Working in these walls of Time;

Some with massive deeds and great,

Some with ornaments of rhyme.

Nothing useless is, or low;

Each thing in its place is best;

And what seems but idle show

Strengthens and supports the rest.

For the structure that we raise,

Time is with materials filled;

Our to-days and yesterdays

Are the blocks with which we build.

Truly shape and fashion these;

Leave no yawning gaps between;

Think not, because no man sees,

Such things will remain unseen.

In the elder days of Art,

Builders wrought with greatest care

Each minute and unseen part;

For the Gods see everywhere.

Let us do out work as well,

Both the unseen and the seen;

Make the house, where Gods may dwell,

Beautiful, entire, and clean.

Else our lives are incomplete,

Standing in these walls of Time,

Broken stairways, where the feet

Stumble as they seek to climb.

Build to-day, then, strong and sure,

With a firm and ample base;

And ascending and secure

Shall to-morrow find its place.

Thus alone can we attain

To those turrets, where the eye

Sees the world as one vast plain,

And one boundless reach of sky.

–          Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

——-

“’You’re dangerous’, he says.

‘Why?’

‘Because you make me believe in the impossible.’ “

=

Simone Elkeles

——-

“Disruption is bad.

You seem to be using it to mean something good,” she said.

——

So.

This is about disruption and business. This is one of my favorite words & topics. It is one of my favorites for two reasons.

First is that it is an overlooked way to be successful in the marketplace. Far too often businesses simply seek to “compete.” They are satisfied with standing in the ring and bludgeon each other all the while suggesting that this is “smart fighting giving me an edge.” It is not. Shit. “Edges” <in this case> is simply staying in the fight and not a plan to win a fight. Disruption is all about wins and winning.

Second. It is one of the few words in business that if you actually deign to use in a meeting or business discussion will draw a visceral response from your audience. From a ‘fun’ perspective it is maybe even more fun than farting in the middle of a presentation.

Anyway.

Disruption, or disrupt, is an emotive word often creating a very unsettling image. And it is a topic which typically scares the shit out of most businesses <and business people>. The excuses to ‘not being so disruptive’ are too long to list … and some are quite creative. But suffice it to say … almost every excuse is grounded in fear.

Yeah.

All those “whoa … slow down on that whole disruption talk” people may suggest ‘it is expensive to do something like that’ but they are simply shaping excuses in their heads & mouths because the whole thought of disrupting anything … well … scares the shit out of them.

Now.

To be clear on definitions <and purpose> … the aim of disruption is to frame <or reframe> a business <or a brand> so that the market sees it differently. Well. I could suggest it is actually simply turning around and facing reality.

——-

“At some point you just have to turn around and face your life head on.”

Chris Cleave

—–

What I mean by that is disrupting is most typically simply attacking some conventional thinking and tapping into what people really think <when they actually think about it>. And many times it is really common sense stuff. It is common sense because it is many times rooted in the fact we just get stuck either in ‘that’s the way its done’ … or maybe we have become so numb to the fact we have bolted on crap to the brand <or company> in day to day attempts to keep it relevant that it is almost unfamiliar to what people originally thought of it <we just made it too complex or complicated>.

Please note … this whole disruption thing, while I love it, is not my idea.

Jean Marie Dru, the Chairman of TBWA has been talking about the power of “disruption” since the early 1990s. His book, Disruption: Overturning Conventions and Shaking Up the Marketplace, is a must read for anyone who likes this shit <and it is actually a delightful read for a business book>. Interestingly … even Tom Peters <the ‘in search of excellence’ guy> thought the concept of disruption was topical … even decades ago.

——

“Disrupt or be disrupted.  Disrupt or die.

Disruption is the most powerful idea in business today.”

Tom Peters

——

I tend to believe disruption gets a bad rap because it implies wholesale change. Like as in throw out everything and start from scratch. Au contraire. Disrupting is always about leveraging off of something existing. You may turn everything upside down … but you are still using some existing pieces <some existing attitudes & behavior> from which your idea will end up tapping into. I say that to remind everyone that something from nothing equals the same thing as nothing from nothing … uhm … nothing. Smart, or intelligent, disrupting is always about something from something.

——

“If in a company you change nothing, you are sure to fail. If you change everything you are sure to fail as well.

So the art of winning resides in your capacity to draw the fine line between what should be changed and what should not.

Same for a brand.  All brands are in transition.  You can’t build brands by thinking only in a linear way. You have to think of larger futures for them. And to do that, you have to use your imagination. A larger share of the future very seldom comes from an extrapolation of the present.

And that is what Disruption is all about. Disruption is about discovering new futures.”

=

Jean Marie-Dru

——

Let’s be honest here. New futures sound frickin’ awesome.

Uhm. Here’s the problem. Futures are not guaranteed, are they?

Doh.

Success is getting people to think and act differently. <doh again>

That translates into … yikes … change.

Here is the good news about this whole disruptive change topic. Effective disruptive thinking is not some blind irresponsible thinking. It takes into consideration all the levels of change it effects and addresses them. 

—–

“Disruption demands that a company challenges conventional behaviors and finds a new way to act.

If you analyze the behavior of the category in question you will see conventional patterns of activity are apparent on four levels: corporate, marketing, communications and the customer’s point of view.  Some of these conventions are invariably good and necessary, while others are not.

The opportunity lies in seeing how a brand can use its strengths to do something less conventional to change its path and accelerate growth.”

=

Matt Shepherd-Smith, CEO, TBWA\London

—–

To be clear. There is truly a difference in disruption and intelligent disruption. Disruption in and of itself … without thought … is meaningless destruction creating chaos. Intelligent disruption leads change from what exists rather than reacting to what exists and … well … creates something new <not chaos>.

Anyway.

Here are few more thoughts by Jean-Marie Dru about brand building and the importance of disruption:

—

–        Disruption is creating something dynamic to replace something that has become static.

–        I have always believed that a brand has to evolve. It cannot remain motionless. The same, of course, applies to companies.

—

While all those words sound inspiring and thoughtful and … well … what business person WOULDN’T want to do that? Well. Disruption actually is linked to another word which business people tend to really really dislike … destruction. Destruction of the conventional … the comfortable. Conventions train us to do the conventional. And because it is conventional … we tend to not really think about this shit.

Uhm. Yes. Accepted beliefs, where everyone is thinking the same, usually means no one is really thinking. This all translates into destroying some of the accepted beliefs … uhm … which means destroying … well … familiarity.

Yet … within destruction there should be a surge of energy <from people and a business perspective because disruption is actually both strategy and action>.

What do I believe <see: “know”>?

Too much business thinking today is satisfied with maintaining the status quo.

This is doomed thinking. Thinking is at its best when used as a sharp weapon and used to transform business and the way people think <and do things>. Far too much thinking <and the tactics which arise from that thinking> look the same, say the same, and … well … do the same.

All of which simply makes it easier to be ignored.

Worse?

It doesn’t respect people’s intelligence or their sense of <thinking> adventure. Therefore disruption incorporates destructing some of ‘what is.’

Not just for the sake of destruction but rather with the intent to be singular, extraordinary, and even world-changing is inspiring and interesting and adventuresome. Disrupting is done with the intent to stand out from the crowd and get noticed in a way that fundamentally changes perceptions. I imagine I could quite simplistically suggest that great disruptive thinking challenges the prevailing ideas of the present, therefore, disruption sounds difficult, unsettling, painful and fundamentally frightening.

Why would anybody disrupt, and destroy, on purpose?

Well.

Here is the contradiction … you are actually destroying to create.

=

It’s about creation – creating something dynamic to replace something that has become static. 

Disruption is about systematically breaking through the barriers that shape and limit standard business approaches. It’s about challenging conventional wisdom and imagining new possibilities. It’s about destroying the assumptions and biases that get in the way of fresh and visionary ideas.

<Jean Marie-Dru>

=

 This actually means that the other thing where disruption gets a bad rap is that it is used as a verb … when it is actually a noun when done correctly.

Yup. Because disruption is actually a destination … a vision of what could, and should, be … against which all strategic and marketing decisions are measure. This means that disruptive ideas are simply ways to get to the vision as fast as possible.

This also means that you are taking a stand. A stand for not what is … but what will be. You are changing the rules <and frankly doing so in your favor>.

To be clear.

Disruption is not anarchy <nor chaos>. It is a strategically directed shake-up. It’s a way of thinking. It means taking nothing for granted.

It means being bold and taking some risk.

It means you are actually inventing a future in which you not only want to live … but one in which you can prosper.

Anyone in business worth even half a shit knows that the path to truly winning <and winning big> in business is to create new categories or subcategories rather than engaging in brand preference competition in established categories.

The idea of creating a new category, defining its dimensions and becoming its ‘definer’ <of which everyone else has to measure against> is where true success <financially> resides.

Sure. Many businesses need to engage in brand preference competition to retain their relevance and market position. But that is a defensive strategy. And, trust me, someone is going to go on the offensive at some point.

Anyway.

Disruption simply means ‘to challenge.’ And we all need to remember that disruption creates and is not simply to destroy. That doesn’t mean everything is all rosy if you get it right.

Technological disruption re-defines industries.

Cultural disruption always seems to piss people off.

Why?

Challenging people … and the status quo … can make people angry.

What do I say? Fuck ‘em.

Disruption by challenging the status quo improves culture. Is there conflict? You bet.

Does that conflict lead to a spark of energy? You bet. And from the spark comes improvement.

Look.

We are all disruptors. Just that some of us know it and some of us don’t.

—-

“We are all manufacturers – making good, making trouble or making excuses.”

=

HV Adolt

——-

Ok. Frankly. All that really matters despite all I babbled about <typed> … is you either choose to disrupt … or be disrupted.

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

“People have forgotten this truth,” the fox said. “But you mustn’t forget it. You become responsible forever for what you’ve tamed.” 

—–

The Little Prince

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

“I cannot play with you,” the fox replies. “I am not tamed.”

“What does that mean – to tame?” 

“It means to establish ties. To me, you are still nothing more than a little boy who is just like a hundred thousand other little boys. And I have no need of you. And you, on your part, have no need of me. To you, I am nothing more than a fox like a hundred thousand other foxes. But if you tame me, then we shall need each other. To me, you will be unique in all the world. To you, I shall be unique in all the world…please, tame me!”

“I want to, very much,” the Little Prince replied, “but I have not much time. I have friends to discover, and a great many things to understand.” 

“One only understands the things that one tames,” the fox said.

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

Ok.

Some people aren’t going to like the way I am going to discuss Leadership. Some people will not like the implication behind the word “tame” with regard to employees. Those some people should read before they dismiss the thought. t may just offer a different way of thinking about the responsibility of leadership.

Leaders have a tough job in that you manage skills, people, personalities & overall organizational purpose.

We call it managing, but in reality it is taming. You tame the independent wildness and tame the ability & potential so you can understand it, and it can understand itself, so that eventually there is a mutual progress to play the game as well as it can be played.

Please note that nowhere in there have I suggested “blind obedience.” Taming, in this view, is reaching true understanding so that real personal growth occurs.

That said … in that metaphorical expression of leadership … you own what you tame.

I say that because far too often we leaders & managers view management as something we do for the benefit of the organization and, hopefully, the benefit of the people … but we ‘own’ no responsibility for the individual in terms of actions or who they become — and certainly not ‘forever.’

Some of us view ourselves as shapers in some form or fashion but lean back against the belief we only dent the surface of who and what the person is and will become. We view what we do as possibly taming but within the purview of just a chapter in their lives … not an entire story.

In some ways we do this simply as an act of self-survival. The truth is that investing too much personally into your business; the organization and the employees can … well … kill you.

Okay.

Maybe not literally kill you … but figuratively it can become a daily strain on your psychological health. Many of us, out of pragmatism, eye our relationship with employees as a story with a finite end – be it positive, sad, joyful, disappointing or ambiguous – but it is, in reality, just the end of a chapter.

The story keeps going. Ours and theirs.

And while we may represent only a chapter in a larger narrative … well … we own what we tame. This is an inclusive way of leading & managing. You include yourself in someone’s Life and … well … you own what part you tame.

Uhm.

Of course … this can also swing to the opposite more dangerous side – an exclusive leadership side. This is ‘ownership’, not owning, of what you tame. You don’t become part of them you simply offer a voice to them – I sometimes call this ‘pack mentality leadership’.

These are the leaders who say “on my team <or in other words “mine”> forever.” It is possessive in a non productive way.

“Leave and my wrath is upon you.”

That eader’s attitude? “Not want to be tamed by me? you are “un” whatever it is I stand for.” And this is where exclusive leadership truly rears its ugly head.

There is little vision, there is a lot of ‘features’ in the offering <more money, more jobs, more titles, more wins, more whatever> and therefore the incentives do the work and not any persuasive direction or vision. The ‘pack attitude’ is a means to an end and a vision in and of itself.

—-

“Managers tend to use compensation as a crutch.  After all, it is far easier to design an incentive system that will do management’s work than it is to articulate a direction persuasively, develop agreement about goals and problems, and confront difficulties when they arise.”

Michael Beer, Harvard professor of business administration

—–

The features, the actions & behavior of those who belong on this team, are how they speak of unity and teamwork, i.e., “everyone should act this way … but we are the ones who do.”

Or how about this?

“The only important thing is the unification of the people – because the other people don’t mean anything.” <Trump used these words once awhile back> In other words … the only people who truly count are the ones who are in this leader’s team.

Even worse? They use the ‘us versus them’ polarization as a means to suggest “team personality & character” all the while these types of leaders actually do it to create their own power structure. They don’t desire to include anyone else nor do they tend to reach out to others <albeit they make some inclusive noises on occasion> they desire to build a construct where people ask to join <because they should, of course, have to ask> and are not asked to join.

“Excluding leader types” love the ‘us versus them’ aspect. They love being derided and they love opposition. All these things do is solidify the team’s belief they are different & better & know more than the others. The team becomes what represents what is real & right and the leader controls what is real & right. The leader’s people are truly the only people that count and the leader hasn’t tamed ability but rather attitude.

And here is where the ownership of what you tamed hits a dangerous spot.

This leader has tamed an attitude but feels little ownership of the people themselves. Therefore should the leader decide to move on or get tired of whatever it is they are doing at the moment they feel no remorse in leaving people behind <who still harbor the attitude he/she tamed>.

The pack remains, the pack mentality still seethes, but the pack leader is no longer there.

Anyway.

Let me close with some thoughts.

I think it is a healthy thought for every manager & leader to ponder ‘you own what you tame.’ Leadership and leading is never easy and I have the scars to show to prove it.

I found it naturally tempting to build a quasi-pack mentality in my groups as a younger leader & manager. I was, and have always been, a more aggressive business person – I am not fond of status quo and not particularly fond of ‘the safe road.’

I can absolutely state that as a manager you can feed off of the ‘pack mentality’ attitude. It is exhilarating and almost like a drug … and maybe more dangerous … it can feed into a self-belief aspect that can edge upon arrogance and obliviousness to the greater good.

I don’t think I ever fell off the cliff on this but I certainly got a glimpse of the edge. As I gained more experience I saw the danger in doing so <to my team members, to my organization & to myself> and sought to find some balance.

Just remember.

You can tame your people’s ability & attitude in an inclusive & “unearthing skill & talent” way and they, and you, will benefit at the time and in the future <whether you are still working together or not>.

Just remember.

You own what you tame.

================ 

“If I cannot deflect the will of Heaven, I will raise Hell.”

“flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.”

——-

Virgil

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

“Don’t try to behave as though you were essentially sane and naturally good. We’re all demented sinners in the same cosmic boat — and the boat is perpetually sinking.”

—-

Aldous Huxley

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

Ok.

This is about doing shit and doing the shit you really want to do … in business.

This is not about ‘finding your passion’ or ‘maximizing your potential’ … this is simply about something you actually decide you want to do … maybe something that is decided you should do … and are going to do.

Now.

I am sure I am going to completely bastardize the true meaning of this quote but I think about it with business in mind. This thought piece is a derivative of my “how far would you go to solve a problem” business thought.

In that piece I discussed saving your business. In this piece I am discussing saving your business objective or goal.

So.

Far too often businesses ‘hedge their bets’ against specific stretch goals & objectives. They sit in fancy conference rooms eating fancy snacks reviewing annual sales goals and business objectives and talk about ‘reaching high’ and then … well … blink. They start thinking, what they call, pragmatically … or practically.

Yeah.

They start ‘hedging.’ And when that happens not meeting the objective becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

What do I mean?

It is a tough, but reachable, objective and, yet, they don’t take the necessary complete steps to attain it. I am not suggesting this is easy.

Leading a business, particularly a larger one with some overarching politics and ‘management assessment mumbo jumbo’, is fraught with peril.

If you do what it takes to reach an objective and fall short … falling short looks … well … shorter. You invested and the investment REALLY did not pay off.

If you do what it takes to reach an objective and reach it … well … sometimes reaching it comes with a cost and your ROI don’t look as good as it could <by the way … this is a wacky version of “you did good … just not good enough”>.

Reality suggests to anyone with half a business brain that reaching true, not fake, stretch goals or aggressive objectives come at a cost. And that is where this Virgil quote comes into play. The Virgil quote is literally translated as “If I cannot deflect the will of superior powers, then I shall move the River Acheron” but more commonly translated as “If I cannot deflect the will of heaven, then I shall move hell.”

This is a version of “do what it takes to get where you want.”

I say that because I did a little research <mostly because I am not intellectual enough to actually read Virgil and like it>. Apparently in the Aeneid it is the goddess Juno who says this quote in a state of rage and defiance. She admits she doesn’t believe she can win but defiantly takes action anyway. Even better <to me> she is standing up against her peers … defending her right to do what she believes should be done, her own way, whether any of her peers approve.

And you know what?

If they do not approve, she will ignore them and “move the ancient river in her favor” … or … in my words … it becomes time to try and defy gravity.

She refuses to sit idle while others do nothing.

Look.

I will never <ever> suggest sacrificing values & ethics to win or reach an objective. My point is that to reach some objectives and aggressive goals you have to be defiant. You have to rebel against ‘hedging’ and sometimes you gotta step up and do what it takes. I do believe you can raise hell if heaven isn’t getting you where you need to be … without sacrificing ethics and values. And I do believe most managers in business need someone to rebel against their ‘fear of risk, failure, looking bad’ asses.

Anyway.

When I speak with businesses about the only thing I can tell them for sure … is that the future is uncertain. But I can also tell the with certainty that if history is a guide then we who are defiant, are determined, and do whatever it takes are the ones who push through the seemingly impossible and make it possible.

If you are a maker, a builder, an architect of fate … you do not hedge your bets nor do you let resources sit idle in inaction and, frankly, sit in inability to do shit that may assist in … well … doing shit.

========= 

“I shall find a way or make one.”

—

Robert Peary

=====

At some point in business you are forced to pick a side, pick a battle and pick a moment.

At some point in business you are forced to steer … or be steered.

At some point in business you are an architect of your own fate or fate will build you.

At some point in business you are forced to face adversity or be suffocated by that which stands in your way.

That said.

I could argue that the real difference in business remains one simple distinction. Those people who do something and those people who do nothing.

Ok.

Maybe the real difference in business is those people who do something when an aggressive goal is placed in front of them and those who people who do … well … less than it takes. And that is where determination steps into this discussion.

Because ‘less than’, in business, is clever. It can cleverly disguise itself in little line items and subtle decisions to hold back little things in reserve.

=====

“You give up the world line by line.

Stoically.

And then one day you realize that your courage is farcical.

It doesn’t mean anything. You’ve become an accomplice in your own annihilation and there is nothing you can do about it. Everything you do closes a door somewhere ahead of you.

And finally there is only one door left.”

Cormac McCarthy

======

Without really intending to subvert your effort to attain some sales goal you ultimately give up your objective line by line. In other words … you’ve become an accomplice in your own annihilation.

What is maybe worse than that?

As you hedge your bets you actually close door after door that maybe could have led you to your goal. Without steadfast determination, and maybe a little defiance to safe business protocol, you will inevitably find yourself standing at the only door left available for you … not reaching the goal and having excuses as to why you didn’t reach an aggressive goal.

Your main excuse? You were less aggressive than you needed to be to reach the aggressive goal.

I will conclude with the obvious.

Writing about this is easy. Doing what needs to be done is hard.

All I can suggest is that you tie your values and ethics on tight … and then go raise hell if heaven ain’t helping you make the objective.

All I can suggest is if you are in a position to actually do something just make sure you look in the mirror and make sure you are not an accomplice to your own annihilation.

All I can suggest is that if you want something, really want to DO something, more often than not … in most businesses which tend to be either lethargic or less than  efficient … you got to aggressively create your own path.

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

“It is the moment when what was chaos is now seen as having a center of gravity. There is a shape where a moment ago there was none.”

—-

Peter Elbow 

===================== 

“If one shifts the center of gravity of life out of life into the “Beyond” – into nothingness – one has deprived life as such of its center of gravity.”

―

Friedrich Nietzsche

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

Well.

Given the recent study showing 42 people have the same wealth as maybe 50% of the world’s population I thought I would republish this awesome study completed in late 2010 called “Global Economy’s Shifting Centre of Gravity.”

Ok.

Maybe not awesome to some people … but to me? Fascinating reading <I actually read it over a vacation sipping some cocktails>.

Here is the net:

• In 1980 the global economy’s center of gravity was somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic ocean.
• In 2010 the center of gravity shifted to just east of Helsinki/Bucharest latitude (oddly the longitude doesn’t seem to vary much over time in this modeling).
• In 2049 the center of gravity will shift almost two-thirds of the earth’s radius from the 1980 center to somewhere say in west Asia.

What the heck does his have to do with wealth inequality? Well. Because wealth is accumulating on 2 dimensions – on both the y axis as well as the x axis <just not at the same rate>.

Let’s just say that the x axis is shifting upwards globally <average wealth of global individual is improving>. This is good. This means the overall tide is rising.

Let’s just say that the people on the y axis are disproportionately reaping the benfis of a better global wealth improvement. That is bad. This means few continue to benefit at the overall expense of the many <yes, people will haggle with how I worded that>.

All that said … I would envision most people wouldn’t be surprised by this. But I am fairly sure we talk about the y axis all the time and forget to mention the x-axis … that’s my point here.

Anyway. There are some nuances to the study I mentioned that should make people think a bit.

Don’t panic.

I am not going to go into the modeling analytics … but suffice it to say this researcher at The London School of Economics knows his shit and figured out a way to analyze economic power not by clustering <which is an important distinction> but rather center of gravity <it’s kind of like figuring out how to measure the dynamic behavior of spatial economic distribution rather than simplistic clustering>. The study offered truly fascinating cylindrical spatial global maps in which it is almost like viewing an economic holographic image.

I will spare you. What I won’t spare you is what this analytic stuff means.

Suffice it to say that the income dynamics of the average location of the planet’s economic activity is shifting.

I think we all knew this in our gut but now we have actual proof.  And it’s kind of sobering proof for those of us in the Western hemisphere <I include South America, Latin America and North America into this pot of people. That global economic activity moves east in this graphic fashion shows the rapid growth in incomes going to the large chunks of humanity who live in India, Africa, China and the rest of East Asia.

<note: population itself changes much more gradually therefore this sharp east-directed rise of the rest is not driven by population growth>

Overall this shift is a reflection of a lot of good things happening in the world <not America getting weaker but rather America becoming a smaller larger global component>. For example 600 million people have been lifted from extreme poverty – a large and rapid improvement in the well-being of humanity that is unprecedented in the history of this planet.

And there is more is to come. In particular, Africa and China will remain growth areas <albeit both in different ways> and poverty will continue to be eradicated.

Now.

All of this could be concerning in a variety of ways.

First.

This isn’t just about money, or income, this is about power. Economic shifts lead to governmental shifts … and intellectual shifts.

Second.

Let’s talk “intellectual shifts.” Eliminating poverty <or limiting poverty> means releasing probably the greatest restraint to education. And mind power is the great equalizer.

Yeah. Mind power. Sorry folks … it isn’t democracy <or any real ‘freedom of’ … although some people may debate the cause/effect of that relationship>. When economic shift permits an elevation of intellectual power that tends to be the formula for sustained shift in economical gravitational pull. I even have an example on economic opportunity … and economic opportunity lost.

We have faced a similar foundational economic re-construct situation before … only to have the economic center of gravity remain skewed toward the western hemisphere.  And although the economic center of gravity was threatened at that time … there wasn’t the intellectual shift attached to the economic shift to sustain the movement.

Let’s look back at the last time we may have faced something like this.

The cold war.  Soviet Union versus United States <actually … the rest of the world>. The reality is that while Russia tried to fill the void <of prosperity … or maybe better said … ‘better than what is’> and sought to increase its global engagement under the guise of government doctrine it was actually an economic battle.  Huh? Think people labor versus capitalism <simplistic but you get the point>. Russia was certainly good at destroying governments and economic construct.  However, because of their economic corruption they were unsuccessful in replacing what they destroyed.

Ultimately that was their failure … not a failure of communism but a failure of economy. Which, in the end, meant their failure to sustain an economic shift translated into the fact intellectual power was never maximized.

I promise you that mistake will not happen again. In fact it is happening all over again <not Russia but Eastern Hemisphere & Africa> but … but this economic shift is being sustained. There are two <to me> primary locations pulling the center of gravity. And I will outline each <and why we in the western hemisphere should sit up and pay attention>.

The two? China & Africa <some people may argue India>.

China.

They don’t necessarily destroy.  In fact they do the opposite. They simply take less than successful scenarios and through economic success makes each … well … more successful.

Ok. There is a point here. What most Americans <let’s say ‘outsiders’ in general> fail to see is the “more successful” part. Many people measure success off of what we have <or how high is up>. In fact it is through those eyes that we tend to damn China.

Take a step back.

As Mao suggested for China … success would be enabling the majority to afford another pair of shoes. Not a mansion … heck … not even a house … just another pair of shoes … for a gazillion people. And he did it. And China has continued to grow.

Sure. It becomes more difficult from there. But that’s not the point. Other ‘industrialized’ countries measure them in a different way and are being foolish by doing so. China is being successful <for a number of reasons> but because they have taken what they have done well internally within their own country <helped a segment make the next step up> and go elsewhere and offer the same opportunity. They are creating an infrastructure within emerging countries, and emerging economies, <outside of China> to ‘be better than what is.’

In Africa it is transportation and communication interface. In southeast Asia its internal infrastructure.

China is becoming an enabler rather than a destroyer.

In Africa the picture continues to improve.

Wars have subsided and governments have stabilized and they are also adopting their own quasi capitalist-communist economic attitude, i.e., private subsidized by government. Their average GDP has consistently grown almost 5% annually. Over the past 8 years over 80 million households have been elevated above poverty level – to a level where discretionary spending commences in the household. Telecommunications, banking and retailing is flourishing.

This reflects a significant rise in the African urban consumer. In 1980 28% of Africans lived in an urban environment and today over 40% do. In countries where infrastructure is isolated, typically in more urban environments, this means that a more significant portion of the population has access to education, skills development and jobs <note: remember my point on mind power>. In addition, African governments are increasingly adopting policies to maintain the economic growth as they privatize state-owned businesses, open lines of trade <foreign>, strengthen legal systems and provide well needed physical & social infrastructure (a byproduct of that last factor is an increased labor force and economic distribution among the population).

So.

Having used those examples maybe I am maybe actually suggesting the bigger thought is a new communist-capitalism attitude shifting the economic center of gravity <I am erring on the side in my point of view that USA isn’t doing something wrong but rather that others are doing something well>.

I do find it impressive that traditional & evolving governments have attained this balance of communism embracing capitalism. Historically, the two are ideologically irreconcilable. Yet even the traditional communist based governments are proving to be quite pragmatic in supporting pro-growth economic policies <by non traditional communist means>.

China unapologetically clings to communism in every other sense of government policy. A number of more dictatorial based governments in Africa. Everyone should note it is Africa’s more quickly growing economies, characterized by low, stable business tax rates, responsible government spending, reasonable levels of regulation and incentives for business expansion, which certainly represent the highest growth opportunities.

As a result, their economies are expanding, businesses are thriving …. and maybe more importantly … the population is gaining a better way of living.

Once again … in my words … better than what they had.

Yes.

It is interesting to me that it is the economies of communist <or communist like> governments are thriving due to capitalism and responsible pro-growth economic policies. America has taught them well. And because of all that we are seeing a shift in the economic center of gravity.

Anyway.

Sorry. I digressed.

Getting back to the center of gravity. This study reflects how we should be looking at things. Millions of millions of people in developing countries are becoming more wealthy.

Exorbitantly? Nope.

Wealthier? Yes.

Simply moving all developing countries <or the majority … call it a ‘large mass’> to non-poverty from poverty is a massive shift. And by doing so it enables that population to be more productive. More healthy.  More educated.  More knowledgeable. This is simple shit. But we in the ‘industrialized world’ get caught up in the wrong issues … we assess success by where we are today .. <silly silly people>.

Ok.

Be careful with what I say next.

While USA focuses on government constitutional aspects and “enhancing their constitutional situation” … China is focused on economy.

Now.

I am a HUGE freedom of guy.  But.  If you want to grow and expand your government/country/culture more … a good economy is a really good thing. But having a realistic point of view on economy is an even better thing. Maybe if we look at the shifting economic center of gravity here in the western hemisphere we shouldn’t look at it as a loss of stature but rather maybe we should seek to gain some learning.

Is this post a message to our government and regulators? Nope.

This is a message to you & I that we have it pretty good here in the good ole USofA.

Is it as good economically as it was? Nope. Is it good? Yup.

This is a message to you & I that people in other countries also want their version of ‘self actualization’ and if economically it comes within grasp … they will try and grab it.

This is not a warning or threat but a suggestion this is an attitude issue for ‘we the people.’ Because with the right attitude then we can create the right behavior. But that is my next economic article. A rant on the everyday American’s economic behavior <because other cultures aren’t as addicted to spending & having stuff as we are>.

In the end.

The economic center of gravity was always going to be tugged away from America as the sheer numbers of the ‘rest of the world’ starting generating … well … economy. However, America needs to remember that at the core of economic gravity is not making shit … its mind power. The smarter the population, the healthier the population and, therefore, the more productive the population.

It’s a simple formula I tend to believe we forget.

==

“When written in Chinese, the word crisis is composed of two characters. One represents danger, and the other represents opportunity.”

–

John F. Kennedy

==

Ok.

I love this quote.  And a boatload of business management people do <dozens of books written using it>.

Uh oh. But it isn’t true.

Good ole JFK got it wrong <but he is in good company>.

The usual explanation is that the Chinese ideogram for “crisis” is made up of two characters signifying “opportunity” and “danger.” To us folk on this side of the planet this is a great example of the ancient East wisdom. And teachers, pontificators, self help specialists, motivational speakers and anyone who likes to tell people to find lemonade when given a basket of lemons have used this explanation.

The key lesson shared?

“A crisis provides an opportunity for change and growth as well as a danger of regression or stagnation.”

<but that is too long and complete to be a soundbite>

Yup. This is pretty frickin’ deep.

The truth?

1. In Chinese, the term for crisis is wei ji.

2. Native Chinese speakers tend to think the crisis = danger/opportunity connection is complete bullshit.

The Chinese word <not really an ideogram by the way> for crisis, when translated, literally means “dangerous, or precarious, moment.” That’s it.  No ‘opportunity.’  No benefiting.  Just danger. Or … maybe I should focus on the part I like … “a precarious moment.”

Not a bad lesson in itself. Crisis CAN be bad … but in reality is just all about having a precarious moment … that needs to be managed.

Just to be sure I cover all my bases as I tear down all that self-help mumbo jumbo people have absorbed and are putting in use day-to-day.

(through some research)

A mandarin expert breaks down the word and definition and wisdom mumbo-jumbo:

A whole industry of pundits and therapists has grown up around this one grossly inaccurate statement. A casual search of the Web turns up more than a million references to this spurious proverb. It appears, often complete with Chinese characters, on the covers of books, on advertisements for seminars, on expensive courses for “thinking outside of the box,” and practically everywhere one turns in the world of quick-buck business, pop psychology, and orientalist hocus-pocus. This catchy expression (Crisis = Danger + Opportunity) has rapidly become nearly as ubiquitous as The Tao of Pooh and Sun Zi’s Art of War for the Board / Bed / Bath / Whichever Room.

The explication of the Chinese word for crisis as made up of two components signifying danger and opportunity is due partly to wishful thinking, but mainly to a fundamental misunderstanding about how terms are formed in Mandarin and other Sinitic languages.

<that was awesome …>

Next.

While it is true that wēijī does indeed mean “crisis” and that the wēi syllable of wēijī does convey the notion of “danger,” the jī syllable of wēijī most definitely does not signify “opportunity.”

The jī of wēijī, in fact, means something like “incipient moment; crucial point (when something begins or changes).” Thus, a wēijī is indeed a genuine crisis, a dangerous moment, a time when things start to go awry. A wēijī indicates a perilous situation when one should be especially wary. It is not a juncture when one goes looking for advantages and benefits.

As the Mandarin language expert says quite succinctly … “In a crisis, one wants above all to save one’s skin and neck!”

As well as …

“Any would-be guru who advocates opportunism in the face of crisis should be run out of town on a rail, for his / her advice will only compound the danger of the crisis.”

I loved this guy.

A little wordy in his explanation but he was passionate about telling everyone how far off base they were on the whole crisis/opportunity thing. Sorry.  No Eastern wisdom here. In this case the east and the west agreed that a crisis is bad, dangerous and to be wary of and that’s it.

Ok.

All that said <mostly said to enlighten everyone and piss off a boatload of publishers and book writers> let’s talk about crisis and the opportunities a crisis does actually create. Most of us quickly see the danger in a crisis… and we should … because it is exactly as translated … a precarious moment.  Like its true Chinese definition a crisis is a crucial moment where things begin to go awry.

It is easy to overlook any opportunity within the crisis because, frankly, we are often just trying to survive <in other words … save our skin, neck & ass>.

And what makes this even more difficult is that the opportunity may be well hidden. The danger is always obvious and the most critical in our eye because the crisis creates potential personal harm. So what makes a crisis truly a “precarious moment” is that assuming you are seeking to find that elusive opportunity within the crisis … well … that with danger lurking its not that we forget to look for the opportunity but rather we seek to avoid the danger and the personal harm.

Lets call this for what it is … self preservation.

And that isn’t bad by the way.  Because if you don’t survive the “opportunity” becomes irrelevant. It is natural to avoid danger during a crisis and make that THE priority.  So, no, I am not going to suggest someone become an “opportunity person” when dealing with a crisis.

I believe people who can discover opportunities in a crisis are people who have already successfully managed the ‘precarious moment’ several times in the past. Maybe call it trial by fire.  Maybe call it trial & error.  But suffice it to say you ain’t gonna be seeking opportunities when dealing with your first true crisis.

Yes. Many people say that it was actually a crisis that caused them to make a much-needed change.

Yes. Living through a hard time challenges people to grow in ways that makes them more mature and opens them to new possibilities.

Where I would argue with people on this is that through surviving the crisis they … well … just found a better way to survive. And that’s not being opportunistic.  That is simply survival instinct <compounded by understanding of what makes oneself happiest>.

Look.

Life constantly gives you opportunities … and gives you crisis also <unfortunately> … regardless … you get opportunities not just to take a chance but also just to improve your current state.

Here is the formula (although in this case I am not sure A + B = C).

(A) A crisis is a forced decision making moment (typically survival based).

(B) Decision making moments represent opportunities.

(C) Opportunities typically translate into some type of change.

And everyone, obviously, wants to capitalize on any change (who would choose to have a negative result from a decision?). If someone wants to claim a crisis represents an opportunity go ahead and do so … but please recognize that it is an indirect extended relationship.  And in doing so you could be doing a disservice to people because it ignores what a crisis is truly about – survival.

Ok.

I do believe dealing with a crisis has a lot to do with attitude <which is possibly where many people get confused with this whole opportunity thing>.

A Pollyanna attitude? Nope.

Someone wrote: “Welcoming personal setbacks as rich opportunities for growth can help you survive them. Does that seem like a twisted point of view? After all, problems make us miserable, right? Scott Peck, author of The Road Less Traveled (Touchstone, 2003), considers them a gift — if you look at them in a deeper, less reactive manner. Indeed, they can give us clear perspective.”

Wow.

That is a bunch of bullhockey <bullshit>.

A crisis is just that.  A crisis.  A dangerous moment. A precarious moment.

Should we be seeking opportunities in the middle of a frickin’ crisis? Nope.

We should be seeking survival.

And that is where attitude comes in. Not “lets find the opportunity” or some baloney like that <or find the lemonade out of the lemons> but an attitude capturing a strength of character <I will be strong and overcome> and resiliency <survive>. Afterwards maybe you can look back and discover the opportunities that were an outcome from the crisis (although this has a slightly masochistic point of view in that from pain comes pleasure that kind of creeps me out) but when in a crisis … just deal with it.

Have a good attitude and explore all the possibilities/opportunities … once you have managed the experience itself.

Dealing with a true crisis takes character.  HOW you deal with a crisis says almost as much as what you do to deal with a crisis.  A crisis is a gauntlet. You have to have strength of character.  And strength in resiliency.  Please don’t measure yourself when dealing with a crisis by what opportunity you discovered from the crisis … measure yourself by how you survived.

A crisis.

It is a ‘precarious moment’ … a ‘crucial moment’ … a ‘dangerous moment.’

<East & West agree on this>

Seek to survive the moment. Don’t seek the opportunity for god’s sake. Just try and be aware should an opportunity arise <as you survive>. Leave the ‘opportunistic crisis management approach’ to people who write books and pontificate<but, please do not buy the books and live your life by all their bullshit>.

Oh.

And don’t misuse the Chinese definition of crisis. Because that is where this whole rant started. I am all for seeking opportunities and I have a shitload, too much, experience dealing with crises. But I will be honest … my first response in any crisis is “survival”. Once I can see, or sense, we will survive hen, yeah, I will most likely scan the horizon for some opportunities. But survival first.

—–

“A dream will always triumph over reality, once it is given the chance.”

=

Stanislaw Lem

—-

Well.

Suffice it to say Hope is a pretty resilient motherfucker. And I am glad it is.

Sometimes life beats the crap out of you. And I mean REALLY beats the shit out of you.

It beats you up enough that sometimes it makes reality take on some insurmountable size and shape … all but blocking out any sight of dreams.

And in doing so … by blocking sight to dreams the only thing a person can fall back on is Hope.

And that’s what bravery is all about.

In spite of everything.

In spite of all that happens, which by almost any measure would make you decide that hope & dreams are a waste of time, you maintain some hope.

In spite of all the shit that makes you begin thinking that time is better spent dealing with reality, you maintain hope.

I say this because, in the end, I tend to believe it is some version of bravery that keeps your head focused on maintaining hope. Because you have to be brave in some form or fashion to maintain some faith in something that can be difficult to see <especially if reality is standing in the way>.

You have to be brave to maintain some dreams you have.

You have to be brave to maintain some thought that there is something beyond the reality of the moment.

Unfortunately.

Reality is the inevitable. The inevitable of Life <which actually represents, unfortunately, ‘things beyond your control’>. What I mean is that some things are inevitable in your Life once someone else decides to pursue something in their Life … especially if their decision invokes some relentlessness. And … in that ‘inevitable space’ … sometimes there are often truly no good solutions to the situations <not just problems … just regular everyday situations> that arise.

There are only bad and less bad solutions. And within that quandary it becomes even easier to lose hope.

Because that quandary most often is involving what is seemingly mundane everyday stuff … not the really big stuff. And when that happens you begin thinking … “shit … if I cannot even navigate the little stuff how the hell will I steer myself toward the big stuff <my dreams & things I hope for>.”

And you feel … well … fucked.

Fucked because Hope only provides an unclear future. There are no specifics and no clear destinations. And sometimes hope get additionally blurred by your desire to be able to see into the future.

But here is the deal.

Being able to see the future doesn’t make you any smarter or wiser than anyone else. And it certainly doesn’t stop you from making mistakes. All it does is to let you know what a problem is and how big the problem is … but it doesn’t give you any way to do anything about it.

Seeing the future just enables you to … well … see it … but you cannot do anything but deal with it <not change it per se>. And in dealing with it … therein lies the bravery.

Dealing with the daily battle to keep your Hope.

—

“I carry the battle in me.”

=

A Six Word Story

—

Each day, whether you pay attention to it or not, you carry the battle between hope and reality. The battle is defined by bravery. That is the only way you win the battle.

I imagine the opposite is cowardice. And the thought that it is the cowards <or the ‘unbrave’> who give in to reality and let hope die <or lose>. Frankly … I don’t like that. Nor do I really believe it. I don’t think its cowardly.

I just think it’s … well … very easy to let the reality of Life grind you down. You can be the bravest sonuvabitch and still find your hopes & dreams being crushed.

But.

I will say this.

You must be brave in the face of reality if you want your dreams and hope to even have a chance. And if you believe such a thing as bravery is too daunting?

Well.

Remember this.

If you give hope a chance, even a glimmer of a chance, it will win the battle against reality.

How can I say that?

Reality is, in the end, always negotiable.

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

“If all you can do is crawl, start crawling.”

—–

Rumi

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

That night the wind stirred in the forsythia bushes,

but it was a wrong one, blowing in the wrong direction.

That’s silly. How can there be a wrong direction?

‘It bloweth where it listeth,’ as you know, just as we do

————

John Ashbery

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

Ok.

One would think getting started would be one of the easiest things in the world to do.

One would be wrong.

Oddly, in business, and Life I imagine, getting started is one of the more challenging things we encounter.

We hem.

We haw.

We wax poetically.

We gnash our teeth.

We plan.

We plan some more.

We play out a zillion ‘what of scenarios.’

We make assignments; discuss the assignments and who will do the assignments.

We discuss the assignments again.

We debate whether the right people are assigned to assignments.

We reassign assignments and assign milestones, checklists and a variety of “we do not have confidence in you so we will set up a labyrinth of reporting checks & balances for you so that you know we do not have confidence in you.”

We wait until the wind blows in the right direction <even though no one is sure what the wrong direction is – to blows in whatever direction it blows, doesn’t it?>.

And then maybe, just maybe, we get started. We do all of this under the guise of insuring we get right whatever we start. Uhm. And we do this knowing full well, at least in business, the odds of something going wrong is near almost 100% on any given project.

I imagine a part of our hesitation to start is our ‘self’ trying to address the feeling of not being ‘expert enough’ right out of the starting blocks gate. That certainly holds a lot of people back from even trying because while you may not care about being the absolute best, or even being perfect, you don’t want to suck or look stupid <or, at minimum, we desire to limit our suckedness>.

To be clear.

Making a mistake is one thing.

Making a stupid mistake is another.

I wish business would more often view workflow as learning to ride a bike. Chances are you weren’t an expert your first try … crashing into shit, banging the crap out of yourself … but most times you persisted and not only figured it out but got pretty good at riding the frickin’ bike. The problem is that business looks at those crashes and bumps & bruises as “mistakes” <despite the fact they happen all the time and to everyone>.

Yeah.

That is something a shitload of people don’t talk about a lot. The fact that Businesses face failures and mistakes <of the system or process or of people> all the time.

Sometimes small, sometimes large … but all the time. Most mistakes stay under the radar and are relatively harmless. They are simply the cost of doing business … as humans.

However.

Far too often these failures come to the attention of some manager within the system and then THEY bring it to everyone’s attention. And therein lies the bigger business truth … discerning the type of error – exception or systematic.

That said. With regard to mistakes … business people tend to fall into one of two categories:

—

• Those who see the exception as systemic <a reflection of an ongoing issue>

• Those who see the exception as … well … an exception

—

I could argue that the difference between a good leader and a bad leader can be found by which category they fall into.

I cannot tell you how many times I have sat in a business meeting watching people wring their hands and speculate on ‘why did this happen?” <that speculation is the business version of ‘misinformation’, in other words, ‘made up’ version of why things happened the way they did>.

But.

Once the misinformation is stripped away, the remaining question is, and always will be, how big is the mistake <not whether it was stupid or not or should it have been known or not>? And therein lies the flaw in how business tends to view these exceptions <mistakes> in today’s business world.

We seek some absurd level of perfection and in doing so we shut down in dealing with an exception with the incredibly stupid intent to break <or revisit> a well-designed, well working system <or even a well-trained, highly capable employee> to eliminate a … well … a stupid mistake <although almost no one can truly discern the difference between a stupid mistake, a mistake or simply a failure of the system itself>.

How does this apply to getting started?

This translates into having our head on a swivel before we even start. We look for trouble where there truly is none.

We find issues everywhere … even when it is simply a perception … or worse … a speculative ‘what if’ issue. And, maybe the worst, in all of our speculative modeling and ‘what if scenarios’ we absurdly end up applying the wrong remedy <or sometimes an unnecessary remedy> against something that is … uhm … speculative for god’s sake.

Look.

If you do some research on what slows people from getting started you will find one word over and over again – fear. It is often used simplistically and … well … inappropriately. I imagine if I stretch my thinking I could suggest fear is at the root of hesitation but I kind of think it is just most of us just do not want to suck. We truly do want to get shit right. Therefore it would seem gale wind almost everyone faces at the starting gate is one thing – the unknown. And this unknown is multi-dimensional in that there is a forward unknown <you may not have done this exact assignment or task before>, there is the general unknown <each task lives contextually in a different environment therefore even if you have done something once before the new context will invariably mean you will face something new> and the’ unknown’ unknowns <the random shit that inevitably occurs in the business world>.

Shit.

After reading that I don’t know why anyone actually starts anything.

Shit.

After reading that I don’t know why anyone would ‘go full speed’ but rather aim for some mediocrity as it would appear to be a safer more conservative path.

Oh.

But here is where the unknown really hits you hard in business – accountability. In business, regardless of whether you encounter knowns or unknowns, you are accountable.

Shit.

Double shit.

In business most time <I think> getting started is so hard because … well … you are accountable once you start <albeit … you will also be accountable if you don’t start … it just seems a little less risky>.

Accountability is a sonuvabitch. It is a sonuvabitch because even just one bad thing seems to create a crisis scenario.

And therein lies the biggest challenge.

Inevitable criticism occurs based on some perception of perfectionism <because the world around you almost absurdly always believe you should have foreseen the knowns AND unknowns>. It is an unfortunate truth that people expect certain things … and often these ‘certain things’ are unrealistic.

Look.

I am all for striving for perfection with an eye toward the implementation of an idea. But as with so many aspects of life, the key is striking a balance between opposing forces, each with its own set of pros and cons.

Too little perfectionism leads to a rapid but undesirable endpoint.

Too much perfectionism leads to analysis paralysis and no endpoint at all.

To be clear.

I believe Perfection is shit. It is shit because things just happen in business.

How often does this ‘happen’?

All.

The.

Frickin’.

Time.

I say that because it sure would encourage more people to get started if we embraced the truth that not everything, and not every mistake, is a crisis. And you know what? Even if you do face a crisis it has a familiar pattern.

You’re knocked off balance.

You learn.

You adapt.

Anyway.

The truth is that the wind, more often than not, blows in the wrong direction … even though … well … how can a wind blow in the wrong direction? My point on that so many times we wait on getting started until the wind is blowing in the right direction and … well … it never will.

The wind just blows.

And we just need to get started.

I will admit. I have always been a “let’s just go do shit and figure shit out as we go” type business person assuming I was surrounded with enough good smart talented people that we ran little risk of not figuring shit out.

That said.

I didn’t always sprint out of the blocks … I was also willing to crawl.  All I cared about was getting started.

I wish we taught that attitude more often.

Crawling can be as good as, and even more effective, sprinting and crawling is better than not moving at all.

============ 

“…can I tell you something…? I don’t think you’re in love with the past.

 I think you’re scared of the future.”

―

Brad Meltzer

=====

Well.

Generational business visions. What I mean by that is while businesses chug along making money, or not making money, how they make their money changes by generation.

Back in august 2013 I described what I called “the evolution of business vision” suggesting that there is a generational shift occurring in how people in business are viewing business. I attached to that thought a belief that the 50somethings were an impediment to progress and, in particular, the progress that the younger business generation offers businesses.

I believe all of that even more so today.

Organizations are adapting how they attack business purpose, vision and outcomes <measurement & attitude> driven by the rising younger people who view it significantly different that the existing older management.

This is creating a natural friction with the impatience of the rising and the lack of impatience to change by those in power … in addition … there is a natural friction found in how an organization assimilates the new and the old <and the necessary experience needed to make it happen> to make the well needed changes for progress.

This is attitudinal stuff we have always dealt with in business as we churned thru generations.

What do I mean?

• All generations are shaped by the generations that came before
• All rising generations want to shape the future based on how they have been shaped <and it will not be the same as those who shaped their thinking>
• All generations currently in place will want to shape the rising generations based on past learnings <and it will most likely contain unattractive features to the rising generation>

Where I truly believe the new well-needed vision shift is running into an obstacle is with ‘respect.’

And oddly … I will suggest it isn’t that the young should respect the old … but rather the opposite. I believe the 50somethings need to get their proverbial heads out of their asses and develop some respect for the young and what they can do <that we cannot>.

Show them respect and I imagine they will show us respect <if we have the ability to actually, authentically, deliver respect with the right attitude>.

Sorry to tell the older folk but … well … if two generations are to have respect for one another … the younger generation will have to believe the older generation has some value <in what they offer> and listen to it.

Now.

I admit.

I write all of this fearing we 50somethings are losing their respect. We have always been old and less adaptable … but now we are truly becoming an impediment to progress <or getting better>.

The obstacle mentality may have something to do with attitude, and pride, but to get to the core of what this is all about you really need to discuss money … not only how we personally get paid <earnings & wealth> but also how the company gets paid <profits, ROI, revenue, growth, etc.>. And I say that wishing more business people would talk about this issue rather than “selfish, lazy, entitled’ younger people and “old, out of touch, tech amateur” older folk.

Money, and how it is viewed,  is the issue

Basically I believe that the demands of managing business has evolved generation to generation … bloated dollar management to squeezed dollar management to … well … I sense it will be something like the ‘added value’ dollar management in the near future <if the 50somethings help with some progress>.

The following chart diagrams my entire thought process:

Here is the explanation behind the diagram. The current 50something management generation is literally and figuratively the generation that got squeezed. What I mean by that is this was the generation who had to learn how to do more with less and get more with less. This was the generation who was also demanded to generate more profits and sales increases … with that same ‘less’.

To do that we … well … we maintained the same business models and the same business processes <to a large extent> and then simply squeezed dollars and organizations for everything they had. This meant, as we squeezed things into each dollar. we squeezed out EVERYTHING of intangible substance <purpose, integrity, ‘doing the right thing’, soul, etc.>.

Yup.

If there is anything this current older management generation understands better … I don’t know what it is … they understand the concept of the squeezed dollar and squeezed organizations. They had to figure it out because they had to adapt to what the economic environment demanded <or be killed if you don’t>.

That said. This means the burden, what they know and believe is the way to do things, of this business generation is the squeezed dollar. They arrived in their situation because the boomer business leader generation was more about ‘the bloated dollar.’ They overcharged and built brands & businesses based on excess <and encouraged a belief there was value in excess> and, yes, offered some good products & services along the way.

I will note everyone, in both of these generations, typically made a lot of money. Yeah. This generation of 50something business leaders has already made a lot of money. The one before, let’s call it the boomer business leader, made even more.

And each made it differently.

Boomers thrived on the bloated dollar.

The bloated dollar was when companies could charge whatever they wanted and got it. Project estimates contained ‘fat’ <or ‘fluff’ or ‘padding’> to absorb unforeseen changes or challenges and buyers assumed the price was what the price was.

The current generation of business leaders has had to thrive in a ‘squeezed dollar’ environment.

The squeezed dollar is the unfortunate byproduct from the boomer generation leaders’ wonderful success … the financial community demanded the same results … but the consumer demanded transparency.

Therefore in order to maintain continuous sales growth <which is actually a relatively ludicrous concept> and continuous profitability the current business leader had to find ways to squeeze the same profit/growth out of less dollars <cutting staff while cutting prices while cutting … and cutting … and … well … cutting>.

Ok.

I say all this to get to where we will go and why there is so much conflict in the business world.

Suffice it to say that economic pressure creates a certain type of management style in order to be successful. 50somethings learned on the job and actually were quite successful maintaining the boomer ‘earn as much as I can’ attitude <a version of extravagant desire for more> as well as working leaner <on the edge of what an organization is actually capable of>. Unfortunately for the business world … the next generation of business leaders want something different <and they should … because where do you go after a bloated dollar and then a squeezed dollar?>.

The next generation? <the current ‘youth’>

They really don’t like either the financial ‘squeezed/lean’ aspect or the organizational aspect tied to the financial earnings attitude.

Therefore, in my opinion, the young <who are obviously chafing under the existing management style> will most likely swing to what I call the ‘added value’ dollar. It suggests accommodating attitudes beyond simple profit  <and purpose driven value> as well as simple positioning companies by ‘de-commoditizing’ within industries <rebuilding value beyond lowest price>.

What I mean by this is that they want businesses to swing operationally back toward a ‘bloated dollar’ construct but stuff the ‘bloat’ not with any padded financial aspects but rather with some purposeful aspects which encourage employees to think, and know, that they are part of a ‘good capitalism’ rather than a simple ‘morally hollow’ capitalism.

Anyway.

Regardless whether my prediction is correct or not … what is correct is that the 50something business management objectives are not aligned with the younger generation objective desires. And that lack of alignment pertains to both management style as well as corporate objectives.

This is an issue.

It is an issue not just because older managers want to manage misaligned with what the people doing the shit find any passion or interest in but it is incredibly likely the older manager is speaking a different language than the younger generation.

This is NOT a generational issue, this is a business philosophy issue.

Fortunately, I do believe it is easily solvable.

Me?

Oddly <and maybe surprisingly> I would follow the money.

Stop talking about feelings and ‘features’ and flexible hours and laptop/tablets for all and free lunches and start talking about doing what a business should do well – make money and make money you are proud of.

Maybe I could call this substantive productivity or possibly substantive profit or maybe i could just call it “meaningful business” but what i would call it is a productive business strategy because it engages intrinsic motivation.

===========

In 1949, Harry F Harlow, Professor of Psychology at the University of Wisconsin, outlined something called “intrinsic motivation” … or the joy of the task itself. Research reflects that for most complex tasks intrinsic motivation is a much more powerful drive than any external motivator. More than money or tangible reward.

And a key part of this intrinsic motivator is ‘purpose’.