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

“The way we got out of the caves and into modern civilisation is through the process of understanding and thinking. Those things were not done by gut instinct.

Being an expert does not mean that you are someone with a vested interest in something; it means you spend your life studying something.

You’re not necessarily right – but you’re more likely to be right than someone who’s not spent their life studying it.”

—-

Brian Cox

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

 “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”

—–

Martin Luther King

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

I seem to find myself in more arguments and debates and discussions with regard to common sense, gut instinct and actual “learning” <knowledge> than is most likely healthy for me.

My sense is that I am not the only one.

To be clear.

For those who care to research it, in general, our instincts suck.

For those who care to research it, in general, common sense is most typically not that common <or representative of reality & truth> nor does it make sense <unless you are looking back at what has been done and not forward thinking about what could be done>.

For those who care to research it, in general, learned people <either formal knowledge gathering or informal incessant curiosity knowledge seekers> tend to be more right more often and less right less often.

For those who care to research it, in general, sincere ignorance has reached plague proportions.

I sometimes feel like we, in America, mistakenly wandered back into a cave. And in that cave we can find shelves filled with sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity available for anyone to take.

Now. We do not lack for excuses for not knowing shit we should know or investing some energy to gain some well needed knowledge. The conventional excuses are time, distractions, overwork, hectic lives, alternative facts, “I already know”, etc.

The list is fairly long and quite accessible to the everyday schmuck.

So while they may be representative of sincere actions they are also representative of sincere purposeful excuses from the strenuous job of thinking.

From an intellectual standpoint this means we remain in a continuous doom loop of Hegelian Dialectic, in fact, never leaving the loop which means ignorance is always at hand and reality is always out of reach.

From my perspective this doom loop encourages us to stay in the cave we are in and just believe what we believe and use our energy for anything other than thinking because we need energy for anything other than thinking.

What you believe to be true, is it true?

Or do you just believe that it is true because you were taught that it was true and you never looked any further?

 

This is sad. It is sad because we seem to have lost the ability to think. It may be even sadder that we have purposefully decided to abstain from thinking. And, overall, it’s sad because where we should see thinking and thoughtfulness we only see faux intellectualism and random absurd theories. It is sad because all of this suggests our mental limits are some simplistic tripe soundbites and clever labels <which I would suggest are poorly understood heuristic propaganda tools>.

We seem to have forgotten that what most likely got us out of the cave was, well, enlightened conflict. And when I say conflict I mean ‘what you think versus what I think’ & ‘what you know versus what you could know’ because all the rest is simply trappings and ego/identity/power crap.

For it was within the conflict of ideas and debate in which the people in the cave learned, and unlearned, which inevitably got all of us people to leave the frickin’ cave.

As I have written before there is certainly a battle going on with regard to being an expert <and believed> and certainly anything associated with ‘intellectual’ is poisoned in everyday households.

   =============

“An intellectual? Yes.

And never deny it.

An intellectual is someone whose mind watches itself.”

Albert Camus

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

I could argue we stay in the cave for a variety of reasons, but today I will suggest that true thinking has taken a back seat to greed and self-interest <which is less about thinking and more about outcomes>.

The effect of this is that a shitload of people really have no knowledge of their own. And that leads to a mind & thought process almost solely grounded in common opinion.

Well. If thought is a commodity, than from that point on the objective of greed & self-interest isn’t about thinking it is simply about playing the game well <and winning>. The problem with this is that in any game there are winners and there are losers <even though everyone hopes to win>.

Uhm.

Games are for winners and losers.

Thinking is not a game.

Life is not a game.

Using popular numbers in today’s rhetoric t make my point, in a winner-take-all game, the top 0.1% win, the winners share some of their winnings with the 2^nd and 3^rd place winners <let’s call them the remaining people of the top 1%> and 99% are losers.

I imagine what I am suggesting is that a system that rewards only the top 1% winners ensures that everyone else loses which creates a sense that 99% of people just cannot think effectively  <I am not sure how that is good for the emotional well-being of a society>..

Well. I purposefully highlighted the Hegelian doom loop earlier because in that scenario we can think about how to break this doom loop cycle.

And, yes, this takes some <gulp> thinking.

In my simplistic mind I focus on benefits. What I mean by that is in today’s world no one sees benefits in thinking and only seeing benefits in not thinking and playing some game.

We need to reprogram that which has conditioned us into this fixed and, frankly, limiting mindset.

Here is the simplest thing I can point to – reality.

Reality 1: If everyone, 100%, thinks and debates and creates new ideas and adapt status quo to new realities … well … 100% has a chance to win. And even the 99% who don’t really “win” tangibly will win by being part of the progress <this is not conceptual mumbo jumbo … this is what any business leader with half a brain knows and does with their employee base>.

Reality 2: If everyone, 100%, doesn’t think and maintains the way we do things now … well … 1% truly has a chance to win.

Oh. And once you enter the winners’ circle you actually increase the odds you will win again.

Oh. And once you become a 99% loser you actually increase the odds you will lose again.

I have to tell ya.

Lay this out like that to people and I am not so sure a shitload of people are gonna like option number 2.

Let’s face it. We have become a “non-thinking” society as we have become, as a society, less people and more & more labels of some objectified economic relationship like producers and consumers, buyers and sellers, service providers and service users.

In fact. If you do not have one of those labels, you are an outcast.

Now. In America that ‘outcast’ group is relatively small. Almost all of America participates in consumerism. Globally only a relatively small percentage of global population is participating in consumerism. The majority of population is struggling to meet the very basic requirements of life such as proper food, shelter and healthcare. That said. We have significantly increased intellectual poverty – in America and globally.

Mentally we are now back in a cave.

Mentally we are living in a state of denial and a sincere ignorance towards the fact that we have created a system where thinkers & thinking have little value and even less of a perceived potential reward to the majority of people. The result of that is the majority of the world then competes in a winner take all game in which those in power <past winners> tend create money out of thin air while owning as much as they want.

What this really means is that thinking is unnecessary to become rich.

It only requires a person to be lucky to be born into a past winner family. Which means if you are in the 99% you can be a frickin’ genius and getting rich is still more like a game of chance where the odds of ‘winning’, becoming rich, through talent are very rare.

Well.

That is fucked up.

What we need to understand is that self-interest, competition and gaining profit at the expense of others, and thinking, is not particularly fair to the 100%, but it is also not particularly helpful for any meaningful progress as a society.

What we need to understand is that we are all huddled in a cave – the 99 & the 1. Together.

We must stop following blindly the ideas of what we know but rather open our eyes to what we do not know.

Here is what I know.

If everyone is thinking, everyone is debating, everyone is questioning ‘gut instinct’ and common sense, 100% has a chance of winning and 100% will get better in some form or fashion.

In the world we live in today the thinkers are more likely to lose than some idiots who simply know how to play the game better. Think about that. Yeah. Think. That is fucked up. I want a world with smarter idiots, less sincere ignorance and thinkers to have a chance of winning on occasion.

I actually want a world where no one lives in a cave.

originally published July 2017

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

“Let me win, but if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt.”

—-

Special Olympics motto

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

“There are victories of the soul and spirit. Sometimes, even if you lose, you win.”

—

Elie Wiesel

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

Okay. Competitiveness is a tricky thing.

No one wants “them to win.” And, surely, the bottom line for most people? “I want to win.” Which leads to an overall desire of “so I don’t lose.”

The tricky part is that winning doesn’t belong to you. It’s not just attitude I am talking about here.  Everyone has every right to it — to “the win”. Everyone. There is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to win, but at some point you need to remember that it isn’t everything. Winning isn’t as important as doing your best (even if best doesn’t equal winning).

So. Sounds easy? Sounds like common sense? Sure.

Those are the facts.

We know the facts.

We understand the facts.

We accept the facts.

That said. Facts being facts, everyone still has to deal with the personal feelings. Because the transition between “I want to win therefore I won’t lose” to “I lost.”, well, THAT is a humdinger of a personal transition.

Worse?

When winning is familiar (like … you win a lot … often enough that a part of you kind of expects to win). Why? Because familiar winning is addictive.

So. Daring to ask yourself “what if I lose?” or “what if the other team wins?” is huge.

And there begets the victory of soul and spirit and character.

We never know the answers to these questions. Mostly because most of us cannot not only picture losing ,but don’t want to (for fear it impedes the possibility of winning), No one wants to envision watching the other team win or maybe better said … “a win that has always belonged to me.”

That means finding victory in a loss is all about character.

Not being too proud to even think about those things as well as accept loss.

To find victory in the attempt is actually the thought.

Oh. And then there is the bigger picture. Life or long term victory.

First. Finding victory in the loss.

Downsizing. Decluttering life. Renting instead of owning. All those things sound an awful lot like “loss.”

And, yet, within each resides a victory. Independence? Freedom to move forward? Financial freedom? Renewed progress? Any and all those things.

A practical definition of ‘victory in loss’? Sure it is.

A true definition? You bet. And I don’t even call this “taking a step back to take two steps forward.” This is simply shedding to gain victory from. Maybe this is simply addition through subtraction. Whatever. It is victory. Period.

Anyway.

Second. The reality is we all need some victories.

Simply being brave in the attempt without ANY winning is difficult .. really difficult. This is where celebrating the small victories starts to matter. Yeah. I know much of the time we focus on lofty goals (and I admit … I write a lot about dreaming the impossible and dreams and aspirations). And those things are good.

But it’s equally important to focus on the small things you’ve achieved. It’s true because to sustain yourself over the long haul, you need to find happiness to motivate yourself along the long haul. So celebrate the victories of small goals for they add up to big goals.

What this all means is we don’t have to focus only on the huge earth-shattering goals and targets (BHAGs – big hairy audacious goals). It helps to seek out the little accomplishments you achieve for they represent being brave in the attempt. They may not seem like much to other people, but they’re huge to you (your soul & spirit).

Personal victories:

–          Kicking a bad habit

–          Losing 5 pounds

–          Overcoming a fear

–          Pushing yourself past your limits

–          Doing something uncomfortable  that you know is good for you (like public speaking)

–          Completing an assignment on time

–          Making your son smile after a tough day

–          Creating a business success (such as getting a business out of the red)

–          Creating a life turnaround (like losing weight and increasing your fitness level)

–          Getting out of debt and taking control of your financial life

And I would argue some of these are semi-huge victories. They are possibly only less ‘huge’ because they are personal, or internal, rather than public.

So maybe we should all reflect a little on what we have accomplished in the past months and days. And make sure you celebrate the small victories and make sure you actually celebrate the victory of the “brave attempt.”

Celebrate the victory of soul & spirit. And feel good about yourself a little more than maybe you may when you look in the mirror. I would argue the person in the mirror is more important than any trophy, ribbon or accolade you could receive by “winning.”

Oh. And don’t forget to lose with character. Because i can guarantee you the one thing you NEVER want to lose is your character because, in the end, whether you have more wins then losses or more losses than wins, you will ultimately be measured, be self & by others, by your character. So don’t lose it along the way.

Here you go. An odd close for me in one of my posts, but I found a Todd Rundgren song that had some nice lyrics:

We’ve been waiting so long,
we’ve been waiting for the sun to rise and shine
Shining still, give us the will
Bright as the day, show us the way.
Somehow, someday,
We need just one victory and we’re on our way.
Prayin’ for it all day and fightin’ for it all night
Give us just one victory, it will be all right.
You may feel about to fall but we go down fighting,
You will hear the call if you only listen
Underneath it all we are here together,
Shining still, give us the will
Bright as the day, show us the way.
Somehow, someday,
we need just one victory and we’re on our way
Prayin’ for it all day and fightin’ for it all night
Give us just one victory, it will be all right.

Just One Victory – Todd Rundgren

—-

“Circumstances don’t define you, they reveal you.”

=

Epictetus

—-

Life often seems to challenge our capacity — time, energy, emotional and physical. Let’s just call it the ‘personal capacity challenge.” Personal capacity is a tricky topic. Tricky in that there is no standard measure of ‘capacity’ from which to measure oneself against.

In addition, capacity expands and contracts depending on who and what is filling the capacity space.

In addition,  you can add in the variable of the circumstances with which capacity is dealing with which affects whatever space capacity maintains in oneself.

Oh. And I am speaking of emotional capacity to “deal” as in deal with life — both the mind numbing blows life can deliver and the everyday stuff life stabbing you day in and day out.

And then there are the times when Life gives you any and all at the same time.

Regardless. Life demands that each and everyone of us maintain some sense of capacity.

Well. I imagine this is what I am writing about. Because we all have capacity and we all have capacity enough to handle and manage the typical everyday shit.

However.

It is ‘those times’ I am speaking of … when you look at someone and look at the crappy cards Life has dealt them during some finite period of time.

This finite time represents a small space in which you feel no one should have to bear that much of a burden. And despite the fact I wish I were referring to some theoretical aspect of Life, I am not. Unfortunately Life has a habit of asking some people to carry some fairly burdensome burdens within finite periods of time.

It is one of the unfortunate inherent duties of Life.

—

“Life is not theory.

It is reality, with inherent duties to everything and everyone.”

Tivadar Csontváry Kosztka

—

Now. Despite the fact each of us assumes this duty differently every one of us has a different emotional capacity. It’s kind of like walking into the Container Store with aisle after aisle of different shaped, different sized and different ‘strength’ material in its makeup. I say that because I believe we often judge others by either:

(a)

ourselves, or

(b)

what we believe someone’s capacity should be

<which is driven by culture, media, societal expectations>.

We shouldn’t.

And, frankly, we really cannot judge … unless you can place yourself in someone else’s shoes.

Why? Capacity is multidimensional. It is driven by experience and … well … just your own make up.

Some people just deal with all the various stuff well, and some don’t, and some get better as time goes on <although I would actually argue that everyone gets better at ‘dealing’ the more practice they get> and some just have no, or little, capacity.

Life tests our personal capacity all the time.

We currently live in a Life culture, personal & work, that places ever more stress on the individual to achieve and to do more with less, to work longer hours, to make a greater change to the world <and to themselves>, people often find themselves pushed beyond the limits of what they can endure.

And that is just the common everyday stuff.

The ‘unexpected’ Life test isn’t even included.

Inevitably this all leads to personal stress which is actually a physical response to situations. It’s your body trying to find a way through a challenging time. Obviously, ongoing stress actually has an effect on the way you think.

But here is the deal with capacity. Conceptually it is infinite <although we know it is finite>. Let me explain. This concept versus reality issue comes crashing to Life only when we get to the point that we can’t cope with, well, the fact we know we can’t cope anymore. It’s not hard to see in many cases of a meltdown what you’re looking at is someone who maxed out on their capacity. They got so far in the hole that there was no way of getting out.

Now.

This doesn’t mean you cannot program yourself <or cultivate> to better utilize your capacity.

This means acknowledging and/or containing emotional levels <anger, fear, despair> that are too high or too low <apathy, low motivation> as well as emotional things that interfere with effective change <hostility, anxiety, excessive anger, avoidance>.

—

“Sometimes we don’t know our own strength. It can be hard to tell just how much weight you can safely bear, or how much will crush you.

I’d like to think you can shoulder as big a burden as you believe you can, that it’s all a matter of will. Certainly a comforting thought.

Other times it’s hard to remember you had any strength at all. Then you can only hope to have someone to remind you … you were once fierce and able.”

Everwood

—

There has been some well done research studies on his topic.

===

In the 1980s, Howard Gardner outlined the presence of seven domains of intelligence; two of them were interpersonal and intrapersonal – these combined were the forerunner of what we now know as emotional intelligence.

The term was first coined by Peter Salovey, professor and psychologist at Yale University, and John Mayer, professor and psychologist at the University of New Hampshire.

In 1995 Daniel Goleman, the leading expert in this field, reported “IQ is only a minor predictor of success in life, while emotional and social skills are far better predictors of success and well-being than academic intelligence.”

Daniel Goleman’s research on social and emotional competencies in his 1995 book Emotional Intelligence, brought this concept into a much needed focus.

Goleman’s work teaches us that children’s emotional and social skills can be cultivated, so that the child will accrue both short-term and long-term advantages in regard to well-being, performance and success in life.

He outlines crucial emotional competencies basic to social and emotional learning:

===

–        Self and other awareness:

Understanding and identifying feelings; knowing when one’s feelings shift; understanding the difference between thinking, feeling and acting; and understanding that one’s actions have consequences in terms of others’ feelings.

=

–       Mood management:

handling and managing difficult feelings; controlling impulses; and handling anger constructively

=

–       Self-motivation:

Being able to set goals and persevere towards them with optimism and hope, even in the face of setbacks

=

–         Empathy:

Being able to put yourself “in someone else’s shoes” both cognitively and affectively; being able to take someone’s perspective; being able to show that you care

=

– Management of relationships:

Making friends, handling friendships; resolving conflicts; cooperating; collaborative learning and other social skills

===

Mastering, or managing, these things results in something called ‘enhanced emotional intelligence.’ And, once again, emotional intelligence directly affects your emotional capacity.

===

Emotional Capacity is the facility of our personality and feelings and how they engage with our mental processes and the reality of the world around us.

The various aspects of our emotional capacity is the level of emotional stress we can endure, our ability to monitor our emotions and our skill at modifying our emotions – meaning our ability to eradicate emotions that are dangerous, counter-productive or illogical to have and our ability to foster positive emotions and joy when it is logical or appropriate to do so.

And a person’s emotional capacity is actually a function of their emotional intelligence.

===

I say all this because many people are quite content to feel what they feel and perhaps as an afterthought to think about what they had felt.

<whew … I had to reread that a couple of times>

Let me try to say it this way. Few people consciously cultivate their emotional capacity, i.e., consciously developing the power of their rational mind on what is appropriate to feel and at what intensity.

Honestly I can see why people don’t.

You don’t know what you don’t know.

=

A soldier doesn’t know how he/she will act & perform in battle.

A mother doesn’t know how she will feel if her child dies.

A pet owner doesn’t know how he/she will feel when their long time companion dies.

=

It is the actual experience that tests the boundary of capacity.

That said. All this personal experience means that you can control your capacity as long as you can control, well, ‘self’. And I imagine that begins with understanding ‘self.’ What I mean by that is something called ‘understanding your emotional triggers’ or by increasing your awareness of them.

An emotional trigger is an experience that draws us back into the past and causes old feelings and behaviors to arise.

<For example, an ice cream sandwich may remind you of your childhood summer vacations, or gossiping coworkers could bring back images of high school cliques.>

Some triggers are situational and some are social.

Some people smoke more when they are out for drinks with friends.

Most people tend to eat more at holiday or family gatherings.

And then there are internal triggers.

Anyway. Bottom line? Just recognize the fact that we all have triggers. And triggers are individual <often>.

I added this because we tend to try and help people we care for based on our own experiences. That leads to using our own ‘triggers’ as guide posts for what we say, suggest and support our beliefs with.

That can be a mistake.

People can react differently to the exact same stimulus. Taking such variety into account improves communications and relationships.

I share all of this because if you recognize your emotional triggers you are better able to manage <or at least know> your capacity, but not necessarily others.

Lastly.

Help.

No matter how strong someone is, how resilient, how whatever … sometimes capacity is stretched to a break point. Or at least close to your capacity’s … well … capacity.

First.

Therapy is not a swear word. Nor is it any sign of weakness. It is simply a sign that you want to get to a better place … by any and all means necessary. The right professional help may make a big difference.

Second.

A strong support network. Close family and friends are absolutely vital to feeling validated and nurtured. When you’re dealing with stubborn issues, it’s always a comfort to know that you have people who care about you and want to help you.

Ok.

All that research and professional thinking aside.

As noted earlier capacity is multi-dimensional. There is capacity within a moment and capacity within the accumulation of moments. And your personal capacity can often be defined <managed> by pushing through and not dwelling.

Sure. Someone could suggest pushing through <or not dwelling> is simply a defense mechanism, i.e., a way of not dealing, a process of ignoring.

Ok. But not dwelling is not the same as not reflecting. Not dwelling simply suggests not lingering too long in that ‘capacity moment.’ Therefore I simply suggest that it is all about pushing through the moment. And you know why you push through these moments and choices?

Because while certain choices define the future direction of your life, choices do not end then & there.

Choices beget choices.

You will then get even more choices, maybe littler ones, but little nudge choices to course correct or make sure the original choice gets aligned optimally for whatever you really decided.

But that is part of capacity.

Despite all this ‘pushing thru’ all these choices and decisions are stored away in your head. And sometimes that doesn’t leave a lot of room for other stuff … grief … happiness … sadness … whatever … it is just all tangled up. And all this choosing shit I am talking about inevitably creates stress … stress on the system <you overall> and stress mentally.

And stress does funny things to us <and our capacity>.

But so do circumstances beyond our control <which I imagine is linked to stress in some way>. We all have a limit as to how far events can push us before something within us pushes back.

But. The thing is most of us never know that limit until we reach it.

—-

“Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterwards.”

Vernon Sanders Law

—-

This Life capacity test is a hard and brutal teacher.

I imagine anyone’s capacity would be challenged if you spent too much time trying to untangle all the stuff stored in your head. But I honestly am not sure it is worth the energy to try and untangle shit. You should maybe just look at the highlights, maybe invest some energy untangling any knots that are truly restrictive, and move on.

Now.

There are certainly moments in time when Life truly tests your capacity – grief, sadness, unhappiness in combination with typical Life demands – and it fills you up to overflowing if not exploding.

I have seen people deal in moments like this and frankly, I am often in awe. I am not sure I would have the capacity. But what I do know is that I see these people take on the capacity tests and those who succeed <not fail the tests> just don’t dwell too long <and too long is defined person by person> and just push through before the burdens of the moment become so heavy they cannot move to push through.

Moving from those moments shifts you as a person.

Call it ‘a passage in life.’

You see the world and yourself differently after you’ve gone through the events and emotional states that define each passage. Not stronger or weaker different, just different. These passages are emotionally and cognitively intense … as a result you fundamentally change as a person.

I am not saying better or worse … you just change.

All that said. Maybe that is what I should have said upfront: personal capacity is often defined by dwelling versus pushing through.

Because in the end, if you dwell, you get squeezed.

In America’s ‘just do it’ mentality we tend to squeeze our capacity almost irresponsibly <despite the fact we believe we are being quite responsible & selfless with our capacity>. I recognize irresponsible is a tough word, but, for a group of people who like planning, milestones and objectives we seem to leave no space for the unforeseen.

We just fill it all up to capacity.

Fill up everything including time, emotion and mental space. This creates emotional capacity challenges <because trying to do everything on our physical list also puts demands on our mental capacity … it is sometimes called ‘stress’>. And by emotional capacity challenges I mean things like grief & unhappiness … the sudden demands that Life puts on you mentally that create capacity challenges. These individual things stress an already ‘filled to the brim’ capacity creating chaos <by overloading the already 24/7 planned and mentally filled> life>.

What this means is that you either “don’t have time” to deal or have to “make time’ to deal all of which exponentially stretches an already maxed out capacity <or what you assume is maxed out>. All of this happening at a time when some focus would most likely help diffuse or diminish the challenges.

I mention all that to say we are often our own worst enemy with regard to capacity. We have immense capacity. More often than not more than what we believe.

However. That doesn’t mean it is limitless. It is finite. Why test the limits?

In the end?

—

“Lacking even paper

I write on my heart

turned inside out.

That is why it squeaks

at night like the earth’s axis

that turns me face to face

with the impossible.” –

=

Regina Derieva

—-

Our world squeaks as it constantly turns us toward being face to face with the impossible.

And, yet, face it we do.

And in doing so we constantly embrace our capacity.

Just don’t enjoy the embrace too much. Because personal capacity is often defined by dwelling versus pushing through. And dwelling is bad.

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

Pope Francis saying No to An Economy of Exclusion

—-

Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have created a “throw away” culture which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the “exploited” but the outcast, the “leftovers”.

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

This is about jobs., working, productivity and meaning. I will begin by leveraging off the opening quote and discuss exclusion & inclusion.

Exclusion in work is working in a detached way. You are not really being exploited you are just scraps in the business world. The ones doing the “mindless work.” Unfortunately, disengagement numbers suggest a shitload of people feel like they are in this category.

Inclusion in work, to me, is meaning or finding ‘joy in the task.’

In 1949 Harry F Harlow, Professor of Psychology at the University of Wisconsin, outlined an alternative  … something he called ‘intrinsic motivation’: “The performance of the task provided intrinsic reward. The joy of the task was its own reward.”

Beyond motivation this idea is also linked to productivity. Inclusion matters because economic knowledge exists in bits & pieces within an organization scattered amongst systems, process & people. This means value creation is often a dynamic discovery process, not a more static system driven process. In other words. The more workers are included in the discovery process the more dynamic the value creation.

Contribution.

Meaning at work truly comes down to one thing – contribution. What I mean by that is, if the response to your job/doing (the stimulus) is “I have contributed” <with tangible proof or intangible reward>, you will have meaning. Now. Meaning can come to you in a variety of degrees – all powerful in their own way, but in totality is most likely attaining the highest order of contribution.

The most basic is “I” have just become better. This is an internalization of personal improvement suggesting “I am not stagnant, I am growing.” The second phase is if you view that your ‘growth’ has contributed to the people most important to you – your team, tribe or department. The third phase is to the organization itself. Something you have done, like a pebble in a pond sending out ripples, has contributed to the larger success of the organization & business. It makes one part of the ‘productivity enterprise’ so one doesn’t feel inconsequential even if the enterprise is massive. Lastly, is society or community or global. Your little contribution was part of a big contribution positively affecting someone, or some-ones, outside the selling aspect of your business.

Progress.

Simplistically, we all want to get better. Better at being a person, our skills, socially, professionally, for our kids, morally, etc. Therefore. The progress measurement is most likely, at its simplest, “better today than I was yesterday, better tomorrow than I am today.” I am not a motivation expert, but if I set up a feedback loop to show this to a worker <doesn’t have to be daily but maybe weekly at minimum> then a worker sees progress tied to ‘contribution’ <value & meaning increase with this alignment>.

To be clear. This is different than milestones, sprints & any measured activity. While those things can be useful to get things done, they do not insure meaningful progress. They are completion checkmarks and meaning needs progress checkmarks.

Decision utility.

To me decision utility, especially when it comes to workplace productivity, is a mix of doing & thinking. Most people focus on the doing aspect of decision utility, but I believe everyone likes to ‘think’ in terms of ‘my thoughts matter’ <the harsher version is “I know I’m not stupid and having my thinking contribute to what I do and we do proves I am not”>.

That said. It was Clotaire Rapaille who pointed out in America our heroes are athletes, entrepreneurs, police officers, firefighters, and soldiers – all people who take action. We may respect thinkers, but we don’t celebrate them nearly as much as we do our ‘doers’. As Rapaille said: the American Culture Code for work is WHO YOU ARE. We often seek so much meaning in our jobs, if our job feels meaningless, then “who we are” is meaningless as well <at least in some dimension>.  If we feel inspired by our job, if we believe that we are doing something worthwhile in our work, that belief bolsters our sense of identity in that we feel like we have some grander Purpose.

Our work ethic is so strong because at the unconscious level, we believe that if we work hard and improve our professional standing, we become better people <note: that’s not particularly healthy but its good to recognize it>.

I bring in work ethic because this is where game theory plays a role (Jason Fox speaks of game theory as a way of viewing employee motivation). As a reminder, I see decision utility as in thinking & doing. Thinking as in ‘solving a complex issue/problem AND doing something about it.” I first began discussing game theory in 2010 when crafting critical thinking games for children. The fact kids like thinking & game theory ratchets up complexity of problems sequentially as one is solved. Critical thinking at its most basic level is trial & error. However. Game theory also ‘dials down’ complexity to insure one doesn’t get too frustrated with failure. A child gets rewarded for failed attempts as well as successful attempts. In other words, you get value off of decision utility where marginal units are rewarded with higher value <and standard units get rewarded despite failed attempts>. I envision workers would respond just as positively to this activity – a combination of thinking and doing to create some progress.

Lastly, with regard to decision utility, let me lean into ‘marginal units‘ and the economic concept of marginalism. The fact that prices don’t correspond to the total value of all goods in existence, but rather the marginal unit (the value of the next unit>. I am not a behavior expert, but I would suggest meaning in work would seem to be of more value to the worker if they were constantly being rewarded for the marginal unit and not just the costs of doing.

Lastly.

Values.

I was tempted to call this ethics, but I tend to believe work is more meaningful when it feel substantive of values (to increase value) and virtue (which is a feeling outcome of doing things with value substance).

“Striving to meet the deepest moral needs of the person also has important and beneficial repercussions at the level of economics. The economy needs ethics in order to function correctly — not any ethics whatsoever, but an ethics which is people-centred.”

Vatican (encyclical Caritas in Veritate)

Values is, well, the good stuff that infuses all the doing and thinking. As I have said numerous times before, winning the right way creates the highest satisfaction possible <versus just winning>. People feel ‘fuller progress’ if they know they did it ethically, within the rules/laws & with a sense of dignity. I could suggest this values orieneted work feeds the moral soul, but I will not. I will just say we sleep better at night when we do it this way.

Anyway.

Self management permits the internal to be maximized on an individual basis permitting the whole, the business itself, to intervene with regard to eternal problems. This matters because the most basic economic problem is allocation – how the business can allocate its scare resources so as to best serve the interests of the business as a whole. Business should seek to maximize its people resources, minds & bodies, t maximize its inherent other scarce resources.

This leads me to systems & processes (often called best practices) which are based on restrictive assumptions to create an equilibrium between inputs & outputs for efficiencies.

If the individual is empowered to maximize their productive (on all measures listed above) the internal maximization of resources naturally occurs so that the organization itself can assess external challenges which may demand resources. This ying & yang insures maximum use of people, process & resources.

So. Here is what I think.

We are a doing people. People inherently enjoy thinking & doing and when it is visible <showing progress> we actually derive meaning. As a corollary, When our doing doesn’t seem to offer value, or meaning, it strikes at us emotionally – in a negative way. Our soul is in doing. We find our way by saying “let’s go to work” on something. This includes even pursing the seemingly impossible. Because in the end we are dreamers. We do because we dream and dream big, i.e., give us an impossible assignment and let us go do it.

For in the end, for all the culture code speak and thoughts about what makes us happy, People are pretty simple. We like making the impossible possible. And that is what makes People, well, People. At the heart of dreams and making the impossible possible is, well, doing. In the end I struggle to find a better meaningful value than “doing a dream.”

————

“Consent yourself to be an organ of your highest thought, and lo! suddenly you put all men in your debt, and are the fountain of an energy that goes pulsing on with waves of benefit to the borders of society, to the circumference of things.”

—

Emerson

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

Let me tell you what’s on my mind as we head into 2020.

I worry the world is getting stupider on a daily basis. Ok. Not really. I imagine we are actually getting smarter every day, yet, the overarching public narrative just seems stupider every day. It’s just that it sometimes feels like smartness is whispering and dumbness is shouting. All of this dumbing down seems to center around complexity & simplicity. The world is complex and we have become convinced simplicity is the key to, well, everything. The truth is almost all hope, and possibilities, resides in managing complexity (if not the complicated) and fear (including lack of risk) thrives on simplicity. Within the wretched hollow in between resides much of the current narrative, and thinking, conflict. I would also suggest success, pursuit of happiness and societal health resides in how the conflict is conducted, and won, within that wretched hollow.

Which leads me to my hope for 2020. We should have more hope and possibilities than we could ever imagine. And, yet, instead, we seem to have more fear infringing upon the possibilities.

The answer to this challenge, at least to me, resides in some intellectual aspects, i.e., what is going on in with our attitudes that affect our heads, how we think and how we approach these things. So let me share what I believe would help us moving forward in 2020 to improve upon our hope and possibilities.

Issue one. over-simplification

Suffice it to say we have devolved into a society of sound bites and over simplification.

In business it seems to be all about simplicity.

In everyday Life it is ‘summarize it for me’ or ‘it’s simple <insert some explanation here>.’

In the end I can’t figure out if should be pointing the finger at us or them.

• Them because they think we are not capable of understanding some form of complexity and therefore they only offer up simplified versions of what needs to be communicated.
• Us because we either <a> demand a sound bite under the guise of ‘we only have time for the headline’ or <b> we only latch on to the fragment of the whole which we believe summarizes the whole.

Therefore I will point the finger at all of us and them.

Here is a Truth everyone really knows <albeit hesitant to admit>. Most things are just not that simple. An effect can have multiple causes and a cause can have multiple effects. I say this despite the fact naturally we would like all the dominoes to line up one after another and when one falls the next naturally is impacted and falls.

Well. Life and things don’t really work that way. Maybe in a controlled test environment but in real Life events are typically bombarded from a variety of directions and while not all ’causes’ are created equal <some can impact more than others> most things are too complex to be simplified into ‘one thing.’

Over simplifying simply means ignoring complexities.

Over simplifying simply means being consciously, or choicefully, ignorant.

Over simplifying … well … just doesn’t work in the long run.

Heuristically this simplistic bullshit (often fortune cookie wisdom) eases you through the moment only to have to doubly <or exponentially> invest energy later on.

Simply? Over simplification just doesn’t work.

Instead of dumbing things down to some simplistic sound bite we need to raise the level of general understanding & knowledge to the level of complexity of the ideas & systems and <frankly> the world in which we live within. Life isn’t simple so what makes us think over simplifying will offer solutions?

Anyway.

Factually, seconds of involvement <sound bites> versus minutes of involvement <deeper complex discussion> has a direct relationship to degrees of real knowledge.  i.e., seconds leads to shallow knowledge or let’s call it ‘less knowledgeable’ and minutes lead to something deeper.

Yes. This suggests our love of over simplification is a direct result of our ongoing belief there is not enough time to do everything we want to do (not understanding). This is crazy. Nuts in fact. Oversimplification only gives us the appearance of effective time management and certainly doesn’t translate into effective progress. Why? Oversimplification under assesses complexity, rarely demystifies uncertainty and is not particularly helpful in reconcepting & rethinking that which is (which is kind of a version of ‘future-proofing’ your Life).

Look. What I am suggesting is difficult and uncertain work, but certainly more satisfying and inspiring when we solve and recreate. This means less The Secret and more real thinking. Less positive attitude inspiration and more hard work behavior aspiration.

Neither hope nor possibilities can be resolved in a sound bite. They are simple sounding concepts with deeper complex workings. The fate of hope and possibilities lies in balance if we don’t invest in the hard work of ‘non over simplification.’

Maybe worse <pragmatically>? We won’t solve any of the problems <because most problems cannot be solved in simplicity and certainly not in over simplification>.

This leads me to #2.

Issue two. being intellectually insightful is about hard work.

Let me begin by suggesting that good ideas cannot be decided by number of tweet votes in favor of.

Life and ideas is not American idol. We are not all judges <and probably shouldn’t be on American idol either>.

Good ideas are rarely popular. This really means that being intellectually insightful requires more than a surface ‘this is what I think’ tweet popular vote. If we really want to do what needs to be done to maximize hope and possibilities, we have to hunker down and work hard. Work hard in that we need to reassemble the present (knowledge) & rethink things by using all aspects including economic thought and philosophy and the past … all of which means dealing with ambiguity and contradiction.

And, yes, that is hard work. But it is the kind of work that hones the intellectual insightfulness we need.

Instead of dumbing things down we need to be raising the level of general understanding to the level of complexity of the systems in which we are embedded and which are embedded in us.

And while you may balk at something like ‘intellectual insightfulness’ as too far reaching, suffice it to say, we just need to be smarter, less ignorant, more enlightened <open to additional thoughts> and more involved in the difficult and uncertain work of demystification and reconcepting ideas and systems in which we live in and, well, just plain rethinking shit.

• Simply talking about world-changing ideas will not simply make the world change. Changing the world takes work, really really hard work.
• Simply having a positive attitude ain’t gonna work. Hard work will work. And in this case I mean hard thinking
• Simply ‘doing’ aint gonna cut it. We need to be smarter. And whether you think about thinking this way or not, it ain’t about staring off into space doing nothing, thinking is a blue collar job. It’s about work.

Issue three. innovation is not <just> technology.

Innovation is the lifeblood of not only business but society & Life. It is the path to bettering lives. Period. Therefore, it demands we ‘consent to the highest thought. That said. For some reason we seem to be associating innovation with technology and just technology.

This type of thinking is lazy, not consenting to the highest thought.

This type of thinking leads us to possibly believe technology innovations will eventually solve all problems and maximize everyone’s Life as some point.

It’s a very dangerous idea because in reality of we focus just on technology as the solution we are actually preventing the real change we need.

It’s a very dangerous idea because it completely removes the human aspect.

Minds need to innovate too. Thinking and attitudes need to evolve and innovate.

New thought systems, economic systems and systems in which people live eat and breath all need to evolve and, yes, that happens through innovation <whether technology is involved or not>.

Technology is simply a path that runs parallel to culture <or society> and each needs to be run at the same pace <or at least be run side by side on occasion>.

A truth is that technology outpacing society simply exacerbates the flaws and limits of the slower runner. If a problem is endemic to a system, then we run the risk that technology simply amplifies the problems. Technology and culture are entangled. Technology and people are entangled.

Technologies may enable new ways of doing things (not just doing but thinking) and this effects culture. I would suggest we flip that equation and say if we want to maximize technological innovation we should innovate cultural/society structure and seek to augment it, to maximize its potential, through technological innovation.

At the moment it seems like we respond to technology rather than proactively drive technology.

Technology has certainly dramatically improved the overall quality of life. The paradox is that the system we have now may make amazing new technology possible, but at same time is creating such cultural conflict that maximizing technology ‘what could be’ seems impossible.

We need to innovate the systems in which technology exists: economically, culturally and philosophically.

So. 2020.

Look. Hope and possibilities abound in today’s world, but they are rarely just given … they need to be earned and they demand consenting to our highest level of thought.

I don’t believe simplicity is bad.

I don’t believe being optimistic or having a positive attitude is bad.

I don’t believe that if you don’t spend years to understand the complexities of a specific issue and have the ability to offer solutions you don’t deserve to engage in the subjet ct.

But we seem trapped at the extremes.

On one side too often we seem verbose and excessively caught up in complexity and nuance …for complexity and nuance’s sake. At minimum this costs us the opportunity of possibilities within a complex world and at its worst it makes the complex seem impossible to navigate, i.e., we lose hope for something better.

On the other side too often we oversimplify/simplify into Gladwellian bullshit or infotainment like sound bites simply for simplicity sake. At minimum a lack of knowledge suggests lack of participation or involvement; at maximum it suggests intellectual laziness and inbetween resides a comfortable simplicity of fear.

We cannot be lazy moving forward. We cannot afford to be lazy thinkers. For in this type of laziness lurks ignorance and it is ignorance we should fear — not any ideological argument or technological innovation which inserts itself into our daily lives, but ignorance.

And maybe that would be my hope of a cultural resolution for the new year. Avoid lazy thinking.

——-

“Consent yourself to be an organ of your highest thought, and lo! suddenly you put all men in your debt, and are the fountain of an energy that goes pulsing on with waves of benefit to the borders of society, to the circumference of things.”

———

No predictions for 2020 just a desire we all “consent yourself to be of your highest thought.”

---

postscript: some of this was written in my 2013 end of year post. I believed some thoughts were even more relevant for 2020 than they were in 2013.

—–

“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.

=========

“Don’t dwell on what went wrong.

Instead, focus on what to do next. Spend your energies on moving forward toward finding the answer.”

–

Denis Waitley

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

“You are always a student, never a master. You have to keep moving forward. “

—

Conrad Hall

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

So. This is about shifting gears professionally.

What made me think about this? I recently watched a professional acquaintance who shifted gears.

Oh.

To be clear.

He shifted up.

He had a good business, good business model and a good business sense. In my eyes he was cruising along in maybe 2^nd or 3^rd gear <good … not bad … and not great> … and then … well … he found another gear.

To be clear. When I first saw his business, he was maybe in 2^nd gear not really rocking the boat or rocking the world but steady consistent and moving forward and solid business. Looking from the outside in I never saw spectacular, but I saw steady. I saw, well, 2^nd gear.

He didn’t know it, but, behind the scenes, I would never hesitate to recommend him, maybe not typically for those who needed to shake the etch a sketch, but 100% for those who just needed a good engine tune up. Over the years he steadily shifted up to maybe 3^rd gear always steady and solid <good, maybe very good, just not that extra little great>.

But then that changed.

One day I saw his business newsletter and … well … I sat up a little straighter and read it a little closer.

And read it again.

It felt like he had shifted gears.

It now felt like 5^th gear stuff.

I got the next newsletter.

Definitely 5^th gear.

He had shifted gears professionally.

I tend to believe this happens a lot as you get older. We shift gears. We reach a point professionally where you have it pretty good, you have some good experiences which have taught you a shitload of different things … and you sit back and scan it all <comparing it to what you have done>.

This is where the shift occurs.

Now. Some decide to downshift. And. Some decide to shift up.

To be clear.

There is a huge swath of people in the business world who simply go in to earn a paycheck, their only gear is the one that does their job <mostly well or well enough> and their career progresses in that one and only gear. I would note, just for the record, day to day business relies on these essential people and their steady gear attitude <so stop giving them shit or look down on them in any way>.

This is not about them.

This is about the business people who want more. They want to use another gear then other employees and for the most part throughout their career … they do.

Inevitably these people reach a point, maybe some success, maybe a title, maybe it is just some more good experience where they, well, decide to shift gears.

And, yes, this is where some shift down.

These ‘shift downers’ have decided they have been working hard and they see the other relatively happy one gear people and say “I am going to slow down.”

Some people call it selling out. Younger people look at these older people as ‘wasted space.’

I just call them people who believe they deserve to down shift <so stop giving them shit or look down on them and look to maximize their experience>.

This is not about them.

This is more about the business people who wanted more and then see that maybe they could actually “be more.” These are the business people who shift up.

And you know what? Shifting gears seems like the appropriate metaphor here because ‘the analogy of ‘shifting gears’ is used to identify and explain the key factors (agents) involved in driving career formation, and describe the level of interconnectedness between these drivers.’ To shift up, in order to respond to the pressure, the gears have to be in sync, work simultaneously and coordinate the rest of the body around them.

And that is what happens. You have accumulated a lot of knowledge, expertise and experiences <practical functional stuff> and then you decide to incorporate some personal clarity to the horsepower. It is almost like you find some clarity in yourself professionally which permits you to better identify the largest and most influential parts in the gear box. And then … you shift gears.

I feel qualified to write about this because I did it. I shifted gears up. And I have seen others in my generation shift up and down.

I will admit that it has taken me awhile to not have disdain for people who down shift mostly because it is so far out of my DNA I, frankly, couldn’t understand it.

But I do now.

I certainly see the value of ‘down shifters’ and believe any organization would benefit from having a mix of good, qualified, experienced, downshifters.

As for shifting gears up?

Whew.

Seeing someone in my business generation do it is a joy.

Mostly because, in general, the shift is tied to a decision that our generation may have not always been the best for the business world and possibly injected some flawed thinking with regard to business acumen & principles. This means that most ‘shifting up’ is tied to trying to address those ‘wrongs’ or at least try and inject some ‘righter thinking.’

I get some shit from people because I am hard on my entire business generation … everyone.

Look.I think more of us should be.

To be clear. I don’t expect everyone in my generation to decide to shift gears up but I would like more of my generation to at least understand some of the consequences of our behaviors & principles.

And for those who decide to shift gears upwards? I hope they get a chance to implement their new horsepower because today’s business world can make it pretty difficult for people in my generation, who truly have something to offer and are willing to not be attached to the old ways of doing things to actually get to do what they truly offer.

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

“Tired, tired with nothing, tired with everything, tired with the world’s weight he had never chosen to bear.”
―

F. Scott Fitzgerald

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

Well. I admit. I get in trouble with some of the ‘radical transparency people sometimes because I hesitate to agree that the most effective organization is an organization in which everyone knows everything.

Yes. I do believe every person is capable of leadership.

Yes. I believe every person actually does lead (contextually & situationally).

Yes. I believe if you want to encourage individual leadership within decision making you should, and have to, be as transparent from a leadership perspective as possible.

No. I do not believe you tell everyone everything.

Yes. This is where i get sideways with a lot people.

Here is a truth that many people do not like to hear.

This may sound obvious, but leaders do not always tell the truth.

This may not sound obvious, but leaders do this on purpose because not always telling the truth is sometimes, truthfully, the best & right thing to do. This leader can be in business or in the government or, frankly, any situation.

Now. I am not suggesting they always lie nor am I suggesting they do not know what the truth is <or how to tell it>, but I am suggesting that there are times & situations that we, the everyday schmuck, shouldn’t hear the truth.

Therein lies a leader’s uncomfortable relationship with truth and truth telling.

Leaders are often demanded to manage the narrative <not control it>.

Managing the narrative can be based on a variety of solid rationale points which may piss us every day schmucks off later on <when we inevitably learn the whole truth>, but within the context of how and what is happening the leader has actually done the right, and best, thing by not telling the whole truth.

Sorry.

That is the truth.

Look. Leaders have a shitload of responsibilities, but let me highlight two with regard to truth and truth telling:

– All people.

You lead all people not just one group or one department. You end up being very careful in what words you decide to attach to whatever you want to talk about.

No. This is not political correctness.

This is managing the overall effectiveness of the larger group. If a word, or group of words, disenfranchises a group from the rest of the organization or greater whole not only does the whole suffer but the smaller group can receive undeserved negativity.

All people.

The burden of responsibility that a leader bears is to all, not just parts of all.

– Moderation.

This may seem counter intuitive, but leaders spend much much more time tamping down excitement <to make it realistic> and tamping out fear <to make it less debilitating> then they do creating energy and ferve.

That doesn’t mean that they do not inspire the masses … just that the majority of their relationship with those they lead is more about rational and not emotional – the responsibility to temper emotions and emotional responses.
Moderation.

The burden of responsibility that a leader bears is to mitigate emotional responses.

So. These are responsibilities.

These are actually reflective of behavior intended for the greater good and not to hide something or any nefarious reason. It is solely in the best interest of the greater whole. And, yes, while we everyday schmucks bitch & moan about no one should be making decisions for us or a desire <or right> to being part of the decision … we really do not.

Mostly because while we all think we can be a leader … 99% of us cannot.

To be clear. The obligation to tell the truth is heightened depending on what one is proposing, yet, it always gets balanced by the obligation for the greater good. This is the truth telling balancing act, a high wire act most of the time, every leader walks — every day.

Which leads me to wanting to share a couple more truths. Uncomfortable truths.

Truth 1. Sometimes a leader gets it wrong.

Good intentions or not sometimes what you didn’t say, or even what you did say, will come back and bite you in the ass. And there isn’t shit you can do to explain why you did what you did. People tell you how to do your job. People call you a liar. People call you stupid. People call & tell you … well … a shitload of things that make you feel like shit.

But you know what? You are a leader. You forge on and do better the next time.

But. Let me be clear. Just because you get it wrong doesn’t mean you will automatically tell the whole truth every time from that point on. Leaders always … always … look at what they say in a contextual fashion. I will not tell the whole truth if emotions are running high and will incense to a state of irrational behavior. I will not tell the whole truth if it will drive further despair <when hope is needed>.

Truth 2. Even when you get it right … you can never tell anyone why you did it.

You can’t tell people that emotion makes rational people irrational and “I didn’t tell you everything so that emotions could ease”. I stubbornly didn’t say something, agree with something or use a particular word or phrase because, well, I wasn’t sure you would attack some other group of people <take out your emotions on someone>.

You are a leader. You carry the burden of what you did and take solace in the positive outcomes when you do get it right.

That’s it. This topic has been on my mind for quite some time.

Mostly because I believe we should think about this more often as we view our leaders <and see the uncomfortable amount of shit that our leaders get piled on them>. Partially because I believe in an autonomous democratized decision making organization model. Totally because business mostly exists in a hierarchy model and for the most part we need to manage the existence in which we live in.

Now. This is certainly not written to applaud lying. I do not condone blatant lying. But I do believe there is a time and a place to not tell the whole truth.

That is the burden a leader bears.

Now. Far far too many people think they either are a leader, as smart as a leader or could be a leader.

Harsh truth? The majority of people cannot be a <good> leader. And. Not everyone can or should become a leader.

It takes a certain type of skill, lots of character & courage and … well … the ability to say what needs to be said when it needs to be said. Sometimes what needs to be said is the whole truth and sometimes what needs to be said is selective truth.

This is the uncomfortable truth leaders know as … well … truth.

I imagine some o the thoughts I shared today will make some people uncomfortable let alone vehemently disagree with. That’s okay. All I ever ask is you think about it and maybe see this as an uncomfortable truth.

===

another thing I wrote about the Burden of Leadership

===

====

“Was this not what you wanted?”

—

remnant-thoughts

===

I saw this quote/question posted on tumblr site and I had to stop and think. And, ultimately, the phrase got stuck in my head like a bad 70’s song with a catchy beat. Ok. Even worse than a bad song I associate this phrase with a typical incredibly stomach churning feeling. The words “was this not what you wanted?” more often than not creates an angst driven internal churning. Needless to say … not many good feelings get tied to this phrase.

That said. My thoughts crisscrossed between business and Life.

This is the business version of “was this not what you wanted?”

Ok. I don’t care if you are just starting out in business and are sitting in your manager’s office handing them something or you are the most senior of senior managers, if you are faced with a situation where you find the words “was this not what you wanted?” coming out of your mouth it is, well, not good. It generates a sinking feeling which is a combination of real tangible <I wasted my time and will now have to work on this more> and real intangible <I didn’t meet expectations>.

This all may sound oddly surprisingly – the fact that doing what someone wants is a perilous path in business. You would think that following orders could never be perilous. But, yet, it indeed often is.

First. The main peril resides in the fact many people do not really know what they want <hence the stunningly tortuous “I will know it when I see it”>.

Secondly. Sometimes, well, the initial ‘here is what I want’ is very wrong, in fact, sometimes even frightfully wrong. And I say that on even the most basic tasks you are tasked with. Managers are humans too <although they sometimes act like aliens> and many times they unthinkingly <or less than thinkingly> want some specific task checked off a to do list and set you off on your merry way to ‘do what I want you to do.”

Now. All that said. It would be incredibly easy for me to suggest that giving people what they want is a business career destined for failure. I will not. And I cannot.

Consistent delivery at work is most likely the most valued attribute an employee can offer. Without it you provide less tangible value as well as maybe the most important failure – your manager has less trust and therefore knows they have to invest more energy & focus on you. That is the kiss of death for an employee.

While doing what is wanted taskwise can be a surprisingly movable target, if you can master it, you become an extremely valuable employee or business partner. Yeah. Valuable <do not ever completely commoditize or devalue the importance of consistency>. However. Consistent delivery can also be a negative to an employee <insert a mental “yikes” here>. That is because it does have a nasty habit of nearing ‘commodity-like’ behavior. The implication being “anyone can do that.” And while that is more often than not a wrong perception, it is a perception nonetheless. What all this means in what I just shared is this is a very very fine line you walk – doing what is wanted consistently and, yet, avoiding the horrible ‘was this not what you wanted’ scenario.

There is a bunch of advice, some good and some bad, with regard to how to avoid the ‘was this not what you wanted’ scenario, but that’s not really the point. The point is, no matter how good the advice, you are stuck in the wretched hollow in between need and want. And in that wretched hollow you are guessing. You have received specific direction on what is wanted tangibly <uh oh … is that just the ‘basic delivery’ – and I want more – or is this the ‘desired actual delivery’?> in addition you have most likely also received some open ended “don’t just do … I want you to think about what you are doing” thereby creating some nebulous ‘want’ objective.

To be clear on the latter. Some managers cop out on that by saying “I didn’t need you to think on this one I just needed you to do what I told you to do on this.” It is a cop out. And if they are honest with themselves, it is a lie. If you have said once, at any time and any place and within any project scenario, “I want you to think an offer some additional thinking” that creates an unsaid halo over everything else that comes after. And, frankly, managers grab this halo and shove it in your face whenever they choose.

Anyway. Unlike in Life <where this can be fairly resolvable because it is internally driven discussion> in business this is not resolvable despite what experts may suggest. There will always be a wretched hollow in between need & want. In business terms that is most likely called “added value.” In business you are constantly navigating value provided. And that value is always partially need and partially want driven.

What I can tell you unequivocally if all you do is give someone what they ‘want’, more often than not you will end up far too frequently delivering stupid shit that doesn’t help the situation. It would be simplistic to suggest that success in business resides solely in giving others the things they need, and not the things they want because, as noted earlier, business truth typically lies somewhere in between.

—-

“Don’t give them what you think they want.

Give them what they never thought was possible.”

Orson Welles

—

Not knowing exactly what you want is actually typical. Most of the time business people don’t know what they want. And while that may sound like they are stupid, it is not driven <most of the time> by stupidity. It is more often than not driven by an inherent belief that everything can be better. It is also driven by an inherent belief that ‘better’ is something they have either not thought of or have not had time t think of <hence the desire to have you think because somehow you have the time to think when they don’t>.

Not knowing exactly what you want is actually typical. This is because … well … there is a bigger picture and a smaller picture. Some business people have a grasp of the bigger vision but are sketchy on the details of how to attain the bigger picture. Some business people have a grasp of the littler vision but are sketchy on how to attain the more nebulous panoramic bigger picture.

Not knowing exactly what you want is actually typical. That is because most business people are not particularly good at navigating big and small at the same time. and by “most” I mean junior, middle and senior business people.

This is not to suggest you should simply accept “was this not what you wanted?” as standard operating procedure. This is also not to suggest that you shouldn’t feel the sinking feeling every time you say it in business <because that feeling NEVER goes away … and I kinda think it shouldn’t because it is a reflection of meeting expectations which is a good measure for a good business relationship as well as personal assessment>.

This is to suggest the phrase is a reflection of the constant line you walk between the head and the wallet in business. I will also suggest that walking the fine line between need and want, sometimes this is the line between strategy <future value> and execution <present value>, means you are constantly teetering between good performance and bad performance.

And that is, frankly, harrowing. It is harrowing not just personally, but in the larger picture. You cannot have a long term strategy without delivering on a short term strategy. And you cannot be successful long term if all you do is deliver day in and day out focused on a short term strategy. This is true of a larger business as well as personal career.

I do not have any simple trite expert advice to offer today <unlike some of the tripe you will find online from so called experts>. Personally I have always focused on “what they need” without sacrificing “what they want”. I feel I can do so because in my experience most business people rarely are 100% wrong in stating what they want because most times they know more than I do about what they are in the business of doing.

Even that said, I have sat in hundreds of offices and businesses and said “was this not what you wanted?” — painfully I may add. I may have figured out a way to say it differently but in the end it is all just the same.

And it sucks. But its gonna happen.

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

“The only thing that has ever made me feel old is those few times where I allow myself to be predictable.”

Carlos Santana

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

General Mark Milley:

“disobedience, when done, must be done with trust and integrity, and you must be morally and ethically correct.”(Disciplined Disobedience)

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

Well. There is no lack of articles on generational gaps in business and, yet, almost every one of them focuses on simplistic “generational characteristics”, “old versus young” and “what millennials want” and shit like that. Sure. Useful but I would argue all young people have always wanted a version of the same thing “do good meaningful shit without all the old people bullshit.”

Anyway.

What no one seems to talk about is the core frictional axis in today’s business generational issue: business philosophy<embodied in how ideas are created & implemented>.

That said. While I will certainly piss some people off by suggesting 50somethings are slowing us all down <impeding progress> I will do so by hopefully using some rational arguments rather than simply ranting.

The foundation for my belief will center on 2 things:

• Compensating
• Compensation

Of course this is, in reality, about ‘letting go holding on’ <with a dose of ‘please move on’>. That said. 50somethings are the biggest impediment AND catalyst for progress.

Let me explain.

Impediment. They cannot let go. They are holding on with a stranglehold sense of fear to what they ‘know.’ I recognize that this is actually a topic on some elder generational life truths:

• No one can do it better than I can.
• It was always better when I was younger.
• It is always worse now than it was before.

Every generation as they get older believes this. Every generation of businesses has a bunch of people sitting in their corner offices looking askance as the young skip down the hallways tapping their proverbial fingers on their desks wondering how to corral all those young whippersnappers to do it the way they did it.

And it can get worse.

The old folk think they are living in the present <their perception> by implementing what is comfortable <the past> therefore their behavior is incredibly difficult to impact because their mind is telling them what they are doing is actually different than what they are actually doing.

Ok. Now that I have blasted 50somethings as being stubborn bitter curmudgeons and the biggest impediment to change, I will take a minute and also note, given the right attitude, 50somethngs can be the biggest enhancer/catalyst of progress. There is a relatively small percentage of 50somethings who have the ability to straddle generations <attitudinally> and have the ability to insert themselves into the younger generation’s minds and desires to strengthen the engine of progress rather than stall the engine.

Please note … I am not suggesting these 50somethings have to be as good as the young at technology or whatever new innovative techniques out there yet to be discovered, in fact, it may benefit them to not be or even try. Their value is in their heads and experience and the nudging of ‘what can be’ using selected knowledge from ‘what was.’

Let’s call it ‘selective best practice learnings.’ Topmodels suggested it was the happy few who could explain things. I have to tell you. I think the market place needs more of these “happy few” 50 year old+ employees than ever before (and I am gonna tell you why). Now. I am not suggesting all 50+ people are the same. And this generalization may be translatable to other age groups but let me suggest there are three groups:

• Over 50 and all they know and believe in is what they were taught when they were in their 20’s.
• Over 50 and they have all the knowledge they need to be on their own and like being on their own (I call these builders)
• Over 50 and have accumulated iterative learning over the years and have a unique combination of old and new (and like renovating)

(note: I wrote a post about Builders versus Renovators)

The first group is lost in the past. They will struggle because their thinking and ideas and even their vocabulary can be out of date. They will suck at transformation or renovation. Their hope is finding someone who needs to work on their internal construct of how to get shit done. But mostly these are the people when we were young we thought were ‘out-of-touch’ from the real world (or chuckled to ourselves because they would throw out up to date buzzwords acting like they knew what was going on).

The second group has accumulated enough knowledge and expertise and confidence where mentally they have flipped from ‘working for someone’ to ‘working for myself.’ They have recognized their ability to build. And they like building (which is different than transforming). They would suck at transforming because they want to run the place and not simply be an enabler for the organization to shift. (Ralph also talks about this within his newsletter as “fear of flying” and learning about yourself). They could possibly be out of touch or they could be leading edge entrepreneurs. But it doesn’t matter because they are now going forward as their own boss.

The third group? They are renovators. Companies should be fighting over these people. They are old but not old. They are experienced but still learning. They have a solid thinking construct but flexible in application. They may have their quirks (because I believe all of us older people start feeling more comfortable in our own skin and therefore are a little less worried about ‘fitting in’) but also tend to be more interested in the result than worrying about step by step how they get there. They can actually make the current buzzword understandable by using past functional learnings to explain them.

So. When I say “fighting for these people” I don’t mean to suggest that companies should be stockpiling these people at the expense of young energetic fresh thinkers and doers. I am simply suggesting that companies need a good tier of these boomer types to transform themselves when, frankly, a lot of companies need to be ‘transforming.’ (and my definition of transformation is leveraging from solid good older characteristics an injecting some new characteristics). I am also not going to suggest there should be a direct correlation between % of boomers in population and % of boomers in the makeup of business organizations. That would seem kind of silly to me.

But the numbers are pretty compelling that organizations should seek that third group of over 50ers (let’s be nice and call them boomers). In 2009 The PEW Center released a study outlining the current generation gap is the largest in the almost 50 year history of the study. Today, an astounding 79% of Americans believe that there is a generation gap in the ways young and old think and believe. Truly the only way to bridge that gap within an organization and eliminate generational divisiveness is to have boomers who can effectively communicate with and motivate all age groups.

There are not many of these 50somethings out there.

—————–

“The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.”

L.P. Hartley

—————————-

I equate it to the fabulous few who can travel to a different country and seamlessly blend into the attitudes & behaviors of the new country.

Generations are, in general, slow to change and adapt in a normal every day situation. Today’s 50somethings are exponentially challenged with change and are not dealing with it very well <i.e., not letting go very well>. I believe it was a French sociologist, Emile Durkheim, who developed a psychographic method to establish different socio-cultural groupings <I believe it is called the Sinus Milieu>.  Anyway. Basically it is a model that challenges us to think about behavior, preferences and cultural practices. The main premise behind the model is called ‘the lock-in principle.’ The principle simply states that if we get used to something we do not want to change our habits <or attitudes an beliefs> even if we are presented with something new or different that might be better. Simplistically it consistently shows <to a point that it is almost an unequivocal behavioral truth> that habit is stronger than the desire for improvement.

This thought partially explains that while 50somethings actually share the same desires as young people they are reluctant to let go of what they “know.” this gets compounded by two things:

1. With the advent of data & technology, the working business model has transformed from a “idea construction” model to a “idea destruction/reconstruction model“.
2. With the internet the gap between older experienced based knowledge and younger theoretical based knowledge has become sliver thin.

JEREMY SCRIVENS

“Over the past ten years, businesses have used Lean, Six Sigma, business process engineering and other techniques to drive costs out of a business. They have also succeeded in driving people nuts. Something really important happened two years ago. The percentage of people who loathe their jobs has been rising and the number of people who love their jobs has been falling. Two years ago these lines crossed. If we don’t find a way to reverse that trend then we are truly stuffed.”

Sliver thin? This is the compensation and compensating thoughts I shared upfront. 

• compensation

While this is about management style as well as purpose ultimately this is about money … not only how we personally get paid <earnings & wealth> but also how the company gets paid <profits, revenue, growth, etc.>. The current 50something management generation is literally and figuratively the generation that got squeezed. This was the generation who had to learn how to do more with less. This was the generation who was also demanded to generate more profits and sales increases … with less.

If there is anything this generation understands better, it is the concept of the squeezed dollar.

Now.  Let me explain. As business evolves and the economic environment surrounding industry evolves the needs of the business leader changes. It is natural to adapt to what the economic environment demands <or be killed if you don’t>. The burden of this business generation? The squeezed dollar <versus the bloated dollar of the previous generation>.

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

• The squeezed dollar is the unfortunate fact that because of the boomer generation leaders’ wonderful success … the financial community demanded the same results … but the consumer demanded transparency.

Therefore in order to maintain continuous sales growth <which is actually a relatively ludicrous concept> and continuous profitability the current business leader had to find ways to squeeze the same profit/growth out of less dollars <cutting staff while cutting prices while cutting … and cutting … and … well … cutting>. I say all this because this economic pressure creates a certain type of management style in order to be successful. 50somethings learned on the job and actually were quite successful maintaining the boomer ‘earn as much as I can’ attitude <a version of extravagant desire for more> as well as working leaner … on the edge of what an organization is actually capable of.

Compounding this is the next challenge.

• Compensating

There is always a fragile relationship between generations … old holding on to what they know and have while the young are trying to pry things from the old … trying to get them to let go <of ideas, responsibility, things, etc.>.

From a ‘wisdom’ perspective the current generation gap is different, and more challenged, at the moment <although it has been this way in the past … just not within our experienced past>. While this wisdom gap between adults and the youth <in Life and in business> has always existed I will call this unique current gap challenge ‘the war on the adult advantage’ <or false knowledge versus real knowledge> for the sake of my discussion.

False knowledge. This is harsh <and an over generalization> but adults have always made shit up. We pass our opinions and beliefs along as facts … as real knowledge based on real life experience. Let’s call this the ‘years advantage.’ Most likely it is a ‘focus group of one’ knowledge but in the past adults could own this advantage the majority of the time. And at its worst … it is simply a defense mechanism to deflect youth energy away from something we would prefer them not to be focused on or thinking.

Real knowledge. Adults almost always had a real practical technical ‘how to do it’ advantage … mostly because in this case we had seen & done it. And done it many times so that it was almost with true expertise <or at minimum we had the process understood and efficient>. Nothing beats practical hands on experience <remember that old folk>.

The internet has squeezed both.  Today false knowledge can be challenged immediately.

And real knowledge?  Well. With some professional proficiency an adult will always maintain an advantage but with the advent of the computer and technology … many adults have actually LOST the advantage. Ultimately … the internet has squeezed this entire advantage perspective <actual wisdom as well as the learning process itself> to the head of a pin.

Only those adults truly agile and adept at thinking are maintaining this advantage.

But, in general, the 50something response?

We are threatened. The two main pillars of advantage have become toothpicks. So we hunker down. We take an increasingly bunker mentality and batten down the hatches <ok … no more tired metaphors>.

What do the 50somethings inevitably have to hold on to <and put a death grip to never let go of>? Whatever slim margin of advantage we can own, the unassailable portion, is ‘how we learned to do it’ — the process and the mentality and the ‘work’ on HOW we learned what we learned that got us to where we are.

Heck.  We got here this way … so any other way is a short cut <or not the right way>. Uh oh. Why is this an issue? Well. My good friends at topmodels.com helped me out again. They refer to it as “why faith is replacing knowledge.”

“… our world is getting more complicated all the time. Black and white, good and bad, right and wrong have been replaced with complicated constructs that leave most people in the dark.

As the world around us becomes increasingly fast paced and complex, the amount we REALLY know – what we can really grasp and understands – decreases all the time. Today it is more or less taken for granted that we do not understand many of the things that surround us, such as mobile phones and ipads. And even if somebody tried to explain the DNA code to us, we would probably be out of our depth.

We are increasingly surrounded by ‘black boxes’ … complex constructs that we do not understand even if they are explained to us. We cannot comprehend the inner processes of a black box but nonetheless we integrate their inputs and outputs into our decision making. The amount that we simply HAVE to believe, without understanding it, is increasing all the time. As a result we are tending to assign more importance to those who can explain something than to their actual explanation.” <The Decision book: 50 models for strategic thinking

Krogerus & Tschappeler>

Well. That thought scares the shit out of 50somethings. It stands against everything we were taught.

Faith versus actual knowledge? How can you truly understand if you don’t understand <all the innards and stuff>? The young are replacing <some> knowledge with faith … and the old are not letting go of ‘stop and learn the knowledge.’ There is certainly a balance … but 50somethings are not interested in balance … they are interested in having ‘no faith’ because they perceive it as having ‘too much risk’ or ‘not the way we did it.’

<insert ‘get over it’ here>

There is a massive opportunity for 50somethings if they can get their shit together and quit ‘compensating.’ If they simply quit cocooning simply to maintain their adult dignity <their wisdom factor> and seeking to simply maintain whatever slim perceived advantage they can have over the youth <not actually increasing the gap but simply strengthening the fine thin line between the two>.

Today? It is a more hardened thinner gap than in past generations.

The future is always ‘now’ to the young because the future exists in their ideas. Whenever the future ‘happens’ it becomes the present and then immediately the past <kind of my explanation for the excessive restlessness the youth in business have>.  50somethings need to learn to let go and hold on for the ride <as a conductor>.

Ultimately … the old have lost their traditional grip over the young and are holding on harder than ever before. They are over-compensating to maintain control <or their advantage>.

Bottom line on this topic. It really comes down to two things … attitude and respect.

Attitude.

The right attitude <combined with some respect> is the requirement for adapting to change and generations.

With the passing of time each of us changes … experientially and psychologically. In certain situations, younger people do not like accommodating themselves to traditional experiences and in others older people are reluctant to accept the new. In order for a person to change themselves, it is necessary that they not only be convinced of the appropriateness of this change but they also have to have the right attitude. The attitude matters because … well … this shit doesn’t happen overnight <despite the fact everyone seems to think if you don’t make changes immediately you will get crushed>. In order for everyone to adapt organizationally everyone, both generations, need time.  Time to assimilate the new and the old and create the necessary experience as well as process it to make … well … progress.

Respect.

Oddly, I will suggest it isn’t that the young should respect the old, but rather the opposite. I believe the 50somethings need to get their proverbial heads out of their asses and develop some respect for the young and what they can do <that we cannot>. Show them respect and I imagine they will show us respect <if we have the ability to deserve it along with the right attitude>.

In the end.

There is a lot of talk amongst older folk on “changing” and “adding purpose to businesses” but my prediction?  Existing leadership <and middle management> will screw this up mainly because they will only see the short term as an opportunity to get an older, more mature, cheaper employee and not recognize the longer term issues that will arise. They will screw it up because they will focus on ROI & not ROY:

• Lack of ROY <return on youth>: youth and young people are the cheapest innovation engine in any organization. While typically overlooked in an innovation model their innate ability to provide a fresh perspective through fresh eyes is invaluable. Organizations may not recognize their current loss with the ‘lack of youth’ within their organizations but it is having an impact. It has a domino effect within an organization. Without the ‘hidden youth engine’ more pressure will fall on older employees for innovative ideas … and these employees are more focused on ‘safe behavior to maintain employment’ and … well … you can see where this ends up.

Focusing on what we perceive as ‘generational differences and ‘youth attitudes’ <and not the organizational issues> I believe we older folk will not manage this issue well. Mainly I believe this because we will tend to focus on numbers & jobs and not some key psychological aspects <some Maslow stuff>.

There is truly no generation gap with desire to what we want <purpose, meaning, joy of task, being better, hope>, but the real gap exists in the minds of HOW things should be done.

As noted in my construction versus deconstruction posts, it is a new business world out there today and navigating the transition is where the best minds of the older generation should be focused. I could argue we are currently in the business world’s liminal space <uncomfortable, uneasy transition space> and if you agree, well, then we are simply on our way to someplace new & better. I could also argue we need a new business model for a new business world and fortunately for everyone the young are more capable of implementing this new model than any existing generation.