===========

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

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

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

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

Everything has to do with everything else.

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

Arturo Perez Revarte

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

Vague sucks.

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

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

Is this work valuable ? Sure.

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

Do most people do this work? No.

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

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

Once again.

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

That said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I imagine I have two points today.

First.

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

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

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

Second.

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

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

A vague outline is a choice.

No more and no less.

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

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

Anyway.

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

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

It is just damn practical to have some vague outlines.

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

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

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

===

Humility may be the most endearing, and enduring, quality one can ever have.

====

Wins, or successes, in a business career come in a variety of shapes and sizes. Just scan resumes and they are strewn with them. For the most part people like to highlight seemingly short term ‘causal’ wins: I did this and this happened. Let’s call those transactional successes. Business loves those because they appear to be “successful doer” stuff. “this person makes shit happen to the benefit of the business.” But as time goes on another successes emerges – enduring things. The ones that prove you really know your business shit and are not just a transactional winner. I do not mean to diminish the short-term successes because having the ability to meet a specific milestone or objective over and over again is a skill and essential to the success of the institutional business. But a structural win, one that embeds itself within a business for years, shows that in some form or fashion you have crafted an enduring idea – enduring in its concept as well as enduring in the actions/activity it begets. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that other humans is often the most satisfying enduring success, i.e., people you managed have gone on to be successful not only in business but in life, but today is about business successes.

Which leads me to mistakes.

We all make mistakes, but not all mistakes are created equal. I would argue choiceful mistakes, or failures, are of incredibly high value to one’s enduring success strategy and actual successes. What I am actually talking about doing something and then enduring the inevitable gauntlet of “why did you do that?” and “whoa, that was a mistake” or even “I am not sure I would have done that” gauntlet.

This may seem like an odd way to talk about enduring value and success, but I have made more mistakes than I can count which makes the wins, the non-mistakes, so much more valuable to me. In fact. Many of my mistakes were so egregious because they were on things that should have been done, not things that were actually a waste of time. I bring this up before I bring up actual successes because I consider part of enduring ‘wins’ are actually ideas/thinking you had, failed to bring to life in some way, and, yet, someone else did at a later date with success. My point here is that, on occasion, I had the ability to envision an enduring idea/win just that I couldn’t figure out how to get it implemented. In a world which seems to overvalue things that get done versus ‘right things that for some reason didn’t occur at the time’ it is difficult to publicize these types of failures/mistakes, yet, they do have value. They show the ability to recognize enduring value as well as acknowledges that ‘wins’ aren’t just given to good ideas; they take work & resilience to navigate the natural gauntlet business offers even the best of ideas/thinking.

Which leads me to the enduring ideas with enduring performance.

One can embrace an enduring idea without attaching any performance which is a dangerous path to take on the argument of its value. To me the truest enduring value is found in “built to last” stuff. Ideas that become the underpinning, consistently implemented (in a coherent way), to ongoing business success/performance. To be clear. No enduring idea can be owned by one person. The reality of business is enduring ideas need a collection, or collective, of people over time to breath life into an idea. I would also add that for any enduring idea to gain the initial traction it takes a team or cohesive group of people who can articulate the idea in a way that gives it a solid platform from which to push forward on its progress. Here is my list:

• CPG dual benefit.

When I first began my career, I worked on P&G healthcare and they had a couple of products with dual benefits. They crafted the art of how to communicate not one benefit, but two <in a company relentless in its pursuit of ‘one thing’>. I believe this embedded a fairly stubborn personal attitude that communicating just one thing really well was not the only path to successfully optimizing value. Which leads me to my first enduring idea contribution. I worked on a #2 product with a dual benefit and not only assisted in the strategy development but also the communication strategy. This was in the mid-1980s and the strategy, brand & communication, still exists today. This wasn’t groundbreaking in that the product itself, functionally, delivered a dual benefit well. That said. There was debate after debate on whether one thing should be focused on (hierarchy of benefits) or how to go about carving out market share and a ‘dual benefit’ strategy won out – and is still winning out 35 years later.

• New product innovation.

Sometimes when you work with a business which has built its bones in B2B you see a bunch of shit in product development you can see some clear consumer business potential. This particular enduring idea stands out because I actually pointed out maybe 5 enduring ideas (they exist in the market today) that they did not want to pursue <the hearkens back to my mistake/failure point>. But this one was ‘cold chemical disinfectant’ for contact lenses. Going back into the way back machine would show you that in the beginning of contact lenses heat disinfection was the primary way you cleaned lenses (1980s). To a consumer it made sense, heat kills germs. But lurking within the new product innovation group there was a chemical disinfectant you didn’t need to heat, just drop lenses in. Much easier, more convenient, and, well, with much more resistance in consumer’s minds that ‘cold’ could never kill germs (safely, i.e., without harming your eyes). And, yet, we made it work. The brand itself was bought by someone else (now a market leader) but it is now a proven enduring idea (I know of no one who uses heat to disinfect their contact lenses).

• Influencer strategy.

Before influencers were a thing I worked at an agency (Bozell) who embraced the idea as a strategic thing, not a selling tactic. Commodity-like categories, like motor oil, are a sonuvabitch to create differentiation let alone distinction. Like all automotive brands everyone went out and sponsored racing cars/teams and created some value through that. In this case, after rummaging around the sales force, we found out more independent car mechanics used/recommended the motor oil than any other brand in the market. So, we purposefully went out and solidified that segment usage and then made a claim – “people who know use”. 35 years later they still not only used the strategy, but they used the tagline. That’s an enduring idea with enduring value.

• Yellow pages.

Oddly, mostly because I think the head of my office wanted to give me things to do so I wouldn’t be bored, I managed a Yellow Pages group just as the infamous world wide web was slinking its way into the world. to be clear. There was strategy, objectives and tactics surrounding yellow page plan of actions. Anyway. This was my first foray into publishing what I think. I not only thought YP was stuck in the past, but ignoring the future, and, maybe most importantly, ignoring the true value it offered <connectivity>. I gave a speech at a conference, followed it up with an op-ed, and, well, if I pulled that sonuvabitch out today someone may start calling me a futurist. But that’s not my point. My point was I offered an enduring idea to an industry on the cusp of becoming a dinosaur <although most didn’t see it as so> and that idea has come to fruition.

• Bank positioning.

Here I get to circle back to dual benefit with a twist. Banks are banks and they say back like things all the frickin time. Interestingly almost every one of them will sit in some strategy meeting and claim “customer responsiveness” or some bullshit like that. Ask them why and how and there is a lot of mumbling. In this case I had no part in the ‘customer responsiveness’ <albeit I did push back hard on a suggestion that they should position themselves as ‘the trusted bank’ suggesting you cannot claim trust, it can only be give, i.e., it’s a response to shit you do>, but rather found an enduring way to support it and embody the benefit in a way that became part of company culture. “How can we help you?” a simple question as well as a call to action as well as a company behavior. And while the support may sound trite today, it was a fairly debatable positioning then to suggest a dual ‘positioning’: small bank attitude with large bank resources <owning a contradiction to create a compelling benefit>. But here’s the thing. Two decades later the dual positioning and mantra are alive and well.

• Online education.

Beginning in about 2008 I started paying attention to technology and education. I would be remiss if I didn’t say that The Hole in Wall project, and the idea of self directed learning, had a huge impact on my thinking. I began to think about an early age education system built from the ground up using the web as the global classroom and augmented by teachers (rather than the other way around). I created an entire web-based concept. Once again this was a failure on my part to find anyone who believed in the idea as much as I. But. The proof of this as an enduring idea is that piece by piece, part by part, it is being implemented.

• Agency positioning.

Its odd in that advertising agency, experts in communicating positioning & benefits, typically suck at doing so for themselves. I had some free time and purposefully walked through the doors of a small agency who I couldn’t figure out why they weren’t being more successful. After a number of conversations I suggested a phrase to capture the essence of who they were <attitudinally> and what they actually did <work that was different>. As the owner said “we used it as a baseline philosophy for culture and in new business to separate us from everyone saying – we are creative.” They used it for over 5 years and, well, while it certainly isn’t cause & effect, they won southeast small agency of the year. I include this in enduring ideas with enduring value mostly because any agency doing one thing for over 5 years is not typical of the agency world.

• Manufacturing mantra.

Additive manufacturing is an exciting segment of the manufacturing world and the ones who play the long game well are clearly going to be winners. That said. Growth is a slippery sonuvabitch to have as a companion. Sometimes you want to chase things only to find out you forgot to build some important things and maybe chased some rabbit holes that led nowhere. In this case I gave one talk and one core idea: pragmatism & possibilities. Those words became culture cornerstones. I did nothing to drive strategy or communications, just offered up an enduring way to frame all the strategy, operations and culture discussions. I toss this one in to make a point that enduring value doesn’t necessarily mean some earthshattering idea, but rather sometimes an enduring idea endures because it is the glue for everything else or maybe in business vernacular – a mindset north star. It remains part of their narrative today.

Which leads me to value.

What I am suggesting is Value sold, or offered, is sneaky because there are so many ways to do things which can be called valuable & actually be valued in some way by a customer, but do not represent an enduring value. Transactional value, “I increased sales 15%”, is fairly easy. Enduring value, which is structural value, is more difficult and, yet, is a platform for ongoing success – it frees up a business, thru a constraint, to show progress.

To conclude.

None of these things made me a lot of money or even, in some cases, any money. For the most part the business world doesn’t really compensate, let alone recognize, enduring ideas with enduring value. What that means is being an enduring idea person insures you learn about humility. That said. When it comes legacy time, when you reflect upon your career, enduring ideas have the highest value. They show you didn’t just think in the present, but had some sense of what will have value in the future. Honestly, I am proud of these, not the transactional ones in my resume.

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

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

Umberto Eco

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

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

—-

Taylor Swift

====

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

Well.

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

But it is not.

Not even close.

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

That is wrong. Very very <very> wrong.

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

It can be a stress on your everyday life.

It can be a burden.

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

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

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

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

99% of the time those people are just assholes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the bottom line.

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

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

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

There is a lesson here.

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

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

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

Lastly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

==========

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

—–

An aboriginal saying

============= 

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

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

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

—–

Haruki Murakami

===========

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

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

Let me stay on the business side of stories.

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

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

I no longer think that.

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

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

That is nuts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aw.

You do.

You do know what to do.

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

Shit.

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

Oh.

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

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

And you know what?

That shit is important.

Really important.

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

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

Stories make presentations more interesting.

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

Stories persuade people think <and thinking equals engagement>.

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

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

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

This ‘get to the point’ point is nonsense.

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

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

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

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

Why? Because it has a story to tell.

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

=====

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

—-

Winston Churchill

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

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

——

Frank Herbert

====

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

• Generalities not specifics

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

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

<note: you cannot>

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

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

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

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

Regardless.

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

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

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

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

This is maddening.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway.

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

===

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

Laurens Van der Post

===

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I envy them their comfort.

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

Should we all believe in nothing?  Of course not.

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

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

Fanatics don’t try.

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

Regardless.

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

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

originally published March 2016

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

“Thinking again?” the Duchess asked.

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

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

–

Alice in Wonderland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

—————

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

“But what am I to do? ” said Alice.

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

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

And she opened the door and went in.

————-

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

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

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

In this case? She opens the door.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How absurd is that?

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

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

Which is nonsensical in itself.

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

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

All that said.

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

<that all made my head hurt>

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

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

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

In fact … Alice shares a discussion like this:

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

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

“Exactly so,” said Alice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<back to Alice>

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

“What am I to do?”

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

Anyway <here is the big close>.

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

The moral of this rant/observation/babble?

Geez.

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

First thought.

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

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

Second thought.

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

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

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

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

Third thought.

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

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

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

Anyway.

Remember <please>.

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

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

‘Begin by stopping.

Stop believing every study you read.

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

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

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

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

“She wasn’t doing a thing that I could see, except standing there, leaning on the balcony railing, holding the universe together.”

–

J.D. Salinger

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

Well.

This is about business. In today’s world if it doesn’t appear like you are doing something … then … well … damn it … you aren’t doing something <even if you may actually be holding the universe together>.

You have to be doing something that can be seen.

You have to because if you don’t everyone is convinced you are doing nothing. I call this issue … being challenged by the ‘outcome mentality.’ What I mean by that is efficiency driven outcome, or output, is everything. Do more with less is an insidious mantra because this not only suggests ‘more output’ matters but ‘less thinking, more doing’ is the path to more outcome.

That said. So what if your output is … well … holding the universe together.

C’mon. That’s a metaphor.

I’m not truly suggesting the actual universe, but let me talk about business. Sometimes you run across that leader or sometimes a manager or even a young employee <with some potential> who holds the business or the organization together. They appear to you in a variety of forms. They can be a rebel in that they are rebellious to the status quo every inch of the way toward their version of outputs. Some just effectively juggle the efficiency/effective balance. Others learn to weave a strong thread of thinking time into what they do, unseen, and produce a more effective outcome efficiently. That said. Sometimes when you look you cannot see what they are actually doing. They may be often seen doing nothing but standing there leaning on the balcony rail.

Uh oh. In today’s business world that person is screwed.

Look. I’m not suggesting you want people who do nothing, but sometimes people who look like they are doing nothing are actually doing a lot of something. And sometimes it is difficult to measure these people up against ‘outcome focused generators.’

What I mean by that is I have had people in my teams where during review time I have had to stack employees “top-to-bottom” and justify their salary, job status, existence within the organization, whatever review line item you want to call it … based on ‘what have they done.’

Tangible outcome crap.

And, well, sometimes your most valuable employee doesn’t look so hot based on sheer tangible outcome. It is only when you build in intangibles that they rise above the tangible outputters <not sure that is a word>.

Ok.

Any experienced business person reading this will be shaking their head going … “whew … been there” because you have a clear visual of a scrunched up face across the table from you saying things like “well … can’t we get them to do more? … I am struggling to see the comparable value to <insert some ‘outputter name’ here>.” You want to reach across the table and wring their neck shouting “they are frickin’ holding the universe together for god’s sake.”

Holding the universe together is a talent. It is a unique talent to make those around you better and more efficient, more effective and, well, happier <or maybe just more realistically positive in that they lift productivity – quality & quantity>. And sometimes that talent is embodied by ‘not doing anything but standing there.’

I have run across several business people who had the incredible ability to ‘hold the universe together.’ And I have had the incredibly ludicrous experience of having to encourage them to waste time to ‘tangibilize’ <once again … not sure that is a word> what they are doing so people can ‘see’ their value. As a manager, or leader, I imagine one of your responsibilities is to protect these valuable unique people from the challenges of the typical business world view and foster their abilities and opportunities.

Let’s be clear. This has some unique challenges because it has always been that an ‘outputter’ has never understood this type of person or value. Never have and never will. That’s okay … because organizations, just as in Life, need a variety of personalities and talents to be successful.

However. I do get a little concerned that the business world pendulum has swung so far over to efficiency & outcome & output that those who ‘hold the universe together’ is becoming a dying breed. Maybe I am less concerned for the immediate but over time. Because the young people with this talent and ability simply cannot protect themselves from an output world without help. And if all we do in business is to promote outputters … well … enough said. You get it.

I am sure throughout my career I have missed people who ‘could hold the universe together.’ And I rue those mistakes. I take solace in that I have recognized others and tried to herd them through the business gauntlet of ‘all that matters is results <or output>’. All I can say is that while as a leader you take pride in every employee you have the ones who have the ability to hold the universe together hold a special place in your ‘list of things done’ <or list of things ‘I didn’t screw up as a manager’>.

I imagine that is a reminder that in the end, as in the end of your business career or Life, the intangible often  measures up more so than the tangible in reviewing ‘what I have done.’

I imagine this is all a reminder to all of us there are people all around us ‘holding the universe together’ in ways we just don’t see — but we benefit.

So before you judge someone for ‘not doing’ take a closer look just to be sure they aren’t holding the universe together.

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

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

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

―

Viktor E. Frankl

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

“The world has changed so much.

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

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

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

——

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

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

(originally written in 2015)

So.

I am all for outcomes.

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

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

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

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

Ok. That is bad.

======

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

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

Neil Gaiman

=====

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doing your best during the attempt is commendable.

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

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

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

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

Look.

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

Achieving with dignity.

Winning with respect.

An honorable outcome.

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

<insert a sigh here>

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

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

Trump embodies the wretchedness of ‘soulless competition.’

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

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

Everyone deserves to win.

Everyone should have the opportunity to win.

Everyone should experience ‘win.’

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

In the end.

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

========== 

“Mistakes are always forgivable, if one has the courage to admit them.”

–

Bruce Lee

======

“If you own up to your mistakes, you don’t suffer as much. But that’s a tough lesson to learn.”

–

Lee Iacocca

=====

So.

Owning up is all about the respect for the boundaries of responsibility.

Owning up to what you have done and said is possibly the truest test of character you will ever see.

When you are managing people you learn a shitload about employees by how they handle a mistake and how they ‘own up.’

Now.

As a manager you always filter the ‘owning up’ through your own management style <because you affect your employees behavior whether you admit it or not>. Any leader worth half a shit encourages the people on their team to think, go and do. In doing so they also accept the inevitable mistakes that happen with those who are often reaching beyond what they are currently capable of <that reaching is called “growth” by the way>. Leaders aside anyone, in any organization worth a shit, is going to find themselves in situations where well intended actions which have become mistakes have been made.

<note: I will ignore the crappy organizations who believe stupid ongoing mistakes are a fundamental building block to everyday business>

 This is where ‘owning up’ moves to the forefront. In general … you will find owning up falls into three basic categories:

• Cocoon the mistake.

It is mine. Examine it. Accept it. Blame yourself for it. Own it as an isolated incident.

• Leverage the mistake.

It was mine. Examine it. I learned from it. Own it. Use it moving forward as a stepping stone.

• Equivalize the mistake

<note: I made up the word “equivalize” … I could have used ‘equalize’ but it is actually more about someone searching for some equivalence that they can pony up in their defense>

It was mine … but … it was pretty similar to this other mistake … and remember when <insert name> did this? … which makes it not so bad, right?

<note: there are certainly degrees of each and every of these response categories>

Let me talk about these.

The first is a martyr. Throwing themselves at the mercy of the court.

The last is a victim. Saying … well … if you are going to convict me, be aware, you will also have to convict all these other people.

The middle one? Well. Before you convict me let me tell you how it makes me, and us, better.

Once again, any good manager worth half a shit will reflect upon their responsibility for the response before they respond. Good managers understand that they set the tone for ‘encouraging mistakes’ and managing the main filter someone flows through when assessing and articulating their own mistakes – fear of repercussions.

All that said. If you remove fear of repercussion you gain some true insight into the person. For example a senior person who feels entitled and ‘above the fray’ will have little to no fear of repercussion and you will see who they truly are in their response. And they can fall into any of the three categories I outlined. Younger employees, on the other hand, are more likely to be scared shitless and their response is like looking into a mirror of your management style.

But. Here is an interesting thought with regard to owning up.

Shit hitting the fan is like … well … a hurricane. Rarely is it simple and even more rarely does it stay a simple storm if you ignore it, it will eventually become a hurricane if you let it.

The thought? The ‘i’ in hurricane is also in its center. That is where owning up truly resides. How the “I” in the middle of the hurricane acts.

Still amidst the buffeting winds?

Scared of the mountain high waves?

Make little nuanced responses to remain in the calm of the hurricane?

=====

“The little things? The little moments? — They aren’t little. “

John Zabat-Zinn

===========

I imagine my point is that in owning up there is certainly the larger “am I willing to accept responsibility” but there are numerous little things within the acceptance which showcase character.

Being accountable, in general, demonstrates you are responsible. It certainly demonstrates you are willing to do shit, to make a mistake and are prepared to take accountability for it.

Being unaccountable creates an incredibly irritating dilemma to a manager.

“I didn’t do it” , when all the obvious evidence states you did do it, creates incredibly stilted conversations circling some alternative universes. It can become an absurd dance around reality. And, worse, not owning up to something actually creates a spark which creates a smoldering fire which needs to be constantly dealt with over and over and over again. I would note each time its little flame appears it scorches that person’s integrity just a little more.

I know.

It is incredibly easy to point fingers when things go wrong. Even easier to not even speak up and hope that no one notices. Good things, the right things, are always harder to do. Which leads me to a really neat thing I found about ‘owning up’ which I found when doing some research — an organization called ‘cultures of dignity’ that has a curriculum they offer for young people.

====

Owning Up teaches young people to understand their individual development in relation to group behavior, the influence of social media on their conflicts, and the dynamics that lead to discrimination and bigotry.

Whether you’re teaching in a school, a team, or a youth-serving organization, Owning Up is a flexible, dynamic curriculum that respects your knowledge of the young people you work with and the communities in which you serve. Owning Up is a tool to help educators work with the most interesting, funny, and challenging people in the world: tweens and teens. It’s also a tool to teach young people the capacity to understand their individual development in relation to group behavior with their peers, the social dynamics that lead to discrimination and bigotry, and the skills to be socially competent in the difficult yet common social conflicts they experience.

====

Fabulous. I love it. I love we go out of our way to show young people the power of ‘owning up.’ Uhm. Now adults have to exhibit the same behavior <or have their own class>. Which leads me to Trump who is, unfortunately, serving as a potential role model for our young people.

I imagine I thought about ‘owning up’ because of Trump. He has mastered the art of not owning up to anything. But he does it in a way that I am not sure I have ever seen before. He just ignores what he has said and done. He just keeps moving onward <not upward> and I imagine in his head he shows a disdain for ‘owning up’ because it is so far in his rear view mirror he can’t even see why others want to keep talking about it.

I am not sure if in his own alternative universe <in his head> he never did anything to own up to … or if he is so focused on where he is going next he cannot be bothered by going back to what was. Either way it teaches nothing about the value of ‘owning up’ to our young people and sends a horrible message with regard to accepting responsibility for words & actions. I would be quite pleased if Trump ‘owned up’ to that.

Regardless. All I would suggest to everyone is that there may be nothing more reflective of someone’s character than their ‘owning up’ behavior. And, I have to tell you, ‘owning up’ is possibly a key common characteristic of a good person & a good leader.

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

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

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

====

Kenneth E. Boulding

——————————–

“Sureness will always elude you.

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

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

=====

Sara Gran

—————————-

Well.

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

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

That said.

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

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

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

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

It’s crazy. And … well … it is wrong.

Here is a business truth.

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

In fact.

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

Rather.

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

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

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

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

In other words.

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

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

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

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

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

And the good ones?

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

But you know what they all have in common?

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

—————————-

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

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

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

===

Mark Payne

———-

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

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

===

The Garage Group

———————

Anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look.

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

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

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

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

And you know what?

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

Sure.

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

I admit.

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

Yes.

The world.

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

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

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

Oh.

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

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