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

“Emptiness which is conceptually liable to be mistaken for sheer nothingness is in fact the reservoir of infinite possibilities.”

——-

D.T. Suzuki

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

“When one gets quiet, then something wakes up inside one, something happy and quiet like the stars.”

———

W. B. Yeats

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

So. In one piece I wrote, “to do or not to do“, I offered my personal view that “I am a harsh judge on motivation for a decision” and someone asked me about that.

Well. To begin on decision motivation I would suggest that great decision making is about emptying the mind. And, no, I am not talking about stilling the mind or even uncluttering the mind. In this case it about emptying the mind of egoist <what will feed my self belief> & appearances <what will look good> & appeal <what will gain approval> type stuff.

That said.

Contrary to popular opinion being a business leader is partially a popularity contest and, thankfully, partially not. Your popularity matters in that if you are not liked at all no one wants to follow your leadership. This has to be balanced by the fact making business decisions should never, okay, rarely, be dictated by what would make you popular.

Therefore a business leader has to recognize the delineation in their mind as they ponder decisions.

In business you, of course, have to be watching employee ‘approval’ surveys and organizational cues with regard to happiness, optimism & confidence, but, you have to purposefully empty your mind of all that stuff when it comes to a business decision – in particular on bigger decisions.

Any leader with half a brain knows they must avoid reckless decisions and ineffective energy-sucking initiatives that do little but make people feel good about themselves in the moment.

Any leader with half a brain knows that a bad decision piled on top of another bad decision only deepens a precarious situation and increases the odds you get the business in a situation that has no viable path up & out of it … let alone even create a scenario in which there is actually a viable idea on how to end the slide down <this is a recognition that decisions are not transactional but rather mutually inclusive of each other>.

But that is where emptying the mind matters. The brain has to be empty of popularity or ‘what will look good’ or any egoist aspect <like “will I look strong/decisive/smart/etc.>  which inevitably try and pry their way into your thinking process.

Yeah.

Sure.

Truth is.

Optics matter.

It sucks.

But they do.

But you have to set them aside for a bit.

Because by emptying the mind you clear away the crap in order to see the ‘right decision to make’ regardless of optics, popularity or likeability.

Okay. If optics & popularity really do matter <like I said upfront>, than why do you do that?

Because the truth is that once I have the right thing to do I can dress it up in some snazzy outfit to make it, optically, look more popular and likeable. And any business leader with half a brain can do that. All this leads me back to my point about judging business leaders based on their motivation.

First.

If a leader feels boxed in, squeezed into having to make a decision, well, there is no real ‘box’ except in that persons’ head. That is a truth. Optically, from the outside looking in, people can construe a box and the leader may mentally say “shit, I am in a box of my own making and I have to do something”, but I struggle to find a situation like this in which you actually have to do something. The optics may not look so fantastic and you may take a hit on popularity, but, any leader worth half a shit knows that any box that can be built can be unbuilt.

I judge harshly those who decide to believe they are in a box they cannot unmake.

Second.

Ego. Well. Let’s just say that any business leader worth half a shit has some ego. They have to. It’s part of what makes them feel confident enough to do a job which the majority of people would hesitate to do. And with ego comes along some nasty side effects – how do people feel about me and see me. The good business leaders take what I just wrote and make it “how do people feel about my decisions and see my decision.” They stop worrying about “me” and worry more about “my decision.”

I judge harshly those who decide believing “feel about me & see me” is any part of their decision.

Now. This motivation is a tricky judgement and, as I noted in ‘to do or not do’, you cannot judge the decision because it is what it is, but should focus on the pre-decision & the post-decision behavior in order to best assess & judge a decision maker’s motivation <albeit if someone has a history of decisions made, a pattern, you can assess the ‘pre’ fairly accurately>.

Post decision behavior is typically incredibly enlightening.

Say, for example, approval is important. If that is the case then a decision rewarded with greater approval will most likely encourage future decisions.

Or maybe someone wants to look strong. If their decision is rewarded with feedback of “strength” you can almost begin expecting more of those types of decisions.

Or maybe it is likeability. If their decision is rewarded with “happier people” you can start expecting more decisions that facilitate that response.

I imagine my point here is that evaluating someone’s motivation begins and ends with an evaluation of the relationship between the words & the actions. An action can look appealing but you have to lay the words alongside and do a match. For it is within the gaps & the connections in which you can get a sense of the motivation.

You can absolutely get a sense for motivational decision cues by how a business leader describes a decision they made. Oftentimes a leader will use the words they want to hear or are important to them in how they describe what they decided … “we needed to show a sign of strength and, therefore, we decided to do ‘x’.”

That kind of crap.

Words used over and over again are the words they will incorporate into motivations for a specific decision.

To be clear. This ability to empty the mind is not easy. And its difficulty will vary by who you are – the narcissists never can and the humble will almost always. But the truly good business decision makers — the ones who make the best decisions as in “the right decisions” <as in “doing the right thing”> — will always be able to empty the mind. They will always be able to clear the bad motivations and see their way to the ‘right’ objective driven motivations.

Lastly. Philosophically I have always liked the leaders who are able to empty the mind to make decisions because, well, as the Yeats quote suggests — they are the ones most likely to see the stars too.

Ok. Today I take on the quasi-pervasive myth of ‘the best predictor of someone’s future behavior is their past behavior’ <which is actually not really true> and how to actually ‘predict’ some behavior <yet do so without invading someone’s privacy>.

———-

Psychological scientists who study human behavior agree that past behavior is a useful marker for future behavior. But …. only under certain specific conditions:

1. High-frequency, habitual behaviors are more predictive than infrequent behaviors.

—-

2. Predictions work best over short time intervals.

—-

3. The anticipated situation must be essentially the same as the past situation that activated the behavior.

—-

4. The behavior must not have been extinguished by corrective or negative feedback.

—-

5. The person must remain essentially unchanged.

—–

6. The person must be fairly consistent in his or her behaviors.

———

Well. That is certainly a list that filters a shitload of people OUT of past behavior predicting future behavior <how many of us have not changed ?>.

Projecting behavior, secrets and personal privacy in a transparent online world is a complex discussion. Oh. And it is also a formula that doesn’t quite add up to me: sharing a secret + seeking advice on what to do <personal behavior> does not equal personal privacy. In fact, it almost presumes shared privacy & sharing secrets <albeit with some limits I would assume> in order to receive the desired projected behavior tips & suggestions.
In other words, I cannot get something without giving something.

That said. I did not mistype the headline.

I imagine all of us have shopped online or read an article online where the website has a nifty feature which says something like “you may also like” or “if you bought this you may like” tips.

Well. Some smart writers came up with that wording because the technology <algorithms> behind all the analysis that allows the suggestions to occur is really saying to you “if you liked this you may want to DO this.”
Please note as I discuss this topic while technology has changed a shitload of things, technology is simply a facilitator <sorry … it is not evil in and of itself>. It is the deliverer of the real game changer — behavioral analysis.

Now. Behavioral analysis can quickly get abused in that if we people do not think for ourselves and assess the information and ‘guidance’ we receive, we simply become sheep to technology herders.

I shared that ‘sheep’ thought because there is something called life-logging <a wearable or portable technology> that not only tracks us and what we do and where we go, but it can quasi-predict your next ‘expected’ move. It actually predicts and encourages your next move as well as provides a personal stream of information of your life <hence the name ‘life-logging>.

Yup. This is the technology version of “if you did this then you really want to do this.”

I believe there are several options available now but I am going to highlight Saga <no longer in existence> because I liked the way they crafted and wrote their site information:

——–

Saga automatically records your real life story, as told by the places you visited and the things you’ve done. We all have a great story to tell. Let Saga tell yours. Remember Everything. Life is short. Capture every moment, even the little ones, in your lifelog. Learn about your habits and set meaningful goals with the insight you gain. the apps integrate with services including Twitter, Foursquare, and Instagram, enabling users to pool and manage their own personal data. Narrato provides users with a “lifestream” so that information is available in one place and exportable for users to manage and save, creating an extremely rich picture of the user’s activities. 

——–

In doing some background research I have noted that lifelogging apps do everything in their power to suggest they are not stalkers or creepy. They talk about personal empowerment, ‘giving power to the user’, and that personal data is managed safely in their own personal cloud.

Ok. Before I tell you how it works. Let me move to ‘secrets’ for a moment which, by the way, is a version of security <or personal privacy>.

Lets face it. Like it or not <and boy oh boy older people do NOT like it> in a technology world secrets will be, well, fleeting.

In fact I sense the only way to keep a secret is to not place it anywhere in or on technology <in fact I just saw an article where Germany is suggesting using typewriters again solely to combat spying>.

Now. Before anyone goes ape shit on privacy and such … keeping secrets has never been easy.

In fact. People have always sucked at keeping secrets. Thinking that technology is ‘infringing upon things that are ours’ is archaic thinking <at least to some degree>. I am not absolving technology for having some moral & ethical guidelines, but let’s be realistic.

Anything comes with a price tag. Everything is a tradeoff. Ponder that as we shout about <secrecy & privacy>.

Uhm. We also seem to want ‘if you liked this you may like this.’ Can’t have both folks.

Sorry. And it is gonna get tougher for all of us as ‘lifelogs’ slide into our lives.

That said. How do lifelog apps work <in this case Saga as my example>? They use the sensors on your smartphone to build your lifelog. It records the places you’ve visited and the trips you’ve taken without any input from you. All you have to do is go about your Life, living it, and the sensors tag along for the ride <recording & capturing everything>.

It’s certainly not perfect because it cannot always guess your location correctly <the first time around>, but ongoing action and behavior constantly improves the location algorithms. Saga actually does a nice job explain this aspect:

——–

There are a few reasons why Saga could get your location wrong.

• The Problem: Your current location isn’t in our database.
While Saga knows millions of places worldwide, chances are pretty good that your home, work, or favorite bench may not be in our database.

The Fix: It’s easy to add new places to Saga in the Change Place screen. And once you do, Saga should have no problem following you to all the places you go on a regular basis.

• The Problem: You may have a bad GPS fix.
It happens. While GPS satellites are amazing, there are times that they’re just not accurate enough to figure out that you’re at the coffee shop and not the burger joint down the block.

The Fix: Buy yourself a personal GPS satellite. Or invest in a portable cell tower. Or just wait for a few minutes until you get a better connection. Saga will deal.

——-

• The Problem: You’re at a new or obscure spot.
Saga can get confused if you go to a really obscure place. Especially if that really amazing, but unusual bar is right next to a super popular restaurant, shop, or landmark. When Saga can’t decide between two nearby places, it’ll often predict that you’re at the more popular place — just to be safe.

The Fix: Tell Saga where you really are. It’ll file that information away, and won’t make the same mistake twice. (Don’t worry, we won’t clue others into your secret little hideaway.)

——-

But here is where lifelogging behavioral is genius.

Because it is pop psychology <hence not really true> that ‘past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior.’

Oops. That psychology is not so much a fact.

Sorry. The truth is that the situation more often dictates behavior rather than anything we may have done in the past <and we also accumulate knowledge and therefore adapt>.

——–

“Researchers have determined that the situation plays a critical role in behavior. The situation is often more determinative than individual character traits. Personality theorist Walter Mischel – frequently cited in connection with the “best predictor” maxim – suggests that behavioral consistency is best described through if-then relationships between situations and behaviors, as in: “She does A when X, but B when Y.” So, a person may engage in heavy drug use when in the company of drug-using peers, but may stop using when she moves away and gets a fulfilling job.

———

This suggests lifelogging is genius. It can actually assist in managing some behavioral aspects at the prime time to do so, within context, situational context as a matter of fact. It can see past behavior, recent actions and movement behavior. It can predict by combining past behavior & situational context.

Ok. It cannot predict, but rather ‘smartly suggest.’

Anyway. While lifelogging sounds really cool <in one way> it also sounds quite ‘big brother-esque’ in another way. The app seeks patterns in human behavior recording how much time you spend going places and doing things. Based on this information the app then provides suggestions <and while we humans hate to admit it … we are quite susceptible to suggestions … uhm … particularly if they are based on past behavior>. Supposedly as we learn more about ourselves and what we do <behaviors> we would begin making decisions based on what they’ve learned about themselves and not what businesses are pushing down their throats.

I imagine we will all struggle a little bit on whether these apps predict things we would like to do or influence us in some way in ‘guiding’ us to some actions <this is a looped behavioral relationship difficult to discern beginning from end>.

As for the unequivocally good. There is a company called Geppetto Avatars which has developed a health care with virtual physician’s assistants <that quite feasibly could actually be smarter than any doctor in the world>. For example.

———

In one of the company’s allergy applications, a sympathetic young doctor named Sophie talks you through air quality and the pollen index in your neighborhood. Then, she makes sure that you’re taking your prescriptions right. When you tell her you’re feeling really bad, she gives a gentle “mmm-hmmm,” to let you know she’s been there and wants nothing more than to help you feel better.

———

Well.

After reading that and thinking ‘no computer can replace a doctor’ … I would suggest to you that here is where we face the true dilemma. When it comes to raw data — computers are smarter than us. The wealth of wisdom housed on connected hard drives around the globe is simply more than a human brain can handle. Therefore <using medicine as an example> when you go to the doctor no matter how smart & good the doctor is you really only have access to a fraction of knowledge.

That said.

People will be quick to point out the infamous ‘human factor.’ This is the tried & true anti-technology point of view that computer programs have always lacked the ability to read body language, non-verbal cues, and all those parts of communication that make us human.

Uh oh. THAT is changing too. As with most of these interactive type applications, the more you use it, the better job it does at reading you — picking up whether your voice is hoarse or your breathing labored, or whether you sound worried or anxious. There are programs in development now <some actually in market> which are able to detect your mood, read your state of mind, and respond accordingly with one of its tens of thousands of recorded answers. Yes. There are limits and having worked with a telemedicine app I have seen the human/technology dynamic firsthand, but we would be silly to ignore the value of a technology augmenting human expertise/wisdom.

Whew. So these new apps can also share your information with anyone you choose — from a health care professionals to your favorite store. On the flip side, these apps also share your information with people you don’t choose <this is the seamy side of data gathering>.

This is our brave new world. Regardless. Like it or not giving some technology some information about us will make our world, and Life, better.

Ok. I say all this because there is a shit load of discussion going on about privacy. I actually suggest this is going to be a clash of generations. Older folk think ‘big brother’ and ‘invading my privacy’ <I will also note here that these are the same people who cannot understand how young people share everything on twitter, snapshot and any social media channel>.

On the other hand younger people think … “hmmmmmmmmm … convenience.” Gratification faster.

Look. We older people don’t get it. We are not only afraid of ‘having someone know too much’ but also don’t get that younger people are just more comfortable with sharing some things than we are. By the way I would also suggest to old folk that younger people certainly understand limits with regard to what they share.

Simply because they share things we cannot fathom ever sharing … they will protect their ‘important secrets’ as well as anyone older.We are going to just throw up roadblocks and bitch & moan about privacy and all the shit that old people bitch about as young people pass them by. If you liked this, you may want to consider this.

Behavioral tools are here to stay and will be used by everyone, well, everyone being anyone under the age of say 35 or so.

——————–

originally posted July 2014

——

“No matter how our hearts break, we bend toward life, don’t we? We bend toward hope. “

–

The Here and Now

——-

When I saw this quote I leaned back and thought about how true it was with regard to business — business owners & leaders & founders … and their customers. Of course I then thought about people in general <because people are customers>.

But let me begin with business. And hope. And bending.

It is sometimes difficult to believe how many ways hope can come to life in business. I find it difficult because, in my mind, it would seem like hope is just … well … hope. And … well … hope is a good thing <one would think>.

But I have seen entrepreneurs blinded by Hope <losing sight of reason>.

I have seen Hope suffocate pragmatism.

I have seen Hope en-trance to such an extent that rational business people say, and do, irrational things.

And then on the other side I have seen some of the best and brightest big business people let cynicism and skepticism make them lose sight of hope.

I have seen some businesses get so mired in day to day detail … and some of the mind numbing thousand cuts that detail can ruthlessly wield to a business … that they cannot even see hope <even if it rises on their horizon like a sun on a cloudless morning>.

Life makes hope in business difficult <at times>.

Because in business Life doesn’t really bend you as much as it bludgeons you. And as you get bludgeoned you have one of two choices:

• lean in to Hope and go <progress>, or
• lean back against Hope and say ‘go ahead … but I will move no further back <support & reinvigorate>’

I have always said that we in management and those with an opportunity to lead are first and foremost NOT in the profit & revenue business … we are in the Hope business.

To be clear. This doesn’t mean Hope at the expense of everything else. It is more like a guiding light.

A beacon.

A lighthouse.

A star.

Which leads me to a business’s customers. What customers really want isn’t some functional rational widget.

Sure. They want shit that works, but, they kind of expect to receive shit that works. The truth is they really want to bend themselves <and their wallets> toward hope. That may sound esoteric and soe people will want to attach specific ’emotional benefits’ and they may be right. Or. It may just be as simple as Hope <be better, something better, do better>.

Now. As I type that, I will admit, I have seen some businesses that do such a fantastic job internally, culturally, with regard to building Hope into their own vision and their organization. Uhm. And then they treat their customers as ‘low price commodity shopper aficionados.’

How can that be? Why do they think that way? Hope will always be better, and more valuable, than any rational commodity-like widget benefit you are offering.

By the way this is not some hypothetical philosophical bullshit. People say they want lowest price but time and time again they show they are willing to pay more. We, in business, may suggest it is ‘brand’ or ‘emotional’ or even some irrational behavior that we cannot explain, but, in the end people are paying for Hope.

Hope for something a little better that will make them feel a little better.

Which ultimately leads me to people.

I actually think I don’t have to write or say much more.

You get it. Life tries to break us where it counts — in our hearts. And most times Life doesn’t really succeed. Despite its best efforts, at its worst, it typically just bends us.

And even at its worst what Life really does is to bend us toward hope.

Maybe it even pushes us to Hope. In fact. Maybe that’s the reason why Life does try and break us on occasion. To remind us of the power of hope.

Regardless. Life forces us to look at Hope … hold it … maybe hug it, but, at minimum … look at it in the eye and say “who are you?” Hope will almost always respond <as it bends close to you> … “I am something better.”

from Infinite on weheartit

Ah.

“Be a voice … not an echo. “

I love this thought. A contributor named ‘Infinite’, a tween from Spain I think, posted this on weheartit.com.

And then I found that it is a name for a blog <for the independent fashion bloggers of all people>.

They say this <which I am using because I am pretty sure I couldn’t say it any better>:

Another way to think about it, are you voicing something original, or are you just echoing what you find to be the most popular? Granted nothing is truly original, but that doesn’t mean you can’t have your original angle on a particular story or niche. It doesn’t mean you can’t make the connection between two things that have never been connected. It doesn’t mean you can’t point out what others have overlooked.

Just because there is a formula out there for success, doesn’t mean you need to echo it to achieve your own success. Be your own voice, let others echo you.

Well. “… be your own voice and let others echo you.”

That, my friends, is a nice thought.

Speak your own mind using your own knowledge and experience and what you think … and not just mindlessly repeat what you’ve heard … is not really that difficult.

Yet.

We seem to make it difficult.

We seem to do a lot of ‘echoing’ these days.

We seem to maybe not think as often as we could … or maybe should.

Look. I am not suggesting everyone needs to be a leader or even a thought leader — all the time. Echoing smart thinking and thoughts is, well, smart.

The difficult part <I imagine> is discerning the smart from the not-so-smart.

But that isn’t what this thought is about.

It is simply about speaking your mind.

Thinking before you speak.

Saying what you think.

And that it is okay to follow <choicefully and smartly> when appropriate, yet, you still should lend your voice and thoughts when you have an idea.

I am not going to suggest such trite or vapid thoughts as ‘be an originator, not an imitator’, but I will remind everyone that being yourself <which includes your own thoughts> is a good thing.  If you follow, just make sure you are echoing what you think and want to stand for. If not? Speak up. Lead the conversation. Spark some thinking.

Oh.

Yeah.

Spark some thinking.

I imagine another point I could end on is:

• a tween
• independent fashion bloggers.

Think about that for a minute or two. I admit. I like that I just listened to, thought about, and actually wrote citing two sources that on the face of it would seem highly unlikely to have inspired such thinking.

What do I mean?

All voices matter.

Anyone can think.

Anyone can be smart.

And it is okay for an old semi-experienced guy who has seen a lot of shit in his life <that’s me by the way> to echo the thoughts of a tween or some fashion bloggers.

We could, and should, all take that thought to heart.

 ============

“It’s a most distressing affliction to have a sentimental heart and a skeptical mind.”

Naguib Mahfouz

 =============

“It is lack of confidence, more than anything else, that kills a civilisation. We can destroy ourselves by cynicism and disillusion, just as effectively as by bombs.”

Kenneth Clark

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

Well. I sometimes believe we confuse lack of confidence and skepticism.

Yes. I am sure they are aspects of the same thought <on occasion> but suffice it to say whenever you are skeptical with regard to something about, or for, yourself … someone will contritely suggest you are simply lacking confidence.

Look. There is no ‘how to live Life’ handbook. Most of the time we do the best we can as we make it up as we go. And, yes, I am fairly confident all of us sit back at some time or another and say ‘what if we don’t know what we are doing.’

What that typically translates into is a life in which we constantly get tugged one way by optimism or hope and the other by skepticism. In other words skepticism slows you down — sometimes even strong enough to stop you.

Having skepticism as an acquaintance isn’t necessarily a bad person to have in your circle of acquaintances. It will give you the reasonable caution to consider a little before oblivious optimism grabs your hand and pulls you off of some overly optimistic ledge. But having skepticism as a so-called ‘friend’ is a bad person to have close to you. Its nagging presence insures you always feel like you truly have no idea what you, personally, are doing. It makes that hesitation personal. And it makes you forget that everyone doesn’t know what they are doing and making it up as they go and doing the best that they can.

Life is bigger than just us and while we are individuals and unique in our character we all pretty much share the same rules and challenges in Life.

Skepticism is personal.

It pulls you out of the bigger ‘us’ and makes you a smaller ‘us.’

I thought about this when I found this teen written letter written to herself written to her so called friend ‘skepticism’:

Dear Skepticism,

Oh, why must you infect my brain with your contagious thoughts? You are not content to let me simply accept, you find any way to twist my beliefs into doubts. When I am truly happy, you shatter the illusion and show me exactly why my life is nothing to be pleased about. Mirroring me, images of success and loneliness, you know how to get under my skin. Skepticism, you know my inner self more so than any other, thus you know which strings to pull. I am your marionette, controlled by your twisted intentions. Push and pull the words in my mind, formulate sharp sentences designed to drawn blood from my fragile humanity. The way I hurt others, is multiplied in the way I myself am torn apart.

 

In this distance, in this loneliness, skepticism welcomes itself to my chemically dyed head, taking it’s place amongst longing and deep hurt. Underneath the surface intelligence, beneath the mathematical formulas and psychology terms, is my fragility. This I admit, not much effects me, except my own carefully targeted words. Why would I allow myself to feel pain at the words of others, when my own mind is so much capable? My inner demons are muted when I am amongst others, when I am laughing with my best friend or in the arms of my boyfriend, but in silence they scream demented tones. “Why would anyone love you?” They taunt me, pulling at my weaknesses. “You really think you have anything going for you besides your intelligence?” They laugh at my naivety. “If you were worth something, to anyone, would your phone really be so silent?” They say the things I do not want to hear. They speak the truths I try to forget.

Skepticism, please take leave and allow me some peace of mind. A good night’s sleep would be beneficial, I am sick of this restlessness. The distance itself is enough, I do not need your constant reminders of what it might mean. I know you find pleasure in twisting at the corners of my mind, but please fuck off. I do not need the constant doubts you provide me with. This weekend has given you sufficient time to point out exactly how I feel, I get it. Skepticism, I know you only want to protect me, but it’s much too late for that. I am old enough to make my own mistakes and hold my own beliefs so please, fuck off.  I am done with you telling me who does not care about me. You are not a good friend, understand that I want nothing to do with you. You only bring me down.

Sincerely,

Gloria

Skepticism is sly. Even though we don’t really know what we are doing <in general> we do know something and yet actually doing it is something  very different. Therefore, skepticism sets limits for you <under the guise of protecting you>.

You know you should stop procrastinating.

You know you should be writing, or doing something to improve a skill, or practicing something, or decluttering.

You know you should … <insert whatever you know here>.

These are things you know.

You are skeptical of, well, whatever <success, effort, process, results, value … bla … bla … bla>.

In business they have something they call The Knowing-Doing Gap. Gobs of companies pay gobs of consultants gobs of money to increase their effectiveness and limit the knowing – doing gap. And after all the gobs of whatever, they know what to improve, but still don’t actually implement it.

Why can’t we put what we know to do … into actual doing? What stops us?

The answer is simple and difficult. Skepticism. Skepticism determines limits.

“Why do you, or they, or anyone get to determine my limits?”

Veronica Roth

All that said. It takes a teen to remind us how to deal with skepticism:

“dear skepticism … so please, fuck off.  I am done with you telling me who does not care about me. You are not a good friend, understand that I want nothing to do with you. You only bring me down.”

We may not know what we are doing. But most of the time we know what we should be doing.

We all have ‘heart’ and will always be afflicted with a skeptical mind.

But. My only advice.

Tell skepticism to fuck off and go do.

—-

 —————————-

“Every single one of us is good at something. Some of us just give up on what that is before we even discover it. “

=

William Chapman

—-
“I told her once i wasn’t good at anything.

She told me survival is a talent. You never need to apologize for how you chose to survive.”

=

Clementine von Radics

— 

“To paraphrase someone smarter than me, who still knows nothing, the philosophical task of our age is for each of us to decide what it means to be a successful human being.

I don’t know the answer to that, but I would like to find out.”

=

Ottmer <the futurist>

— 

Well. Let me begin by saying, well, being better is better.

Or better said: better is good.

In addition. Being good at something is good.

Those are two basic Life thoughts. Simple thoughts, but kind of important thoughts. Important because they are pervasive throughout civilization, culture, attitudes and certainly drives behavior.

Now. The most basic aspect of this whole thing of people wanting to be really good at something and, I imagine why people want to be passionate about something, is that they have experience with lack of passion. I say that last thought because <here is a Life truth> the reason why we’re not passionate about stuff we’re not really good at is because we aren’t <cannot be> passionate about stuff we suck at.

Yup. Think about that. Passion is inextricably tied to ‘not sucking’ <or ‘being good at’>.

Here is where it gets a little screwy. Being good at something is a minefield mentally.

Huh? What do you mean <you ask me>??

How many times have you heard some version of the following phrases?

• “Everyone has a special skill!“

• “You just need to practice!“

• “You haven’t tried everything yet!“

• “You better work out what special skill you have and then use it for the rest of your life because if you don’t you’ll live in a dumpster fighting with cats for food!“

That trite advice is fine for people who are good at things, but what if you just suck at everything?

<or at least have sucked at everything you have tried to date>

Well. Here is the good news. It is next to impossible to suck at everything. It is much more likely that “… some of us just give up on what that is before we even discover it.”

As a corollary, in reality, it’s impossible to be good at every single thing you try.

Oh. But that doesn’t necessarily mean you suck. It’s all about perspective and how you define whether you’re good at something. For instance, are you basing how bad you are at something on your own standards or are you comparing yourself to others? If it’s the latter then you need to stop and remind yourself that we are all individuals. You’re not inferior or inept, you’re just different <kind of like snowflakes … okay … maybe not>.

Suffice it to say that insecurities and doubts limit your potential <regardless of whether you suck or are actually good> so if you intend to succeed at something you must first get rid of them.

Ah. But here is the curve ball Life throws at you <or is it a screwball??> — while you are figuring out what you are good at a whole shit load of incompetent assholes around you are trying to convince everyone what they are good at <of which they are actually not good at what they think they are>.

Yup <part 1>.

Incompetent assholes rarely know they are <a> incompetent & <b> assholes.

Yup <part2>.

Incompetent people don’t know they are incompetent <in other words … they don’t think they suck>.

——

When asked, most individuals will describe themselves as better-than-average in areas such as leadership, social skills, written expression, or just about anything where the individual has an interest.

This tendency of the average person to believe he or she is better-than-average is known as the “above-average effect,” and it flies in the face of logic … by definition, descriptive statistics says that it is impossible absurdly improbable for a majority of people to be above average.

It follows, therefore, that a large number of the self-described “above average” individuals are in fact below average in those areas, and they are simply unaware of their incompetence.

——-

It seems that the reason for this phenomenon is obvious:

–      The more incompetent someone is in a particular area, the less qualified that person is to assess anyone’s skill in that space, including their own.

–      When one fails to recognize that he or she has performed poorly, the individual is left assuming that they have performed well.

Anyway. What this means is that the incompetent tend to grossly overestimate their skills and abilities.

—

“He felt he was himself and did not want to be otherwise. He only wanted to be better than he had been before. “

Leo Tolstoy

—

The Department of Psychology at Cornell University made an effort to determine just how profoundly one mistakenly overestimates one’s own skills in relation to one’s actual abilities.

They made the following predictions before the studies:

–       Incompetent individuals, compared with their more competent peers, will dramatically overestimate their ability and performance relative to objective criteria.

–       Incompetent individuals will suffer from deficient metacognitive skills, in that they will be less able than their more competent peers to recognize competence when they see it–be it their own or anyone else’s.

–      Incompetent individuals will be less able than their more competent peers to gain insight into their true level of performance by means of social comparison information. In particular, because of their difficulty recognizing competence in others, incompetent individuals will be unable to use information about the choices and performances of others to form more accurate impressions of their own ability.

Rather than showcase the study and the results let me just say … they were correct in their assumptions.

Look. While I have spent a lot of time talking about incompetence and the incompetent, there is nothing more beautiful than watching competence in action. Especially if they are just good, not great, and have the awareness to build on their good in pursuit of … well … not great … but something better.

—-

“No one is good at everything, but everyone is good at something.”

any after school 1990’s special

—-

“Sucking is the first step to being sorta good at something” 

Thorin Klosowski

—

And maybe that is why competence <or being good> is so beautiful to watch … it is the pursuit.

The pursuit? Being good at something mostly means you weren’t as good, or even sucked, at some point. This means the true competent people keep pushing.

Being good at something means no dumb questions, no dumb answers and no low <or stagnant> standards. And that is where I believe the whole concept of ‘being good at something’ should be grounded.

It’s not passion.

And, frankly, it may not even be something that comes easily to you.

It is more about holding yourself to some higher standard.

It is about the desire to keep pushing.

It is about being responsible for not quitting.

—-

“Hold yourself responsible for a higher standard than anybody else expects of you, never excuse yourself.”

Henry Ward Beecher

—–

In the end. Set aside ‘higher standards’ or ‘accepting you are good at something’ … in the end I respect … well … caring.

Giving a shit.

Or maybe call it … ‘nerdy as fuck about something.’

—-

“I respect people who get nerdy as fuck about something they love.”

Leah Raeder

——-

Caring enough about what you do is a good thing … and it makes you good at something.

It’s not passion.

It’s maybe not any real ability.

It’s just about the fact that you care.

By the way. Getting back to the first quote I used.

This also suggests, on those tough days and tough stretches in Life, simple survival is a talent because it means you care about Life.

Uhm. And that is a good thing to be good at.

Care about Life and never, never, apologize for how you choose to survive.

——-

“I’ve noticed something about people who make a difference in the world: They hold the unshakable conviction that individuals are extremely important, that every life matters.

They get excited over one smile.

They are willing to feed one stomach, educate one mind, and treat one wound.

They aren’t determined to revolutionize the world all at once; they’re satisfied with small changes. Over time, though, the small changes add up.   Sometimes they even transform cities and nations, and yes, the world.” 

= 

Beth Clar

——

This is about responding.

First. What does RSVP mean? In the context of social invitations RSVP is a request for a response from the invited person or people. It is derived from the French phrase répondez s’il vous plaît, meaning ‘please respond’ <”respond if you please”>.

Sticking with the formal aspect of an RSVP … there are some guidelines. 

———

If RSVP is written on an invitation it means the invited guest must tell the host whether or not they plan to attend the party.  It does not mean to respond only if you’re coming, and it does not mean respond only if you’re not coming (the expression “regrets only” is reserved for that instance).   It means the host needs to know who is going to attend, get a definite head count, the planned event … and needs it by the date specified on the invitation.

———–

Second. RSVP also has to do with Life, not just parties.

Think about it. Life, in many ways, says ‘please respond.’ My fear, and belief, is that many of us simply haven’t read the rules of etiquette and do not respond.

Look. I often write about how Life is difficult and how Life is tricky and how Life has a warped sense of humor.

But. Life can also be quite respectful and act with true etiquette and grace. I don’t mean big pomp and circumstance moments, but little moments in which doing the little things well matters. Uhm. Like an rsvp for example.

—–

“When you do something noble and beautiful and nobody notices, do not be sad. For the sun every morning is a beautiful spectacle and yet most of the audience still sleeps.”

John Lennon

—–

I sometimes worry people no longer understand what RSVP means. In social event scenarios as well as Life.

Assuming the best, and that the reason guests don’t RSVP to an invitation is a case of ignorance, not rudeness, let me suggest this.

People have a tendency to not respond because … well … it is safer.

Less chance of conflict. And it may seem like the easiest path but think about it from this quote’s perspective.

—–

“Every time we choose safety, we reinforce fear.”

Cheri Huber

—

Sure. I could simply believe most people don’t get involved with Life because they are too busy.

Or they are ignorant of the fact their absence is not noted or meaningful.

But I can’t. I can’t because I don’t believe it is true.

I think we do it, subconsciously or consciously, because it is safer — we get to avoid possible conflict.

Oh. The risk in doing this over & over & over? We become disengaged with Life.

But. Here is the good news. Life will keep sending you invitations. Over & over & over again.

You just gotta RSVP every once in a while.

To be clear. You are not always being invited to a ‘big party.’ Sometimes the RSVP is just for something small.

Saying that permits me to circle back to where I began … willing to feed one stomach, educate one mind, and treat one wound.  They aren’t determined to revolutionize the world all at once; they’re satisfied with small changes.

Over time, though, the small changes add up.

That’s why you RSVP to life.

Small changes add up.

Small moments add up.

Small gestures add up.

It is true that Life, in general, is indifferent to you and what you want. However. What Life does do is create event after event which you DO get invited to. That means its up to you to respond. And, yeah, I do believe RSVPing matters even in this scenario. Just showing up is good but not as good as telling Life you are gonna show up. Why? Because it increases the odds Life may actually NOT be indifferent when you show up.

My advice? Just make sure you RSVP to Life one response at a time.

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

“We’re in a time of rapidly expanding insights about human motivation and connection, but meanwhile our companies continue to be run with a perspective on human psychology and sociology circa 1970.”

Stowe Boyd

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

My quick response to the “No Boss, no Thanks” piece. I believe there is some misguided thinking (central authority is necessary, buck stops somewhere dependent upon one person, democratic decision making is inefficient/slow), but it was this particular part that galled me:

“Third, while technological miracles such as the internet, cheap and reliable wireless communication, Moore’s law, miniaturisation and information markets have induced sweeping changes in manufacturing, retail, transportation and communication, the laws of economics are still the laws of economics. And human nature hasn’t changed. The basic problem of management and business – how to assemble, organise and motivate groups of people and resources to produce goods and services that consumers want – is still the same. Since the industrial revolution, entrepreneurs have been organising extremely complex activities in firms that are neither completely centralised nor completely flat. Imagine the complexity involved in operating a national railroad, a steel mill or an automobile assembly plant in the 19th and early 20th centuries. These were all ‘knowledge-based activities’ and were conducted in teams organised in various structures. Are things so different today?”

First.

Yes. Things are ‘so different’. The uthors have completely missed what is the same and what is different about today’s business. I would suggest they read my piece, Distribution Revolution,  on what I believe is functionally the same and it also outlines what I believe is different.

Second.

I would highly recommend the authors pick up a copy of Toffler Future Shock, Third Wave and even Powershift, if they have the time, because they would find the answer to “are things so different today?” in books written in 1970 & 1980 if they cared to look. In fact. Part of my whole aggravation with this article is I feel like we have been debating the same ideas Toffler offered us since 1970.

Anyway.

If you ignore everything else I write, pay attention to this. Maximizing people’s potential doesn’t mean doing away with managers; it just means you maximize the potential of people AS managers. I am not naïve enough to believe we will do away with titles and experience based ‘management’. But. People are managers and managers are people. Period.

Anyway.

Let me use some Toffler to point out where the authors of the article went wrong.

context: accelerated world

Solving business challenges can be complicated, but business itself is complex (& always has been). Business people cannot afford to confuse complicated and complex. Now. What technology did is accelerate the complexity. The business atoms were placed into a supercollider. In fact, it accelerated business dynamics beyond the structure of a hierarchy or even centralized “buck stops somewhere” managers. That said. I think we confuse speed and acceleration all the time to the detriment of organizational design and behavior. Organizational design almost seems to inherently have a desire to decelerate to permit some sense of “its okay, you can feel comfortable with the speed of business” where I think we would be better off addressing the larger issue Toffler outlined: overstimulation. Acceleration tests our attention, cognitive skills and ability to discern what is important and what is not – which is actually a ‘speed’ versus velocity discussion. The article, by suggesting the basic business world is the same, ignores that, in a grander context, it is not. In fact, the article is incredibly misguided because it would appear to encourage insular cocooning rather than suggesting the challenge is to fully engage & manage overstimulation. I am not suggesting acceleration & overstimulation is not an issue, but I will suggest it is a reality and hierarchies (centralizing overstimulation) is not the way to increase the likelihood of business success. If I were to choose one aspect I wish organizational psychology would address, this is it.

Which leads me to connectedness.

everything is connected with everything

When I read simplistic tripe like “The basic problem of management and business – how to assemble, organise and motivate groups of people and resources to produce goods and services that consumers want” I can understand how hierarchies have been so resilient to a better way of doing things. In the past it was arranging lego blocks, now it is arranging molecules. Toffler discussed this in a variety of ways, but the most interesting was “porous organizations” in which teams assembled, and reassembled, in order to meet specific challenges. He outlined this in 1970. Nowhere in that concept did he discuss no bosses, but he did suggest in 1990 (Powershift) that the biggest challenge to this idea would be power. The new business normal faces two dynamics: power & interconnectedness. Needless to say, they are connected.

Which leads me to connecting.

the world as a merry go round

We seem to ‘design’ organizations on the playground then demand it to jump on the merry go round. Or, worse, leave it on the playground and suggest business is about plucking opportunities as they spin ‘round the merry go round. The best organizations will jump on the merry go round with the resources they have on hand and meet the demands of the business. The truth is the centrifugal force of the accelerated merry go round demands different configurations at different times. This will demand a variety of ‘bosses’ (albeit I dislike that word). Management is contextual. Unless you happen to have a Swiss army knife person (they exist but are fewer than most businesses have) this means everyone will lead & manage at some point. If the authors don’t understand this I fear they don’t understand today’s business world.

Which leads me to untidiness.

discomfort with untidiness

Businesses inherently love tidiness and hate untidiness. They associate predictability & certainty with being tidy and inefficiency & failures/mistakes with untidiness. Unfortunately, for business, mediocrity (or even slippery slope to irrelevance) resides in tidiness and spectacular success resides in untidiness.

While we like to think of organizations as a ship sailing into a tumultuous sea it is actually a fleet of smaller ships being pushed & shoved by tides and waves through storm & calm all trying to go in one direction together <without crashing into each other>. Each smaller ship has a captain and a crew <often skilled in managing that particular ship if needed>.

The ‘No Boss’ authors seem to associate ‘building a dynamic organization’ or even ‘motivating employees’ by inevitably suggesting one big ship making progress in some direction (although they give a head nod to a matrix organization). If you don’t like that metaphor just accept this: the “No Boss” authors seek tidiness. They are wrong.

I say all that because you invariably need to grow your business unevenly. Yup. Sorry. A business isn’t, probably shouldn’t be and most likely cannot be <and be successful> ‘even.’ Or smooth. Or without any ragged edges. It needs to be grown unevenly <which is actually a natural growth rather than some manufactured growth>.

“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.”

—–

Claire DeWitt

Which leads me to freedom.

discomfort with freedom

Business, for decades & thru hierarchy, has always been built around selective freedoms – maybe ‘controlled freedom.’ Business people, in general, are much more comfortable building stop signs than they are highways.  Toffler spent almost an entire book outlining how technology will create a freedom ‘shock’ (Future Shock) and an entire book on the shock to the power structures (Powershift).

“No Boss” reflects a fear of freedom & loss of power. Period.

Which leads me to belief.

belief.

Unfettered freedom CAN lead to chaos. So we come up with a number of behavioral & motivational tricks to attach to versions & steps to implement aspects of distributed leadership mostly because we ignore what we know about individual behavior and we have a healthy skepticism toward managers & management in general.

Gamification, carrots & sticks, incentives, milestones are all derivatives of hierarchy thinking trying to adapt to a relentlessly uncertain world. They are attempts to build in some certainty. Yet. Behaviorally we know the most powerful motivation has nothing to do with ‘defeating’ a system/objective/goal, but rather it’s about ‘belief.’ Defeating is someone wins, someone loses. Belief is like hope. It draws people toward it.

That said. It’s a twofold belief challenge.

Business owners, managers as such, need to believe in people. They need to believe if given the opportunity to make choices, do the right things, the arc of people behavior (driven by intentions) will bend toward productivity & profitability. Note. This means business community needs to embrace a lack of output smoothness (a perception & reality challenge in & of itself).

========

“I don’t exactly know what I mean by that, but I mean it.”

The Catcher in the Rye

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

As a corollary. People need to believe in people (themselves). While we may innately know we can make decisions, assume responsibility & do the right things, the business world has not encouraged people to think that way. In fact. It has often penalized us for thinking that way. Many people almost don’t believe they should have responsibility or that they will not benefit by doing the right things. If we can align belief, than construct, as it currently exists, falls apart naturally (as not conducive to the belief) & people will inherently access their potential because barriers to believing they have that potential are stripped away.

Yes. Some of the ‘tricks’ may be useful but looking at the gobs of absurd articles & books with regard to organizational psychology it appears we have missed they are all means to an end and maybe we should seek to identify the end and encourage managers and people to believe in the power of belief.

I ended with Belief because at the core of “No Boss” is a belief that control, in some dimension, is necessary. I wrote in my “Purpose of Business is to benefit People” piece   that this is a reflection of not believing in people. I don’t blame the authors here because, well, there are a shitload of business thought leaders who not only do not believe in people but don’t believe “belief” is enough to guide people.

In the end.

The “No Boss” article is exactly what I hear from 50somethings holding onto the existing business construct with ragged claws.

Self-governing organizations are nothing new, even the Greeks were big fans, and Toffler began the vague outlines of how technology would widen the cracks in what we already knew – hierarchies were standardization models and people, and business, tend to thrive when non standardized. All that said. “No Boss, No Thanks” is tripe. Business drivel. Stowe Boyd called it “misunderstanding the nature of management” ; I call it just another example of fear of freedom couched in some poisoned fortune cookie wisdom. It ignores the most basic principles laid out in Toffler’s Future Shock & Third Wave that business normal was being shaken like an etch a sketch. And, in particular, it ignores Toffler’s third book, Powershift, by thinking power will always reside within some aspect of centralization & centralized thinking. It will not. They confuse centralized thinking with coalesced thinking. Centralized is inside out and coalesced is outside in where it is a reflection of, as Stowe suggests, ‘everyone is management.’

I’m certainly not as smart & insightful as Alvin Toffler, or Stowe Boyd, but even I know this “No Boss” article reflects not only a misunderstanding of distributed leadership but, more concerning, a misunderstanding of ‘business normal’ as it exists today.

Postscript:

I encourage everyone to revisit the Toffler trilogy. He shares a number of interesting thoughts:

• The Electronic Cottage: where remote work force becomes integral part of organizations
• The New Worker: where responsibilities become agile & diverse

———

“Maybe who we are isn’t so much about what we do, but rather what we’re capable of when we least expect it.”

Jodi Picoult

———-

“After all, our lives are but a sequence of accidents – a clanking chain of chance events. A string of choices, casual or deliberate, which add up to that one big calamity we call life.”

Rohinton Mistry

———-

So, I tend to believe we measure ourselves by what we expect of ourselves when … well … we have expectations of ourselves.

But.

If this big ‘calamity we call Life’ is simply a sequence of accidents … a chain of chance events … maybe we should be measuring ourselves by what we are capable of when we least expect it.

I feel confident suggesting this because most of us are capable of a shitload.

Yet. Most of us give ourselves a shitload of criticism for not meeting expectations when we expect to do something.

Yet. Most of life is a shitload of unexpected things.

It would be nice if Life acted upon the same principle as the programming technology industry: the principle of least astonishment. In other words, if some key technology feature has a high astonishment factor <the surprise factor> they immediately conclude it may be necessary to redesign the feature. The design should match the user’s experience, expectations, and mental models <in other words … surprises are bad>.

Well. Unfortunately Life doesn’t work that way.

And neither do we. Life astonishes us on a fairly consistent basis and we astonish ourselves on a far equal amount of the time.
Least expected typically refers to something that is the least likely <or most unlikely> to happen. And yet what we do, what we are capable of, in these least expected moments are actually the least unexpected. Because least unexpected refers to something that is the least unlikely <or most likely> to happen and, yet, it is incredibly likely we are more than capable.

In our heads, and often in our words, unlikely or unexpected get jumbled up with least likely and least expected and in all the jumbledness the result ends up as, well, actually the least unexpected.

<don’t worry … my head started getting confused & hurting when I wrote that>

I would suggest that what we are capable of when we least expect it is typically pretty frickin’ amazing.

In the unplanned calamity of Life we make choices … and in a least unexpected way we do pretty fucking well. Remember this:

———

“Adventures do occur, but not punctually.”

E.M. Forster

———

Life is not punctual. Nor is Life planned ahead of time.

Life is often one big calamity. The only thing we can expect of Life is the unexpected.

The least unexpected thing? What we are capable of.  Who we are is not just defined by what we do <in general>, but rather what we do in the unexpected calamity of Life. The choices we make in the unexpected chain of moments that make up most of Life. To paraphrase Chekov:

Any idiot can ‘do’ in the expected moments.

The measure of a person is truly found in what you do in the unexpected moments.

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

“The moment you decide an event is impossible and therefore stop directing your attention to it is the moment when it will take place.”

–

General Petro Grigorenko

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

Well. This is about a couple things.

First is ‘the inevitability of the impossible.’ <that may be the quote of the day>

Second is convictions. General Grigorenko is also the one who said “Convictions are not like gloves.”

Ok.

The inevitability of the impossible.

I have noted that military leaders have a habit of saying very smart things in very simple ways. Especially when it comes to how often the unbelievable becomes the believable, the impossible becomes possible and how well thought out planning becomes a ‘non-plan.’ And, please note, this isnt about dreams or hopes or some intangible future planning … this is about real tangible Life. Stuff that actually happens.

Regardless. His quote is a version of the Black Swan theory. Just a reminder. The Black Swan theory basically suggests that our past experience doesn’t mean shit with regard to the future. For example we believed only white swans were possible <and we then therefore planned a future based on such> and stopped paying attention to swans and, DOH!, lo and behold someone discovered a black swan.

Go figure. The impossible became possible. The unbelievable became believable.

Look. I imagine it is helpful for us to remind ourselves on occasion that just when we are absolutely positively 100% sure that something is impossible … it occurs.

Not always. But just often enough that we shouldn’t be too surprised that the moment we stop directing our attention to it, it happens.

This is a simple thought and one I just like to remind people about. You cannot plan for everything just as you cannot be sure of anything. But that, my friends, is what we call Life.

Anyway. That may sound fairly unsettling because that means … well … you cannot be sure of anything.

Well.

Because I am who I am … I would like to take a minute of your time and tell you who Grigorenko was and why I wanted to use his quote and make a point on the inevitability of unexpected things happening <and something we CAN be sure of>. This leads me to the second thought … convictions.

Convictions.

A native of Ukraine, Grigorenko had been arrested and sent to a mental hospital in 1964 for criticizing the Soviet government for deviating from the Leninist principles and for his unyielding stand against the party bureaucracy and oppressive policies. Grigorenko told a group of Crimean Tatars in a speech that they need to take a more aggressive stand, it is their legal right to demand to repatriate, and the crimes committed by the Soviet government against their people amount to ‘genocide’ under international laws <note: that did not go over particularly well with the Soviet leadership>. In 1969, he was arrested the second time in Tashkent, where he was to attend the trials of Crimean Tatar activists, and spent another five years in psychiatric confinement.

But here is the important part:

In the mental hospital Chernyakhovsk Grigorenko underwent another diagnostic examination on January 17^th 1971:

“Petr Grigorevich, have you changed your convictions?” … a soviet psychiatrist asked.

“Convictions are not like gloves; one cannot easily change them.” … the general answered.

“The treatment will continue” … the doctor announced.

Well. “Convictions are not like gloves.”

There is a keeper of a thought. I wish more of us in the business world would keep this in mind.

Aw, hell, I wish all of us would keep this in mind.

In a world where the impossible becomes possible almost on a daily basis. In a world where it seems as soon as you relax and believe that something will not happen … and it happens. It is nice to be able to hold on to something. Something that cannot be changed like a pair of gloves.

Convictions. Nice things to wear day in and day out. They stay clean forever so you don’t need to take the off an wash them.

I am done. That was my thought for the day.

But. To close. I thought I would share Grigorenko’s speech that got him in trouble.

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

Speech of Petro Grigorenko to Crimean Tatars, 1968:

Why have your people been so discriminated against? Section 123 of the Soviet Constitution reads: ’Any direct or indirect limitation on rights… of citizens because of their racial or national membership… is punishable by law.’

Thus the law is on your side. [Stormy applause]

But still your rights are being flouted. Why?

We believe that the main reason behind this is the fact that you underestimate your enemy. You think that you are dealing with honest people. But this is not so! What has been done to your people was not done by Stalin alone. And his accomplices are not only alive—but they occupy responsible positions. You are appealing to the leadership of the party and the state with conciliatory written requests. But that which belongs to you by right should not be asked for but demanded. [Stormy applause and cries of agreement]

So begin to demand. And demand not just parts, pieces, but all that was taken from you unlawfully—demand the reestablishment of the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic! [Stormy applause and cries of “Hail the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic”]

Don’t limit your actions to the writing of petitions. Fortify them with all of those means which the Constitution provides you—the freedom of speech and of the press, of meetings, assemblies, of street marches and demonstrations.

A newspaper is published for you in Moscow. But the people behind that newspaper do not support your movement. Take the newspaper away from them. Elect your own editorial board. And if people hinder you in doing this, boycott that newspaper and create another one—your own! A movement cannot develop normally without its own press.

And in your struggle do not shut yourselves in a narrow nationalist shell. Establish contacts with all the progressive people of other nationalities of the Soviet Union. Do not consider your cause to be solely an internal Soviet matter. Appeal for help to the world progressive public and to international organizations. What was done to you in 1944 has a name. It was genocide.

Convictions are good things, especially when the impossible happens.