====

“Not in the clamor of the crowded street, not in the shouts and applause of the many, but in ourselves, are triumph and defeat.”

 –

Longfellow

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

Success in business is a trickier thing to talk about than you would expect.

In our ‘positive reinforcement world’ in which ‘everyone contributes and should be included’ we give out more gold stars in the business world than a second grade class. I sometimes think we give out so many rewards that no one can truly tell who the ‘best contributors’ <the ones who we used to call our ‘A players’> are.

In this, business is different than sports. Over an entire season your best players in sports become obvious to everyone. In business it is less obvious. It becomes even less obvious when everyone is getting bonuses and rewards. And it can be even less obvious to the employees themselves as even the A players get the rewards behind the scenes which makes the ‘somewhere less than A’ players start thinking … well … they are the success generators.

I sometimes wonder how we arrived at this commoditization of success in business.

Maybe it is an overreaction to a world where finding fault and seeking blame and uncovering less than perfection.

“We live in a world where finding fault in others seems to be the favorite blood sport. It has long been the basis of political campaign strategy. It is the theme of much television programming across the world. It sells newspapers.

Whenever we meet anyone, our first, almost unconscious reaction may be to look for imperfections.”

Henry B. Eyring

Maybe it is our slightly absurd infatuation with ‘everyone contributes’ and ‘all ideas are good & valuable.’

Yeah. Everyone does contribute in a business <or they get fired>. But not everyone contributes equally on all skills. That is why … uhm … we have departments and specialists and people who get hired to do accounting and sales. And, yes, everyone can contribute to success, but some have a larger impact than others. Does that make the ‘lesser impact people’ be less valuable?

Well, no, but their value generates less, or a different type, of an ROI.

But we don’t seem to want to point that out in an organization in our attempt to make everyone feel equally involved in the success. To be clear. If an organization is well run, everyone DOES contribute to success, but every organization has a hierarchy (even if it isn’t mapped out), just as ever team opts to a ‘captain’ even if one is not designated.

As for ideas?

Well, yes, everyone can come up with ideas and anyone can actually come up with a good and useful idea. But we certainly should not confuse that thought <truth> with the belief all ideas are good and that anyone can come up with the idea needed at some particular moment.

Generating ideas on demand is … well … valuable.

Generating ideas as an outcome of doing your job? … well … that is also valuable but of a different value.

Regardless. Managing success in business is tricky.

It is about balancing the truth that people play roles and offer different skills and some of those roles & skills offer different outcomes & values … to the other truth that organizations are like engines where when all the pieces & parts are working well and in tune the engine sings. But, once again, this doesn’t mean all parts & pieces are of equal value. Some sustain the possibility of horsepower and some actually create the horsepower.

Do you need both?

Sure. But maybe the biggest issue about all of this is the democratization of success in business. If you cannot highlight the successes framed relatively then … well … all successes become equal and therefore anyone believes they are as equally skilled & competent & valuable as everyone else.

That, my friends, is a problem in any organization of any significant size.

Do I believe in hierarchy? Well. Yes and no.

No if it is just layers to have layers & not if it doesn’t permit freedom to permit people to maximize what they have to offer.

Yes if it is because you have placed the appropriate skill in the appropriate position in order to maximize all the pieces & parts.

That said.

It seems to me that we would all be better off if we started thinking about the fact that success, and defeat, is not found in the applause or criticism, but rather resides in each and every employee.

It seems to me that if we encourage more of an individual responsibility & pride that the organization will succeed without having to invest a shitload of energy focusing on worrying about how to recognize success. And, yes, the business itself has a responsibility to foster this belief, attitude & behavior by culturally exhibiting this belief, attitude and behavior.

Far too often the senior management bitches about the lack of employee responsibility without looking in the mirror. And maybe it is in that last sentence which generally encapsulates the contradictory aspects impacting how we view success in business.

We desire everyone to win and feel part of the team and ,yet, the American obsession with competition is more often than not brought to Life in business in some type of individual reviews, rewards & responses.

We inherently understand that the pieces & parts are not all equal in skill and output/outcome and, while talking about ‘everybody wins’, we still create an environment to have ‘someone win’ … believing competition brings out the best in everyone.

Managing that contradiction … well … if you don’t manage it well than success of the overall business suffers.

We all know what makes a business successful, or great, is continual improvement … not an “if it aint broke don’t fix it” attitude. Many American companies such as Ford, Alcoa, Starbucks and Harley Davidson practice continual improvement and systems thinking with great success.   Deming is the one who developed the business approach of Continual Quality Improvement. It fosters teamwork and overall organizational success versus encouraging organizational success through individual competition.

Frankly, the idea is complicated and tricky. And it goes against America’s natural business DNA and most companies resist embracing the concept fully instead embracing individual competition <under a smokescreen umbrella of ‘everybody wins’>.

In general managing success in business is tricky for a variety of reasons.

We are too fond of quick fixes.

We are too fond of believing competition is necessary to maximize individual behavior.

We are too fond of not wanting to imply someone is better than someone else at something publicly.

We are too fond of chasing organizational management ideas used successfully by someone else <which is often like putting a hexagon peg in a square hole>.

Anyway.

I am not suggesting this is easy. Success is business is tricky. But I talk with a lot of businesses and I will suggest that most businesses haven’t figured it out. Just as sharing authority and leadership without actually losing it is difficult … sharing success without losing the luster of success is also difficult.

Most businesses are trying but they are a work in progress. I do believe the moment “leaders” recognize that triumph & defeat resides within everyone & empower them to be triumphant, empower them to make some ‘defeat’ decisions (and psychologically make them feel safe in making some of those decisions, the more productive, and healthy, the business will be.

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

“Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it.

—

Dwight D. Eisenhower

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

Whew. In business, getting out of the way, if you are even mediocrely qualified or actually good at what you do … this may be one of the most difficult things to do.

What am I talking about?

Get out of the way of someone who knows what they are doing.

Now. This isn’t about ‘planting your own ideas in someone else’s head” <which you see a number of articles on if you try and google this topic, by the way, interestingly I couldn’t find one article out of the gazillions on my topic today>.

This is simply getting out of the way of someone who actually knows what the hell they are doing. This topic actually came up from a young person who actually asked ‘why don’t stupid people get out of the way of the people who actually know what they are doing.” My immediate response was relatively flippant: “because most stupid people don’t recognize they are stupid … about something.”

Okay.No one panic.

I followed that quickly with “listen … most people truly aren’t stupid … they are just blind to what they may actually not be as good at versus someone else.”

But. So, often, out of the mouths of babes comes truth. We often sit in our office, or in a meeting with a group of people, and if someone could read the thought bubble over our heads they would stare <mouth agape probably> when they read “why the f%$& won’t these stupid people get out of the way so someone who knows what they are doing can get this done?”

C’mon. Admit it.

We have all done it.

We have all thought it.

But here is the other side of that coin. It is really really difficult to admit you are one of the ‘stupid people’ and should be getting out of the way.

<by the way … I am simply using stupid as a harsher place holder for ‘less qualified’ or ‘not as good as’>

First. Reminder.

Most people are not stupid <even in business> and the odds are you aren’t stupid … it is simply a way of expressing your frustration and it isn’t literal.

Second. Well.

It is difficult to get out of the way for a number of reasons but let’s pick two:

<1> Yourself and … <2> someone else.

Huh?

–          Yourself.

This is ego. As well as society <a little> I imagine. But let’s discuss ego first. Getting out of the way implies you are not good enough or qualified enough … and you will not only feel like shit … you will look bad to everyone else.

You kind of have to discipline yourself a little to be able to get out of the way. This type of discipline is not easy.

Society does not support it and the drive to intervene in the process is rooted in how we were brought up, what we have seen around us and reinforced in our culture … as in … accepted behavior of those who are successful.

It is a difficult challenge to overcome the slightly narcissistic impulse to show off ‘your game’ and instead step out of the way and accept you can simply be there … without everything depending on you.

It is difficult for someone to not only know there are better circumstances you can be in but also that there’s a better way to do something.

It is difficult to think that if you actually step out of the way you may learn something and become better <mostly because you feel if you pass on this opportunity you will never get the opportunity again>.

It is difficult to decide in the moment, from a self interest perspective of actually wanting to better yourself <and do what’s right> that, technically, you are actually getting out of your own way.

None of this is easy because these types of decisions boil down to how you see yourself and how much value yourself. Maybe I could say instead … how comfortable you are with yourself.

If you think about it, if you can shed all the angst and society and all the ‘here is how you are supposed to act’ type bullshit, your actions reflect what you want for yourself and what you feel you deserve. In the end … as with almost everything it seems … getting out of the way and yourself is mostly about character. Oddly enough … it is difficult to be honest with yourself.

Next.

–          Someone else.

Ok.

This is a version of yourself … this is assessing the ‘someone else’ who wants you to get out of the way. Beyond the fact you may be admitting that someone may be better than you at something else … you are actually evaluating that someone else.

Uh oh. Typically, we suck at that. We suck at that because we typically judge our co-workers on the wrong criteria – the past.

Sure. If they have delivered on what they promised in the past, it does count for something. And their resume of past behavior and performance can count <albeit resumes are dubious things at best>.

But how much should it REALLY count? Because, uh oh <a BIG business truth here> most expertise is situational.

As in discrete. As in mutually exclusive.

Uh oh. What that means is you cannot judge based on anything historical but rather you have to judge within the moment and the situation.

Wow. That sucks. And we suck at doing that.

Ok. Beyond dealing with yourself and someone else.

When we do get out of the way we feel compelled to praise <this is actually a self ego thing>. Frankly, praising someone in the work place is … well … sometimes painful <particularly with a peer>. And if it isn’t painful it is certainly uncomfortable. Most of us are not skilled enough to be diplomatic and sincere without being condescending or, I cannot find the right words, suffice it to say most of us just plain suck at praising effectively in the work place.

And honestly … there are some good reasons why we suck at it. The behavioral reason <not the immature reason> is that we worry <and know from research> that the praised-for-every-achievement employee ends up reflecting a happier, more successful and highly self-esteemed employee, but more likely, the employee will become a ‘pleasing mode’ model employee <one who is driven to success not by personal curiosity but rather by the desire to earn praise by simply living up to expectations>.

Whew. Looking back at what I just wrote … that sure sounds cynical. Or maybe it just sounds shallow in referring to how people think or act. Take solace in the fact that it really isn’t because it is mainly a subconscious thing. We all do it to some degree it is only the people who consciously suck up and seek praise by ‘being a sheep’ that aggravate us.

Now. Living up to expectations isn’t a bad thing in the scheme of things, but it also doesn’t represent the kind of dynamics you want in a growing & expanding employee <or in a business in general>. You prefer to inspire someone to WANT to do something not HAVE to do it <for some personal gain>.

Anyway.

Getting out of the way is more difficult than most people think. For some good reasons and some bad reasons. Regardless of the reason, suffice it to say, we suck at getting out of the way.

===========

“Never dare to sell your soul for money, because no amount of wealth would buy you an air conditioner in hell.”
―

Edmond Mbiaka

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

Ok. This isn’t a religious post. Nor is this about selling your soul to the devil. Its nothing really that deep.

Ok. Maybe its deep .. just not that kind of deep.

This is simply about how far someone is willing to go to sell something in business. Or maybe better said how far someone will go to get money, or fame or power or something they desire?

What got me thinking about this? Business life. If you ever want to learn what your soul is worth go work at a smaller to mid sized advertising agency (although I envision a lot of people in sales also face the question at some point or another).

—

“Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company.”

Mark Twain

—-

While I chuckled when I read this quote it was admittedly a painful chuckle. Painful because I cannot tell you how many times (suffice it to say … too many for fingers and toes) I have been in new business meetings when it was painfully obvious that whatever new business we were discussing was so wrong for us as a client.  And yet the conversation kept rolling around and rolling around under the guise of “they would be a good client” (because they have money).

Don’t get me wrong. I like money. But not all money is the same. Some money fills your soul and some empties your soul … by soul I mean your inner value compass.

People who are defined solely by money can argue this until they are blue in the face. In fact … they do … there is even a selling “event” called selling your soul.

“The live Selling Your Soul event in NYC is over, and we’re all rolling on a wave of vivid business-building bliss. It was a high-gloss experience, where we intimately unpacked Burning Questions on messaging, marketing + online money-making, the myth of work-life “balance,” fearless price-raising, prosperous collaborating, and getting Witnessed for what you’re worth.”

Attitudinally one of the owners summarizes it by “I make my own economy” (philosophically, I actually kind of like that thought).

And (to be fair). That same owner uses money to balance her moral compass: “I kicked off GirlUp with their first substantial donation, proving once again that lots of cash can = lots of impact. Philanthropy is the bottom line.”

Yet. Here is my struggle with her philanthropic angle. I would argue with the owner in that philanthropy is not her bottom line. Her bottom line is money. And she uses her money to create her balance (note: although their website is strewn with words & thoughts that their soul is defined by a combination of fame & fortune so it seems like the philanthropy is just a ‘thing’ done to ease their soul angst).

Regardless. I wish it were that easy for me. Because it is not.

Look … I recognize the issue … who wouldn’t want to be recognized or have a generous income or a dream vacation home?

Face it. We all do. But at what price? And does the end justify the means? And, obviously, WHICH end justifies the means? That is what I mean by emptying your soul or filling your soul. Because in the end (whether that be mid life or at ‘the big finish’) you are judging your actions not by tangible things but the intangible balance of self worth (I purposefully chose ‘worth’ because it is some combination of fruits of labor and self esteem).

It is interesting because I have seen a variety of ways people justify how they sell their soul but one word continues to stand up as the face of behavior over & over again:

“winning”

To these people its all about winning. Winning at any cost. Or just being able to say “I won.” But (here is the news) winning is not always good.  There IS such a thing as a bad win. Unfortunately, the people who define their soul by winning don’t see that (or they may but justify their actions based on “we won”). Am I suggesting this aspect should be about fair play? No.  not really. This is about playing by your moral compass.

“money”

The thought that everything leads to some magical pot of money that will erase all of their problems. These people believe that fancy cars, designer clothes and big houses will make life better. This person may try to balance it with some philanthropic aspect (typically toward the end of their lives – see Andrew Carnegie as prime example) but they are consistently willing to ignore any moral compass within their pursuit for money.

“fame”

Yes. The spotlight is a dazzling temptation. And that same spotlight can blind you as to the wreckage around you. But to the one seeking fame maybe that is the beauty of being in the spotlight – the only thing you can see under that glaring light is yourself. What can I say more than that? I guess if you really want someone to worship you maybe consider becoming a benevolent dictator instead.

Oh. And the worst of all?

“being liked”

This is a sneaky one and may sound odd associated with selling your soul. Think about it: maybe its you want people to like you … so you sell your soul to the highest bidder (again, especially IF they are someone who holds a prominent position, this is an action leading to personal moral decay … if not total destruction). This one is insidious in that it creates self definition by having NO self definition. You may as well have sold your soul to the highest bidder … just make sure it isn’t the devil.

Anyway. In the end I know the decision I have made.  And that is always to be true to myself.  Tell the truth.  Seek good wins (not any win).

And I have found I cannot work places that don’t feel the same way. Not really just because of me … but because I find that companies that sell their soul doesn’t create a corporate culture which I like nor a culture which I ultimately believe is healthy.

And lastly. And maybe most importantly to me. I don’t believe it teaches young people growing up in business the right thing.  The senior ‘leaders’ (and I use that term loosely in this situation) simply do not recognize the repercussions of their decision to ‘sell out.’ And that is a shame.

The hell to be endured hereafter, of which theology tells, is no worse than the hell we make for ourselves in this world by habitually fashioned our characters in the wrong way.” -William James

“Habitually fashioned our characters in the wrong way” as the hell we make for ourselves.

Whew.

That is good.  Really good words to think about.

I do not believe ‘what is the value of our soul’ or describing being directed by your inner values compass could ever be articulated better.

Selling your soul, even in business, just to get something to have it (regardless of the practical or unpractical reason) is making your own hell you will have to live in.  And when you get to that hell maybe you can convince yourself you are a warm weather person and enjoy living where it is always hot … but … you are in your own personal hell.

I know I cannot convince all leaders of organizations to recognize this (because when a leader is in a personal hell it reaches out and encompasses his/her organization and poisons it … either slowly or quickly).

But I do know we can make personal decisions about this:

Be yourself.

Say no and mean it.

Subdue that which tries to destroy you.

Avoid the temptation to do what you know is wrong.

Face the truth that you are doing nothing but being untrue to yourself if you get blinded by money or fame.

In the end, in every decision, each person has to hold on to the core value of what defines themselves at their soul. Because every decision either diminishes or grows your personal purpose. And, yes, these decisions in organizations also unify or separate a group of people even more strongly than a similar language or history (at least in my eyes) because, well, this is part of what some people call “a business purpose.”. When people live by their core values and convictions the “center” is stronger.

And. If you don’t have a center, don’t you just fall apart as being just parts?

So. All that said. I am not a big self reflection guy … but I do believe it is worth a minute or two to identify what is your soul, or your core if you don’t want to get hung up on the word soul because, if you don’t, you may end up selling something you don’t want to, uhm, like your soul.

===========

“We tend to hold ourself accountable for things we never did.  Hearts we never broke. People we didn’t hurt.  Souls we didn’t crush. “

—

coral-vellichor

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

All these years I’ve been looking at the wrong side.

—

(via madelinemharris)

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

Ok. Accountability, or responsibility, is always a good business topic. And, yes, I am a big personal responsibility person. But in business, within an organization, responsibility tends to be more shared responsibility than simple personal responsibility. I thought about this during a discussion on Distributed Leadership/Holocracy/etc type business models. These discussions tend to revolve around flat, flatter & flattened operating models. The point being everyone agrees there has to be some leadership roles and, yet, not be hierarchy or command/control.

Anyway. To be clear. I believe there is a strong relationship between shared responsibility and personal responsibility. The stronger the shared responsibility attitude & behavior within leadership & mentors & role models the stronger the development of personal responsibility muscle occurs in everyday schmucks like me. Conversely, if you are surrounded with lack of shared responsibility examples <or even those who espouse ‘selectively chosen shared responsibility’> the value of personal responsibility diminishes to an individual, therefore, they see less value in exhibiting personal responsibility.

We don’t talk about this relationship enough. Far too often we flippantly suggest “people should take responsibility for their actions.”

Well … no shit Sherlock. But if your role models or leaders are constantly passing the buck when the shit hits the fan to save their own bacon <and image> then what the hell … why would you not do the same?

Yeah. Sure. Everyone has to pull their weight and do their job and do what they say they are going to do … but very very rarely does an individual perform in a vacuum in a business.

This happens more so even in management. It drives me a little nuts when I hear some leaders discuss “delegating.”

Somehow delegating equals “absolved of responsibility.”

This is stupid irresponsible thinking.

My belief that it is stupid thinking is rooted in some common sesne I am fairly sure the US Military says:

 

You can delegate authority, but you cannot delegate responsibility.

In other words … you can give others the power to do things … you can delegate … but, no matter what happens … if something goes wrong … the final responsibility always lies with the one who has delegated authority. Sticking with the military as my guidance … this means if your business has an initiative that has gone SNAFU <“Situation Normal: All Fucked Up”> the blame … and the ultimate responsibility for the mistakes <fuck ups> falls … uhm … up.

The leader assumes responsibility. This is shared responsibility. In other words … this is leadership.

Once you become a business leader past a mom & pop management style business you have to face the concept of shared responsibility <and some embrace it and some reject it>.

Despite the fact you have delegated authority that ‘authority’ does not represent a discrete event and period in time. You bear the responsibility for the cascade of events, decisions and actions leading up to the ‘authority giving’ which means everything you have done up until that point provides the context for the delegating … yeah … you own the arena in which you have placed the delegatee.

But this gets exponentially worse <if you are thinking about becoming a business leader>. You actually also share responsibility for the consequences — intended and unintended. This is different than delegating authority <although it relates to it> and owning responsibility for the action … this goes beyond to the actual ripples from the decisions & actions.

Now. Some leaders have a nasty habit of assuming responsibility for the decision and the effect of the decision — within a finite period of time. The weakest leaders try and tie “that was out of my control” or “I wasn’t there for that” as soon as they can to a decision they make. The strongest leaders worry less about any carnage that has been left behind, but rather start worrying about any carnage the decisions & actions could possibly create for the future.

The truth is that business leaders should take a moment and remember the wise words of an American Indian. Red Cloud, an Oglala Lakota leader who led his people against the U.S. Army and later as his people transitioned from life on the plains to the reservation, stressed that when Indian people made a decision, it should be done with the welfare of the next seven generations in mind.

In a short term world where most business leaders are trying to make quarterly goals and just try and keep their job … thinking with the welfare of the next 7 generations seems … well … impossible. I imagine the real point is that most good business leaders assume some responsibility for the generations to come.  Some people may call this ‘long term strategy’ and some others will call it ‘keeping your eye on the horizon’ or even ‘having a vision’, well, I am no Harvard Business guru and all that high falutin’ stuff seems unnecessary. To me it is much more simple. You make decisions accepting the burden of responsibility for what will come and may arise from your decision.

You share the responsibility for what will, or may, come. And if you do that? Damn. You will do good and be good. And if you do not do that? Damn. You may get a shitload of attention and applause in the moment and a shitload of attention and anger in the future.

Why do I say that?

Because if you don’t really believe in shared responsibility and flit from one decision to the next in a transactional “responsible only to the moment” way you will end up rushing from issue to issue, reacting without a plan or a strategy or <worse> no care of longer term affect, creating carnage yet to be seen <because that type of leader tends to seek only the cheers in the moment>.

Just to point it out … with no plan that means anything can happen and a leader can justify anything. Because with no plan to measure a decision against anything can look right … and unpredictable can be touted as ‘flexible to the situation.’

All of this fits a short term leader in a short term world.

The people are few and far between these days who weigh their responses and assess long term affects. In today’s world it almost seems a race to be the first to judge or comment on a decision or action and far too many leaders actually manage to the public race to comment rather than the longer term assessment.

This is scary stuff for anyone to do but a business leader? Dangerous.

Even the best short term decision makers, if forced into a gauntlet of short term decisions, will struggle to insure at the end of the gauntlet they have kept walking northwards as they had been looking down the entire time. More often than not North will not be the direction you are facing nor will you have actually moved any closer to the North star.

I am not suggesting this longer term shared responsibility attitude is easy. In fact .. it is really really hard. In fact … it almost means you have to embrace a little “impossible” into what you actually make possible.

Huh?

In general I have always liked logical thinking <no matter how random the logic may be> but I always love it when someone combines some unexpected logic. Generally speaking the best unexpected logic actually comes from those who do the impossible … thinking of the impossible and seeing possibilities — the impossible being “knowing for sure what will happen in the future.” They make the spectacular leaps/chances, accepting responsibility and sharing responsibility, so that business can make the needed changes or just do the semi-risky things that keep a good business doing good things <things that may push against the borders of the status quo>.

Yeah.

Spectacular errors can only happen if you take spectacular chances. I am not fond of irresponsible risk taking and decision-making, but I am fond of doing ‘the right thing’ even when it may appear to be going against the stream. Sometimes that means a spectacular success, sometimes a spectacular error. But always something spectacular. And, I will tell you, what more could you want to say about your life as a leader but that you have done something spectacular? Especially if that ‘spectacular’ actually happens a generation later which permits you to sit back and say “I did the impossible … I viewed the future well.’

Anyway.

Shared responsibility is the burden of any good leader. They tend to be the leaders who understand they cannot really be sure what is going to happen to them over time, they weigh the risks to the best of their ability and let the chips fall as they may. I tend to believe their attitude is one of “you don’t want to act more fearfully than you have to.”

Good leaders have a tendency to hold themselves accountable for anything, everything and everyone … in varying degrees depending on the anything, everything and everyone. And, maybe most importantly, I tend to believe they understand that there is a relationship between shared responsibility and personal responsibility. And, practically speaking, you will never be viewed as a true leader if you do not.

Well.

You know what? To end this thing today let me offer two other words, typically associated with responsibility, obligation and duty.

Obligation refers general to something you are compelled to do by regulation, law, promise or morality. I think good leaders feel obligated to assume shared responsibility.

Duty, more so than obligation, springs from an internal moral or ethical impulse rather than from external demands.

I think good leaders feel a duty, not just obligation, to assume shared responsibility. Shared responsibility … not only do I believe we should discuss it more often <because it will foster better value in personal responsibility> but I also believe we should be demanding it of our leaders more often.

====

“Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence.

Talent will not: nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.

Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb.

Education will not: the world is full of educated derelicts.

Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.”

—

Calvin Coolidge

===

“The ability to convert ideas to things is the secret of outward success.”

–

Henry Ward Beecher

===

Some people are born with a silver spoon <with money & status in Life>.

Some people are born with some extraordinary talent <albeit all of us born with some talent for something>.

Well.

Let’s be clear.

Those “some people” are certainly guaranteed some aspect of ‘easy’ or ‘easier’ in their lives.

However.

Those ‘some people’ have no Life guarantees … they are not guaranteed greatness nor are they guaranteed to slide down into derelict status.

The only real guarantees in Life are not external driven but internal driven … the engine that makes Life go is … uhm … you.

And speaking of the ‘you engine’ … while persistency is a nice thought I would suggest participation is the key.

<1>    If you participate you have a chance of elevating whatever you have to offer.

<2>     If you persistently participate I guarantee, yes, guarantee, … you will elevate above the majority.

Now.

You not only have to participate externally <involve yourself in the game of Life> but you also have to actively participate, with some persistence, within yourself.  You have to start the engine and engage the gears and keep it well oiled and … well … you get the metaphor.  Suffice it to say that the engine, whatever ability & physical/mental/intellectual resources you have available to you do not run on their own.

You have to be actively nurturing.

You have to be persistently honing your talents.

At the basis for my belief in what I say is that ‘good’ deteriorates without nurturing … and, maybe worse, never even has a chance to blossom without participation.

At the basis for my belief is that talent is not eternal. It naturally diminishes.

Actively participate with whatever you got and you can improve upon talent with determination and persistence and you can elevate it to some extraordinary place so that when at some point you want to relax it starts slipping downwards to a place where others reside. But, oh shit … let it lie dormant and it diminishes. No participation and everything, even your talent, simply atrophies.

Okay.

Babbling aside let me share the simple formulas for participation, persistence, talent and derelicts.

–       If you have no talent <or don’t identify the talent you do have>, and are not persistent … you are not a derelict … you are most likely living in your parents basement writing a blog about conspiracies and wearing a tin foil hat.

–      If you have a passion, and persistently pursue that passion, and … well … you have no particular talent for what you are doggedly pursuing … you are a frustrated unhappy person.

<note … lets say you are persistent enough to do the 10,000 hour Gladwell ‘expert’ path … despite Gladwell’s bullshit theory  – https://brucemctague.com/limitations     –  you will most likely attain at least competency status … and will still be frustrated and unhappy because with all that persistency you don’t seek being ‘competent‘>.

–      If you have talent and are not persistent … well … you are a derelict <good education or not>.

Worse. You are one of the silly people who have wasted their talent.

–      If you have talent and persistently nurture and use that talent you will be successful.

<note … not all talent is created equal … you can have ‘good’ talent and someone can have ‘great’ talent and while it sucks … all things equal … if both are persistent and determined … great will always be better than good>.

–      If you have talent and passion and are persistent … you actually have a chance of being the best of the best … laughing at the derelicts who may have had the same talent <and a shitload of education> but no passion and nor persistent determination. You also have a shot, not guaranteed but a shot, to actually be better than someone who is talented and simply is persistently dogged about being good at their art/skill … but it is not driven by a passion to be the best.

Look.

Formulas aside … we all have some capability and if we are persistent enough when focused on that capability we will most likely do relatively well in life. Society throws us a bullshit curve ball suggesting that Life is some competition in which your talent & persistency should be measured against others.

What bullshit.

The competition resides within ourselves … not to be measured against anyone else.

And, frankly, while we as individuals are unique and original … most likely most of us have some capability or talent that falls into the “a shitload of people can do something pretty similar.”

Who cares if someone else can do it? You should just care that you can do it. And go do it <rather than sitting around wondering how you can be better than someone else or have some unique skill>.

===

“And while I’d like to lay claim to some extraordinary act of originality, truth is I’m only taking advantage of capabilities inherent in everyone.”

–

Mark Z Danielewski

===

Just remember.

The first, and last, step to avoid being a derelict is to realize that we each have a role that requires us to persistently attend to Life and our talent, we have to participate internally & externally and, lastly, assume responsibility for shaping our own future. Everyone has some talent the difference usually resides in who actually uses it & who does not.

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

“We should place confidence in our employee.

Confidence is the foundation of friendship.

If we give it, we will receive it.

Any person in a managerial position, from supervisor to president, who feels that his employee is basically not as good as he is and who suspects his employee is always trying to put something over on him, lacks the necessary qualities for human leadership – to say nothing of human friendship.”

—–

Harry Humphreys

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

“The conventional definition of management is getting work done through people, but real management is developing people through work.”

—-

Agha Abedi

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

Well.

Leading and managing people is possibly one of the most rewarding things you can do in a business career.

Firing people is possibly one of the most unrewarding things you can do in a business career.

Unfortunately these two things are inextricably linked.

I could argue that once you assume responsibility for firing someone … you learn more about yourself, and I imagine others learn about you, than from almost any other responsibility you assume as a leader.

No one likes firing people. Well. No one who is any good at business leadership. I don’t care if you absolutely hate the person you are firing, if the person has actually committed a fireable offense and you are in the right to fire them, or even if you fire someone for good reason … suffice it to say … it never feels good to fire someone.

And because of that … a good business leader never delegates the tough termination. And they never send someone to terminate a direct report.

Generally speaking … you fire anyone who is a direct report, or you were directly responsive for hiring, face to face.

Yeah.

This may not be, logistically, the easiest thing to do but it is part of the burden of responsibility. It is the mantle you wear and it is what you are obligated to offer the person being terminated – dignity & respect.

Anything less than that and you are shirking your responsibility.  Anything less than that is … well … chicken shit. And you are a chickenshit business leader if you do not do these things.

Sure.

What I just shared is a hard lesson but one business people learn in young management.

I will never forget the first person I ever fired. Paul.

An absolute great guy in absolutely the wrong position and possibly career. But that doesn’t mean it was easy to terminate him. While I was 99% sure it was the right thing to do <and my boss and her bosses agreed> there was an extraordinarily loud 1% in my head that kept me awake that night.

Inevitably he chose a different career and went on to become an SVP of sales.

And he was kind enough to drop me a couple of notes to tell me it all worked out for the best.

But I will never forget firing him. I can honestly say I never forget anyone I have fired <and that is a semi-long list after years of management>.

However.

I would like to think my leadership career is measured more by the people I did not fire.

Not firing, in a larger organization, can be harder than you think.

I think I spent more time explaining to the most senior people why I would not fire some of the people I managed than I did ever discussing almost anything else about employees with them.

Well. That is … it felt that way.

The crap that floats upwards into senior leadership about individual employees is amazing. The littlest mistakes and quirks seem to take on exponential size when it arrives at the most senior people — and they do not hesitate to share their disproportional views.

Regardless. All of those views cut into the ‘trust belief’ … are they respected within the organization, do they have the trust of the organization and can they be trusted with their responsibility.

And that is when you earn your stripes as a manager. You do not cave in to the ‘easy thing to do’ but rather stand up for your people and let the chips fall as they may. Oh. And you learn it is totally worth it to not take the easy way out.

Let me be clear.

No one is perfect. I was not a perfect employee nor was a perfect manager. And, yet, when judging employees there sometimes is the ‘perfect measure’ of which becomes the absurd standard.

Yes.

We should judge senior people more critically but we should judge them fairly.

Anyway.

I didn’t fire a lot of people. And I can think of at least 4 who made me incredibly proud that I didn’t … despite some pressure from others to do so.

All 4 of these have sent me notes at different points, not thanking me for not firing them but rather for simply giving them a chance, believing in them and seeing something in them that they knew <because all employees know when they are under ‘the human resources microscope’>  many others didn’t.

All 4 of them have been professionally successful and, more importantly, are solid good human beings. Neither of those are because I didn’t fire them but rather vindicate the non-firing decision.

All that said.

Firing someone, despite the pain of actually doing it, is often the easy way out and is certainly a way to avoid looking at your own flaws.

Flaws? I sometimes believe one of the hardest things you can learn in your career is that your best is not particularly special.

Learning the fact that your talent, in reality, is matched by a shitload of people.

Learning that your best is relatively easily matched by a shitload of people.

It is an unfortunate truth that:

• Talent is talent.
• Smarts are smarts.
• And expertise is almost always relative.

At any given point in Life and your career you can look around you and, if you are self aware, you will note you are rarely the most talented, rarely the smartest one in the room and rarely the only expert.

Even on your best day you may not actually be the best.

I imagine that is a tough thing to get your head wrapped around.

But I also imagine if you do wrap your head around it evaluating employees and how you fire them is affected.

I always watch how someone terminates an employee.

You can learn a lot about people in that situation … and you can learn a shitload about how someone feels about dignity, respect and responsibility in how they terminate an employee.

===========

Postscript 1: under the general heading of “chickenshit” from a business perspective I will comment on a Trump firing:

There are hundreds of different viable reasons to fire someone and if you have the responsibility to hire & fire and it is ‘at will’ you can do what you want. But HOW Trump fired James Comey was chickenshit.

It wasn’t face to face with a direct report <or even face to face with anyone … just a letter delivered by a non-government employee>.

While there appeared to be no sense of urgency to terminate the action was taken with an absurd sense of senseless urgency which permitted Comey the indignity of being blindsided, in the middle of a commitment to the people who reported to him and not even in town.

This was a chicken shit way of terminating an honorable employee. It is indicative of Trump’s lack of character.

Postscript 2: Under the general heading of “this is some crazy shit” from a business perspective:

Firing someone for lack of confidence when the people who you are actually working for have a general lack of confidence in you is slightly surreal.

This may actually be the ironic point of this little postscript rant.

The stated “Donald J Trump fired his FBI Director because of ‘lack of confidence’ is … well … crazy shit.

Well. If that is a true criteria and I were to look at some national polling data I could argue Trump could be fired on the same criteria by the American people.

Most leaders do not defend their firing decision through childish name calling.

“Crying Chuck” .. “Richie” in quotes <instead of Richard>. Calling people diminishing names. Childish crap like that. I have been criticized as a leader for people I have fired, as well as people who I didn’t fire, and when appropriate I responded with some “why I did it” information but I never deflected my choice & decision onto others by suggesting they were not qualified to criticize … and I certainly always treated peers with a modicum of respect.

Tweet response rather than standing up in person

Sniping from the sidelines is not leadership.

Period.

‘nuf said.

I have made the case a number of times why healthcare for everyone benefits America from a productivity standpoint. Today I will try to make a case for healthcare for all by pointing out an underlying real issue which creates some disillusionment <which obviously drove some of the Trump support during the election> in middle America.

We often discuss inequality in terms of economics & opportunity … but how about something which cuts to the core being of everyone – life expectancy inequality.

I came across a map created in May of this year showing life expectancy by county.

Well.

Yikes.

Okay.

Double yikes.

The average life expectancy … yes … average … in individual counties can vary by up to 20 … yes … 20 … years.

Yes.

If you live in certain counties the average life expectancy is around 87 years <remember … this is average for an entire county> and in other counties the average life expectancy is around 67 years.

Holy shit.

Average.

20 years difference.

And I am not smart enough to do the cross tab <or invest the energy> but if you look at the life expectancy map and you were to overlay the Trump voter support I would bet <and I am not a betting man> that the counties which have the 20 years less life expectancy … shit … the counties with lower standard deviation life expectancies in general … went overwhelmingly for the Trumpster.

So for all the intellectuals, faux & real, who suggest many of the Trump voters are ignorant, misguided and stupid … you may want to shut up and think about this for a second.

These people have a legitimate gripe.

Yeah.

Life expectancy is pretty legitimate.

I mean if my local community is dying off around me and I look around at other communities who seem not only getting better breaks but are actually living longer … well … I am gonna start thinking I am being overlooked and underappreciated.

………… Life expectancy standard deviation …………….

Combine that with the fact the gap between longer life expectancy counties and lower life expectancy counties is actually growing and, well, I am gonna start truly believing that the elites & establishment do not really care.

“There’s no sign of the gap closing. In fact, it appears to be widening. Between 1980 and 2014, the gap between the highest and lowest life spans increased by about two years.

 

“With every passing year, inequality — however you measure it — has been widening over the last 34 years. And so next year, we can reliably expect it’ll be even more than 20.”

 

“That is probably the most alarming part of the analysis.”

 

———–

Christopher Murray:  Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation

So.

Having attended this rodeo before, I know I can count on getting a number of intellectual sounding emails pointing out the inevitable flaws in my thinking and conclusions. My suggestion to those people is please hit ‘unsend’ and get off your intellectual high horse and think about this.

Flawed logic or not … if I am in a county dying off at early ages I am more likely to be thinking I live in India and not in America. And if I even perceive that, if I even have a sense of that, I am gonna start wishing for what I thought America was again.

Parse out the flawed aspects behind my ‘America was again’ thought if you want but on the surface this is a no brainer thought. Dying can make you wish for a shitload of things that intellectually can seem less than logical but are actually well intended thoughts – because, uhm, this pertains to life & death.

All of this permits me to circle back to healthcare.

Maybe print out the map of life expectancy and put it beside your computer while you read this part.

We talk about putting healthcare in the hands of people.

We talk about subsidies for health insurance companies.

We talk about inordinate bureaucracy for … well … physicians, hospitals and patients.

We talk about high premiums, high deductibles and high falutin’ reasons why healthcare works and doesn’t work.

It’s all talk.

And it’s all bullshit.

Important bullshit in terms of actually getting something done but unimportant bullshit in terms of we are not getting something done.

Just because someone lives somewhere doesn’t mean they should have a lower life expectancy than someone who lives somewhere else … at least if they live in America <other countries deal with their own problems>.

Is health insurance the only reason for this?

Of course not <so keep your snarky emails to yourself>.

But health is certainly a reason for this.

At the core of life expectancy is … well … health. And I don’t really care how much you earn, what kind of education you have had, what kind of job you have, or do not have, but it seems like if you live in county X you should be offered equal health opportunities to those received in county Y.

There is more than enough inequality haunting the United States these days without having health services & insurance inequality.

There is more than enough inequality haunting the United State these days without having life expectancy inequality.

——————–

“I wish I had the courage not to fight and doubt everything… I wish, just once, I could say, ‘This. This is good enough. Just because I choose it.”

―

Chuck Palahniuk

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

So.

Let me very clear upfront … while this piece will be on Russian involvement in the 2016 USA presidential election I am not discussing, nor suggesting, collusion or coordination of efforts between anything I will outline and the Trump campaign. The analysis of that will be done by greater minds than mine.

This piece is about what Russia did and the effect on the 2016 election. Let’s call this an analysis of the Russian marketing campaign to support Donald J Trump.

I have the fortune to exchange ideas, on occasion, with some highly qualified experts and several foreign policy thought leaders and all of them continuously grapple not with what Russia did but more so with how to talk about it. Which leads me to the horrible position that I find myself in <and I imagine any professional communications person with any significant experience is in>.

We know that Russia most likely influenced enough voters to have elected Donald J Trump.

There. I said it. The one sentence which seems to be on the lips of almost any credible thinking individual but never seems to be spoken. This has nothing to do whether I believe he is qualified or not … this is just a conclusion that anyone who knows shit about marketing & advertising has arrived at if they look at the campaign.

<note: this is easily provable … hire MillwardBrown, pay them $100k, give them all the voting information and attitude poll information and they could do a county comparison … they do this for marketing & advertising campaigns all the time to measure effectiveness>

Anyway. It took me a while to get there because the overarching narrative ‘cover’ for the election is, and always has been, “Russia never changed a vote or made someone do anything.” While every reasonable marketing person would debate the seeming lack of understanding in the concept of ‘ability to affect behavior through marketing’, it was easier for people to generally focus on the truth Russia never got into actual voting machines and changed votes.

This means it just took me a lot longer to get to the truth that many of my peers had already arrived at.

…. I did not want to know this ………..

Whew.

The truth. Russia changed votes and voting behavior.

What knowledge to have. What a wretched position to be in … to be a professional communications person and a believer in America democracy … that is the horrible position many of us find ourselves in.

Why?

Well. The majority of us know, if we view it through a professional lens, that the Russians communications <propaganda> effort most likely put Donald J Trump into the presidency … and we don’t know what to do and say about it.

Why?

Think about the outcome of this presentation. The main one would be that many people would believe Donald J was not a legitimate president or legitimately elected. And that would be … well … horrible. Horrible for the country, horrible for democracy and … well … just horrible. I, personally, feel a little less horrible because I still believe … 100% believe … and have written extensively that if the Clinton campaign had done a couple of things and maybe thought thru a couple of things they would have won.

All that said.

I could open this presentation by suggesting the Clinton campaign ran a slightly-less-than-effective-as-it-could-have marketing campaign but I could also showcase how the Trump campaign, in and of itself, did not do enough to win.

——- Clint Watts analysis of Russia Social Media Plan ——-

I would then have to point out that an overlaid Russian marketing campaign <which diminished Clinton to suppress behavior in her favor> made the difference at the finish line. As noted earlier, someone like MillwardBrown could prove/disprove this in ‘two notes or less.’

Anyway … before anyone argues with that premise please remember that with 136 million votes cast, Trump’s victory came down to a razor-thin edge of only 77,744 votes across three states: Pennsylvania (44,292 votes), Wisconsin (22,748 votes), and Michigan (10,704 votes) – all less than .7% difference between the two candidates … a less than full Michigan stadium … and, if reversed, Clinton would be our president.

The 2016 election result is really all about the fact that there was just enough movement in just the right places, with just enough increased turnout from just the right groups, to get Trump the electoral votes he needed to win.

Regardless. While I know from career experience advertising affects attitudes & behavior the rest, block by block, of the truth fell into place. But what make this conclusion truly horrible is … well … what do you do with that knowledge? It does no good to suggest the current president is illegitimate. None. Zero.

Look.

I am not making this up.

While others look at this in some vague “what could they do to make someone vote a certain way” I look at this from a marketing perspective where I have sat in meeting after meeting analyzing marketing campaigns and tactics to watch what levers <tactics & messages>have been pulled to get someone to do something they may not have considered doing before. Given that knowledge here were the 4 blocks which gt me there:

The first ‘block’ was, of course, when the US government warned us that 17 intelligence agencies <or 4 with others tentatively agreeing, or whatever number you want depending on your cynicism but suffice it to say the US Intelligence agencies are aligned in some form or fashion> agreed Russia was fucking within our election. They didn’t go into details but rather just said “they, they are doing this” <and did some behind the scenes stuff to deflect some things they did>.

I would also note that this is where “marketing doesn’t affect my behavior’ attitudes started digging in within the general population’s mindset … “I made my own decision” is what they say <naively I may add>.

The second ‘block’ occurred on November 6^th 2016 in an article called “Trolling for Trump: How Russia Is Trying to Destroy Our Democracy” .

——————-

… in addition to phishing and cracking attacks, these hackers are aided by honeypots, a Cold War term of art referring to an espionage operative who sexually seduced or compromised targets. Today’s honeypots may include a component of sexual appeal or attraction, but they just as often appear to be people who share a target’s political views, obscure personal hobbies, or issues related to family history. Through direct messaging or email conversations, honeypots seek to engage the target in conversations seemingly unrelated to national security or political influence.

These honeypots often appear as friends on social media sites, sending direct messages to their targets to lower their defenses through social engineering. After winning trust, honeypots have been observed taking part in a range of behaviors, including sharing content from white and gray active measures websites

Online hecklers, commonly referred to as trolls, energize Russia’s active measures. Ringleader accounts designed to look like real people push organized harassment — including threats of violence — designed to discredit or silence people who wield influence in targeted realms, such as foreign policy or the Syrian civil war. Once the organized hecklers select a target, a variety of volunteers will join in, often out of simple antisocial tendencies. Sometimes, they join in as a result of the target’s gender, religion, or ethnic background, with anti-Semitic and misogynistic trolling particularly prevalent at the moment. Our family members and colleagues have been targeted and trolled in this manner via Facebook and other social media.

Hecklers and honeypots can also overlap.

—————————–

The experts at WarontheRocks know their shit and I stored away their analysis.

The third ‘block’ occurred when a Bernie Sanders social media coordinator published a report of how he watched online trolls aggressively message against Clinton to Sanders supporters:

He <Mattes> put his expertise in unmasking fraudsters to work. At first, he suspected that the sites were created by the old Clinton haters from the ‘90s ― what Hillary Clinton had dubbed “the vast right-wing conspiracy.”

 But when Mattes started tracking down the sites’ domain registrations, the trail led to Macedonia and Albania. In mid-September, he emailed a few of his private investigator friends with a list of the sites. “Very creepy and i do not think Koch brothers,” he wrote.

Mattes and his friends didn’t know what to make of his findings. He couldn’t get his mind around the possibility that trolls overseas might be trying to sway a bunch of Southern Californians who supported Sanders’ run for president. “I may be a dark cynic and I may have been an investigative reporter for a long time, but this was too dark ― and too unbelievable and most upsetting,” he said. “What was I to do with this?”

By late October, Mattes said he’d traced 40 percent of the domain registrations for the fake news sites he saw popping up on pro-Sanders pages back to Eastern Europe. Others appeared to be based in Panama and the U.S., or were untraceable. He wondered, “Am I the only person that sees all this crap floating through these Bernie pages?”

And the final ‘block’ was an 84 page white paper issued by the cyber security firm, TrendMicro, which outlined how easy it was to implement a ‘fake news’ marketing campaign with costs & efforts taken by Russia to influence people not only in America but globally.

That did it for me.

Let me call my ‘4 blocks’ as the cornerstones of the building of proof. I am a marketing guy and an amateur behavioral studier with decades of experience and I can see a marketing campaign when there is one … and I can see when a good one is being implemented in ‘below-the-line’ tactics pushing & nudging & influencing people to do & think things … and I can see one once I have been presented the cornerstones of proof.

This is that. And this is a horrible thing to recognize.

Oddly enough … our founding fathers worried about this.

In constructing the Constitution the crafters were cognizant, and worried about, how easily people could be led, and led astray. That is why they constructed a three ‘power’ system <executive, judiciary & representative> to insure a President never had access to too much power. In some ways they assumed at some point in history American citizens would not choose wisely.

As a marketing guy I can honestly tell you that I have sat in hundreds of conference rooms viewing behavioral data pondering choice after choice people made that were reflections of “not in my best interest” … information that reflected time after time … people do not choose wisely.

While that is marketing stuff we should all remember what James Madison said … “liberties are more frequently lost by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power.” That is what the worst of worst marketing is about … making some people choose less than wisely through a gradual and silent encroachment into someone’s decision making process.

To be clear.

I think Trump is inept, incompetent and unqualified but this is not about that. This is about how Russia affected enough people’s attitudes to affect their behavior … and many of us quasi-experts, and many real experts, believe Russia conducted a marketing campaign that did just enough to affect people’s voting behavior to effectively put Trump in the oval office.

To be clear.

None of us know what to do with this understanding. This is a horrible position to be in. No one wants to suggest the current president is not legitimate and, yet, the truth is that he most likely gained his position through some shady illegitimate ways.

I almost wish I didn’t know this.

=======

“Everyone, at some point in their lives, wakes up in the middle of the night with the feeling that they are all alone in the world, and that nobody loves them now and that nobody will ever love them, and that they will never have a decent night’s sleep again and will spend their lives wandering blearily around a loveless landscape, hoping desperately that their circumstances will improve, but suspecting, in their heart of hearts, that they will remain unloved forever.

The best thing to do in these circumstances is to wake somebody else up, so that they can feel this way, too.”

–

some tumblr blogger

=====

Well.

This isn’t about living an unloved Life but it is about waking up in the middle of the night <and hopefully having someone to wake up>.

I could argue that if you believe some value in Life is found in exploring … than at some point you will be lost. In other words discovery will always encounter moments of “where the hell am I, how the hell did I get here and what the hell was I thinking?”

Unfortunately., most times you wake up with those questions ringing in your head mentally you are standing alone in a field. You just aren’t sure you can see anyone else in the field with you or maybe you feel like you have gotten too far out ahead or maybe you even feel like you made a wrong turn and that’s why there is no one else in that field.

Regardless.

It’s just you. You and your thoughts <which, in the middle of a night, tend to shape themselves into the shapes of monsters>.

And that is when you want to wake someone up. Not really to wake them up for the sake of comfort but just to see if maybe the field you are standing in is not some big mistake.

Now.

Who you wake up is tricky.

When you are young if you find the wrong person that person can encourage the wrong things even if they mean well.

When you are older, assuming you have woken the right people up when young, you have a better chance of waking the person up who has a better sense of when to say “shut the fuck up and go back to bed” or listen and say “well, how about thnk about this” or listen and say “don’t worry … other people will show up at the same field you are standing in.”

I would point out that this all revolves around discovery & exploration <and how well the person you wake up sees discovery & exploration versus how you see it>.

What I mean by that is to be successful, exploration of Life needs some reasons beyond “feels right” to not only convince the people around you but, I imagine, yourself when you wake up in the middle of the night.

As for other people?

People are far more interested in the short-term outcome of exploration than any nebulous long-term benefits and, therefore, they tend to judge your middle of the night dilemma that way.

This means for you <the wakerupper> finding the right balance of rational & emotional and short term & long term ‘who you wake up thoughtfulness’  is kind of critical to convince yourself to carve out the time in the middle of the night to explore whatever it is you want to explore … and discover what may.

Well <part 1>.

There is a shitload of vagueness in what I just wrote.

Well <part 2>.

Exploration and discovery is a vague thing.

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

“As you get older there comes a time when you’re not scared of the dark or of monsters anymore.

You realize the dark is just the dark and monsters don’t exist.

But it’s also when you become scared of other things, people themselves. You learn that not everyone wants to see you succeed. You become aware of people’s underlying intentions and selfish actions. & the monsters you used to check for under your bed at night don’t even compare to some of the things people do.”

—-

A teen

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

And maybe that is my point today.

Vagueness is a real bastard/bitch. It is for everyone. It is because vagueness’s best friend is “uncertainty.”

That said.

The prize in semi-mastering this vagueness is that it not only ends with some semi-clarity <some semi-certainty> in your exploration and discovery but it also stimulates the machine that is you and the mind to think about how to continue down the path of possibilities and discovery.

All of this is tricky because … well … the benefits, by nature, are unknown in the moment, but evidence of the benefits point to improvements and potential benefit.

Ok.

This whole thought centers around thinking and the art of thinking <in the middle of the night … which is different than thinking in the day>.

I know I have read how people can train themselves to think because while some people are natural thinkers by day, the ones who have the innate ability at birth who treat pieces of information as jigsaw puzzle pieces waiting to be put together and create something, night thinking demands a different type of thinking.

At night, typically, one piece of the puzzle demands your attention and all the other pieces seem to either not be present or are only blurs or pieces of the pieces.

So while the natural thinker, during the day, has the ability to sift through the jumbled pot of ingredients and like a Williams Sonoma colander trap the essentials and quickly let the inessential run off in the middle of the night there is typically one monster piece which is sitting there right beside you saying “let’s talk.”

Now.

Thinking has always been about bringing stuff in and letting stuff out.

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

we are cups, constantly and quietly
being filled. the trick is knowing how
to tip ourselves over and let the
beautiful stuff out.”

–

Ray Bradbury-

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

In this case I would imagine I am suggesting the monster let himself in and now you gotta figure out a way of saying … well … are you truly a monster and maybe you should stay of you are not and if you really are … how do I get you out?

And you wake someone up.

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

The Thinker – Historically we contemplated in retreat, silence, solitude, and within our own mind. We solved problems in isolation, deep thought, and through introverted reflection.

—

The contemporary Thinker – In an age of twittering, blogging, social networking, and sophisticated work-place networks, global science networks, and mass-participation and collaboration, (and TED talks ) information is exchanged via a networked world.

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

Thinking and problem solving, in the middle of the night, demands some inter-connected exchange of information that is fluid and, yet, systematic. It is kind of like you don’t really want to be stuck with this frickin’ monster staring at you in the middle of the night so you call someone up, wake them, and talk about the visitor. Its kind of like you need someone to look at your visitor thru different eyes.

Anyway.

All I really know is that part of exploration is uncertainty. And uncertainty will certainly beget waking up in the middle of the night wondering if they will spend their lives wandering blearily around a landscape, hoping desperately that their circumstances will improve, but suspecting, in their heart of hearts, that they will remain lost forever.

I am not suggesting you are actually lost … but you will feel lost.

And that is when you need someone, the right someone, to wake up.

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

“You spend your whole life stuck in the labyrinth, thinking about how you’ll escape it one day, and how awesome it will be, and imagining that future keeps you going, but you never do it.

You just use the future to escape the present.”

—

Looking for alaska; John Green

===========

I almost called this “confusing a win with simply checking a box on a to-do list.”

This is about yesterday’s American House of Representatives vote to repeal & replace Obamacare <albeit it doesn’t really repeal nor replace but rather try and fix in an absurdly negatively way>.

Anyway.

How you play the game is most likely in my top 3 important things in Life.

Anyone who reads enlightened conflict has most likely discerned this.

Yesterday we were able to gain a glimpse behind the curtain of what winning looks like in Donald J Trump’s eyes.

Do whatever it takes.

The only winner that counts is me.

As long as I can stand on the pedestal and say ‘I won’ <adding a bemused “I am president”> it is a win.

The American Healthcare system did not win yesterday.

The American citizen seeking good health and a good healthcare support system did not win yesterday.

The people who voted for a seriously flawed option did not win yesterday.

The Republicans did not win yesterday <although they may have breathed a sigh of relief in the moment for ‘having met a promise’>.

The Democrats did not win yesterday <although they may feel in some self serving way that they did>.

The only one who won was Donald J Trump <okay … health insurance companies won today … they are back on the path to returning to doing business the way they had been doing business which, as I may remind everyone, we didn’t particularly enjoy back then and they made a shitload of money>.

Back to Trump.

He gave the appearance of ‘fulfilling a promise’ by making a transaction … okay … it wasn’t a transaction because nothing was exchanged between two parties.

Let’s say he won by “checking a box.”

Yeah.

We all need to remember this moving forward with regard to Trump wins.

Winning to Trump is like checking a box on a to do list.

Came in to oval office today and had picture taken. Check. <win>

Mentioned on news today. Check. <win>

Cut some regulation <which I really have no clue of the impact> so it appears like I am “freeing up business”. check. <win>

A yes vote on something I have no clue what the impact is on people who I am responsible for. Check. <win>

I can guarantee you that he has no idea of the possible consequences of this vote <a> to Republicans in the House or <b> to people. The only consequence that matters to him is the illusion of a win.

He is the NASCAR driver who has caused 3 crashes in a race he ends up winning and claims he is the best driver … because he won.

I am constantly amazed that there were so many people on a variety of level who were resentful, angry, and unhappy enough to vote for someone who almost everyone recognized on some level is not really competent to be president as well as … well … just seems fundamentally “not quite right.”

I am constantly amazed by how easily so many people are accepting of “a hollow win” and a “hollow winner” with a seeming disregard for the fact that ‘blowing shit up’ <the country, institutions, other countries, healthcare, government> doesn’t have some consequences – some intended and some unintended.

I am constantly amazed that so many people have forgotten that how you win is significantly more important than the win in and of itself.

I am constantly amazed that there are so many people who have forgotten how rotten our healthcare system was before The Affordable Healthcare Act and how many people are blindly guiding us backwards toward what we know and hated.

I do not believe the country and the citizens are hollow but we have a president who is doing his absolute best to use his own hollowness to hollow us out.

Sigh.

As for healthcare.

I will pound away on this day in and day out until some politicians understands the economic & business view of a good healthcare system.

Maybe it would help them if they would think about what a “win” looks like.

It isn’t “accessible & affordable” <healthcare’s version of efficacy> it is a National non-Absenteeism day.

<whew … imagine if we actually had one day where everyone in America showed up for work, for class, in daycare, for whatever> and saw how productive Life, and America, could be>

A successful healthcare system from an economic point of view would be to have one day which every single worker in America showed up at work, on time, healthy and did a full day of work.

No one out sick.

No one out because someone in their family was sick and they needed to take care of them.

No parent out because they had to take care of a sick child … or maybe even take care of their child because the daycare center supervisors were sick.

No child, our future generation of workers, misses school  and class.

No one out because senior dependents, or independently living seniors related to you, are healthy and receiving services they deserve.

No one out because the additional services , which far too often are described as ‘luxuries’ or entitlements, provide a support system which not only keeps someone working but healthy and less tired <rested: which translates into higher productivity when working>.

The consistency with regard to the way we miss the importance of health to a productive, happy economic powerhouse as a country is mind numbing to me. I do not disregard the moral imperative aspects but for all we talk about, over & over, the importance of freeing up businesses and economic growth and free market … the most powerful machine, invention and tool the American economy has is the people.

Shame on everyone for not discussing this.

While I love bashing Trump for his lack of understanding of what it takes to run a business let alone a country … this is a politician issue. I have never heard one, just one, politician ever make this point. This is basic ‘running a business 101.’

Stop talking about insuring healthcare to citizens of a country as a moral imperative <although it is> and start talking about the real tangible benefits of an effective healthcare system.

I can partially excuse Donald J Trump because he has never really run a business. His only business hands on experience was construction. In his mind, and experience, when 5 construction  workers didn’t show up one day he didn’t pay them and went to Home Depot and found 5 more workers. He had no additional expense and lost no productivity.

For the rest of us in the business world when we run a 300 person company and 5 people do not show up we still pay them and we have to decide whether we invest in bringing someone in and absorb the lost productivity of ‘lost labor’, less efficient labor and the machinations of dealing with an empty resource space. We lose productivity. We lose profit. We lose every time an employee is absent in a cascading way of consequences.

Sigh.

And, to be clear about a ‘free market’ concept, in general consumers do not win within the health insurance system. To point that out I will not take the lazy route of pointing out their hefty profits and ‘making money’ but rather point out HOW they make their money. Health insurance companies make their money by selling policies combined with filling as few claims as possible <and limiting the highest of those they are required to fulfill>. This translate into selling people things they don’t need or will never use, trying to avoid offering things they don’t particularly want to fulfill claim wise and charging a premium to someone who they believe will actually file a claim <this can either be a healthy person with a profile which indicates they are a ‘claim filer’ or a less-than-healthy person who will actually have needs>.

I point that out because health insurance companies are only in the “encourage attendance in Life” business as much as it encourages the non-filing of claims … not for any real economic productivity objective.

And … I point that out so small government people can get their head out of their asses on how government involvement can actually benefit people.

It is lazy to suggest the government shouldn’t be involved in health insurance for its citizens just as it is lazy to simply say the issue with health insurance companies is their profit motivation <it is more how they make their profits>.

Regardless.

If this is winning the Trump way, I am already tired of winning.