====

“Do you admire men of principle?

That would depend, I suppose, upon what set of principles you’re speaking of.”

Well. Don’t you find that principles inject an almost moribund inflexibility in the people who subscribe to them?”

The Hollow Men

—–

I am not certain if this is a passive/aggressive thought on culture in business or simply a general thought on some of the more delusional thinking applied to business.

Regardless.

Read on.

As much as we attempt to be noble in our value statements and how we decry <insert whatever is bad about business here> and even when we attempt to be idealistic, inevitably it ends up looking like some version of a commune wherein people seemingly share in everything, yet, there are a few subverting the real desires of the many. These attempts attract a wide variety of people, but the problems arise because everything is based on “the delusional context.” Remember. A delusion is a firm, unshakeable belief in something that has no basis in reality. It is a mindset in which rational counterarguments are ineffective because there is no actual logic in the context, just some nice sounding platitudes.

In my least cynical mode, I bring this up because within the delusional context self-regulation is, well, regulation of something that has no basis in reality.

At my next level of cynicism, it is some leadership rationalization to control behaviors.

At my most cynical I would believe the delusional context is specifically constructed by a select few to sow, and create, the seductive illusion of a healthy environment of the many.

Basically, all of this cynicism suggests this is what I call heuristic design. What I mean by that is nice sounding simplistic platitudes offer the heuristics people can crowd around. From that, well, crowds are crowds. But then I find an even higher level of cynicism where I begin thinking the heuristics are used to control networks or nested systems within the organizational system. What I mean by that in the current business world 95+% of business leadership people have a sense that the basic command and control hierarchy is flawed and that organizations are some version of networked connections <some controlled in departments and some not>. As a consequence, and their feeling of loss of control, yet, desire to show some grander cohesiveness, they start plucking heuristics from a “purpose-like” deck of cards and do some ‘crowd control.’ Control, in this case, isn’t from some set of rules or even something distinctly defined, it just creates a comfortable story for the crowd to tell <each other and strangers>.

Control, in this case, is offered at arm’s length from reality so that it doesn’t take on the inevitable liabilities found in its hollow story. The delusional context is so broad that everyone, high and low, cannot reasonably avoid participating in the illusion even as the illusion creates a reality which is insanely destructive. Within most delusional contexts in business today there is incredible wealth laden within the system and, yet, economic problems abound within the organization. And this where delusional contexts get really insidious (unhealthy). Despite the supposed openness of these constructed ‘contexts’ the differentials – economic and power – between the participants remain stark, yet, many of the participants don’t notice the differentials or justify them through the delusional belief they were actually participating in self-regulation. I imagine my real point is that ordinary people within the delusional context never really gain access to the real context to make the best decisions yet have an illusionary sense of participation. Within this delusional context everyone pretends there is a debate of ideas when in fact the truly actionable ideas reside in the purview of the few.

Oh, and all the while, externally, a ‘culture’ of success is seen. Therein lies the grandest delusion – the public belief that reality matches the illusion. It’s a doom loop of delusional thinking with real world repercussions. People get fooled and business foolishly moves on.

===

“Management is about the interaction of human beings – of individual people. Whatever functions and expertise that enlarge its skills, management remains a human and social process.”

Sir Peter Parker

===

Which leads me to circle back to the ‘commune’ thought.

This type of thinking is flattening and ‘approximately’ moral and ethical, or ethical fading, because it all lacks specifics <despite some pretty posters and maybe a nifty speech or two and an overall advocacy for total sharing>. The delusional context permits everyone to wander the hallways thinking they are part of something special and all the while individual behavior is more often than not less-than-special. On a grander business scale, a ‘heuristic’ design doesn’t actually build a healthy business ideology let alone business acumen, yet, it can certainly enhance the descent. Heck. It doesn’t even offer the lily pads of ‘ethical certainty’ or maybe just some touchstones of behavior, all it does is create an illusion of ‘good’ even though day-to-day bad increases the gap between the haves and have-nots WITHIN a business.

I wrote this today because, to me, it seems like we embraced delusional contexts for fear of simply stating what we want and what we expect.

What do I mean by that? The heck with values or Purposes or, well, I don’t care, just create a no bullshit behavioral context, i.e., “we will do this.”

If we can’t do the right thing, we will do the least bad next option.

We will lose and make mistakes, do so with dignity.

Learn everything you can, all the time.

If it feels not ethical, it isn’t, and don’t do it.

Laws and rules are not meant to make decisions, if they do, you are making the wrong decision.

Accounting/finance is a strategic partner, work with them as one.

We will sacrifice some growth if growth means compromising our future belief in ourselves.

Do not balance ethical responsibility with profitability, they are not equal in value, or values, or what should be valued.

Stuff like that.

Oh.

I almost added “speak the truth”, but even that feeds into a delusional context with its lack of specificity. What I mean by that is if you truly want a behavioral ‘truth statement’ it should most likely be something like:

“Tell the truth as you know it, but, be prepared to revise your truth if someone shares new learning” <your truth is dependent upon what you know therefore truth is actually dependent upon the most information knowledge available>.

My real point is to create a behavioral context so no one is delusional and there is no ‘illusion of’ anything, just reality of what one does day in and day out. I am fully aware this belief goes counter to mindset establishes behavior. My belief is that more often than we like to admit, behavior establishes mindsets – especially in business. The trick is to tell people what to do without treating them like machines, hence, the way I articulated my behavioral construct. Its more principled behavior rather than just behavior, or, principles.

===

“Order exists because a system of beliefs and sentiments held by members of a society sets limits to what those members can do.”

James Q. Wilson wrote in The Moral Sense

===

Anyway.

Business, it seems to me, gets more and more delusional about what it is supposed to be and what it is supposed to do, which is bleeding into some fairly delusional organizational design and ‘organizational speak.’ This is running parallel to an increased emphasis on measuring, well, everything. And I imagine that is my delusional context point. If the context is delusional, and an illusion, yet, the day-to-day emphasis is a sledgehammer focus on tangible measurement, business gets the best of nothing and only the worst of most and flattens any real value creation. Yeah. That doesn’t sound good. But delusional is never good.

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

“It is always important to know when something has reached its end.  Closing circles, shutting doors, finishing chapters, it doesn’t matter what we call it; what matters is to leave in the past those moments in life that are over.”

Paulo Coelho

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

“When you start to suck, stop.”

Kristen Hersh

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

So. This is mostly about business <although, I imagine, some aspects bleed into Life>.

In business we create false endings all the time. And I mean ALL the time. Milestones, quarterly objectives, standards, etc. We do this not just because people have a tendency to work better aiming at something but also because we suck at knowing when something has naturally reached its end.

Now. I have written about stopping, or closing down, when you start sucking and how difficult that is.

Back in 2012 I said “sucking is like quicksand.  The harder you work to stop sucking the further you get sucked down into suckedness.”   A fun idea to write about, but that is different than recognizing an ‘end.’ That is simply not recognizing you have given all you can and it is all downhill from there <diminishing returns>. I have written about ‘periods’, the stop punctuation, and the art of knowing when to stop. A fun idea to write about but that is different than recognizing an ‘end’ … that is simply about not recognizing when you should shut up.

This post is about knowing, and I mean really knowing. when something has reached its end. Knowing that it is time to close, close up … and move on.

Uhm. This is hard. Really hard.

And, speaking for myself and how I think philosophically, I know I make it even harder. I once wrote about running through the end of project, I called it “riding to the buzzer.” Riding through things you are working on makes it a little more difficult to recognize whether you ran through a milestone or through its natural end. I say that because here is where a natural end truly becomes sneaky. 99% of the time it doesn’t appear as some brick wall or solid stop.

Sure. ‘The end’ most likely does have a stop sign around if you pay attention. More often than not any sign there is, is most likely covered up by some overgrown bushes which have never been trimmed. It seems a little strange because one would think we business people would be better at seeing ends and when to close up on something and move on. I mean, what the hell, business is strewn with milestones, objectives, deadlines and a slew of ‘people created’ ending points. Yet, most business people suck at the really important ability to know when something has reached its end.

We are not particularly good at it with regard to a company <uhm … companies actually do have life spans>.

We are not particularly good at it with regard to employee initiatives <once in place we have a nasty habit of thinking it should be an ongoing ‘organizational culture tool’ which enables consistent behavior>.

We are not particularly good at it with regard to existing products & services <what happens when there is actually something better to be offered?>.

We are not particularly good at it with regard to sales objectives <what happens when our stated audience is … uh oh … sated?>.

In fact. What we are particularly good at is getting whatever it is that we want done into a “doing” mode and then developing a whole slew of ways to nudge it down the road. I imagine if I stick with that metaphor I could suggest we suck at not seeing any stop signs because we are too focused on nudging and tweaking the engine and replacing shoes so people can keep walking down that road. But ‘being over’?

Whew. We hold on way beyond the sell date. Everyone does <me included>. It is natural.

=========== 

Letting go. Everyone talks about it like it’s the easiest thing. Unfurl your fingers one by one until your hand is open. But my hand has been clenched into a fist for three years now; it’s frozen shut.

All of me is frozen shut. And about to shut down completely.

Gayle Forman 

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

It is natural because of the dreaded “what’s next?”

Yeah. In order to acknowledge an end, to close up shop and move on, you have to know what’s next. And not only that … you kind of have to already have a plan in place or at least a road to bus everyone over to where they can get off and start walking. Maybe that is where we business folk suck the most. It’s not that we don’t know when to stop we just don’t know how to start again. Start anew.

About the only time we are actually good at it is within a ‘forced end.’ As in … we have no choice.

As I typed that I thought about, well, a different kind of business — the business of having a band and the arrival of the Foo Fighters after the death of Kurt Cobain:

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

“There were people that really resented me for starting this band. ‘How dare you start another band?’   They asked me ‘Why did you decide to carry on and make music that sounds like Nirvana?’ and I said well, wait a minute – like, loud rock guitars, and melodies, and cymbals crashing and big-ass drums?

‘Cause that’s what I do. What do you want me to do? Make a reggae record?”

Dave Grohl

<Foo Fighters>

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

When viewing the music industry and bands and individual artist you can find a lot of examples of forced ‘doing what needs to be done and moving on’ as well as ‘well, it is time to move on’ type endings <we business people should think about that a little>. When forced, talented business people do what needs to be done.

Unfortunately most of business doesn’t really create this kind of ‘forced decision.’ Most times we simply try and squeeze whatever we can out of whatever we have. And we squeeze until there is nothing left <way beyond the ‘end’>.

Ok. What to do. This is solvable and relatively easy in the scheme of things.

It is a version of ‘planned obsoletion’ <which I have always been a HUGE fan of in business>, but your senior management team needs to sit down on occasion and not do ‘blue sky thinking’, but hunker down like a military plan of action and say “we won this ground and what ground do we attack next.” This includes an attitude which says we will aggressively pursue that plan <so it is not just a plan but a plan of action>.

Far too often we look at the ground we have won and seek to consolidate it and, well, consolidate it. Squeeze and squeeze and squeeze. And, on occasion, we fool ourselves into thinking we are truly exploring ‘what’s next’ by saying ‘let’s take that hill just outside of the area we currently occupy.’ We make it sound like some massive effort that will refresh us. Instead we are investing significant resources on a less than significant objective. I am certainly not suggesting that incrementalism does not have a role in business strategy but rather we far too often use incrementalism to ignore the stop sign we just walked past. I am not a big SWOT analysis guy nor am I a big ‘white space’ business guy. I am more a pragmatic “this is who I am and this is what I am good at and I don’t care who I may compete against or what they may be currently doing I believe ‘these x’ people will like what I have to offer and I am going to go get it” business guy.

In a growth situation <which, by the way, I tend to believe any healthy organization should always be in> you should be seeking to grow. To expand. To think of ‘saturation’ as a swear word. To always be thinking about how to shake-the-etch-a-sketch so that stagnancy <in sales, attitude, behavior, thinking> never sets in.

To be clear. Sure. I believe you should always talk with your innovations/new product pipeline people because they may have some new widget up their sleeve you can go and expand your business with but, more often, you will be successful by looking at what you have now and finding new ground to attack with that. I have found your new widgets just have a tendency to cement the ground you have already won more often than not. Keeping with the military analogy I often tell businesses to think of their business modeling with an ‘occupation force’ team with a separate “attacking army” team mindset. Especially if you are in a growing category you almost have to have a “win this ground and move on” attitude or you can get stuck in a grind-it-out business war.

Regardless. It is important to know when something has reached an end. If only because it permits us business folk to close it off, leave it behind, not invest more energy squeezing something that has really ended <even though we do not want to admit it> and move on to the next chapter of our business life.

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

“Do not fear to lose what needs to be lost.”

Sue Monk Kidd

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

“Better to write for yourself and have no public, than to write for the public and have no self.”

Cyril Connolly

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

So.

If you write, your biggest desire is to be read.

If you write, your biggest fear is to be read.

You want to write things that matter, but to do so you have to not only take a distinct stand but you also have to inject some of your own distinctness. While you feel best when you put things down on paper that meet that criteria, it is this that which leads to your biggest fear — it will be read. Because that is judgement time.

Writing is wandering the ragged diagonal between duty and desire.

Regardless.

I guess in some way we, who write, want people to be pleased, and to pay attention. You wouldn’t be human to not want this in some form or fashion.

That said. Primarily, maybe what is most important is, as long as you write for yourself and can be pleased by what you write and say you have spoken your mind, well, you are ahead of the game.

Secondarily, if at some point you entertain someone else and happen to stumble across the truth to share and someone sees it, well, consider yourself lucky — it was a good day.

I’ve written over 2500 pieces. I’d be lying if I didn’t say not every day was a good day. That said. The good days are really really good. And that’s why you write.

 ================

“To every rule there is an exception—and an idiot ready to demonstrate it. “

Vera Nazarian

==

“Any fool can make a rule. And any fool will mind it.”

Henry David Thoreau

==

Everyone, and I mean everyone, is tempted to break a rule or two. This includes even a normal <or quasi sensible> person. As I noted in my ‘pirate post’ the sane people in business get frustrated with not getting shit done and is tempted to become a pirate <raise the black flag> and kill <hopefully not literally> conformity, the status quo and those things that may dull the edges in business <and life>.

“Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”

H.L. Mencken

For today let’s call the well intended rule breakers <not the amoral actors> rebels. All businesses need a rebel or two.  Why? Rules encourage compromise and rebels hate compromising.

Rebels cannot.  It is about winning on their terms or losing on their terms – ‘terms’ most typically defined in a simple “do what is right’ mentality.

To be clear.

I am not suggesting cheating.

I am not suggesting lying.

I am not suggesting anything nefarious.

I am simply suggesting that some rules may need to be sacrificed, or adjusted, in order to do what is right. And sometimes it is a truth that there is a better, if not actually best, way of doing something. That said. This is where businesses run into some problems.

Business is a contradiction with regard to rules.

Business loves construct and process and best practices and ‘how people should do things’ and loves defining “how this company plays by the rules” <literally outlining rules> and, yet, they want people to think freely for themselves. Business actually thrives on people who don’t simply follow rules like a sheep, but rather look at rules with a discerning eye of ‘stupid or smart.’

Ah. Smart.

Smart people don’t encourage breaking rules. Smart people encourage breaking stupid rules.

Smart people don’t break rules for the sake of breaking rules. Smart people assess rules and break them when appropriate.

Look.

Being a rebel is tough mainly because there are some wacky rule definitions scattered throughout businesses. I do believe you can encourage individualism <rebellion> in some other way than ‘the world is full of rules. Be the exception.’ No. I KNOW you can encourage individualism and ‘smart behavior choice even in the face of rules.’

Valuing some sense of order thru rules, and personal accountability toward rules, is kind of what makes civilization run. Same with business. Smart rule breakers respect rules because they do offer order, but recognize stupid rules as order for order sake.

Look <part 1>.

Some rules are good. And rules intended to keep people safe <even if it is a stupid rule> and a business from running into a ditch is good. Telling a person that it is good to break the rules, no matter how seemingly small or stupid, is a bad lesson. Rebels need a discerning eye.

Look <part 2>.

Beyond society, in business I know breaking stupid rules is sometimes necessary to get things done. Excellent effective leadership actually seems to come with an unwritten responsibility to cut through rules that act as barriers to achieving what needs to be done <for the overall betterment of the organization>. I could argue that truly great leaders get where they are because they can do exactly that, legally of course, when the rules tell us otherwise.

Some people call this cutting through the red tape. I call it the ability to weave your way thru the organizational bullshit and get shit done. I can guarantee that if you look throughout any successful organization you will always find some ‘smart’ rule breakers who work diligently to overcome or circumvent the rules, regulations, and policies that unintentionally hinder progress and make it difficult to accomplish shit that needs to be done.

Anyway.

Business isn’t always a Dilbert scene and business SHOULDN’T always translate into some simplistic perspective. In organizations there is certainly individual responsibility, in behavior & decision making, but there is also a relationship with the greater good & greater organism. A person may actually be one of those professional ‘break stupid rules smartly’ people, but ‘managing’ people takes a different skill.

Uh oh.

I think I just suggested two sets of behavior rules.

Anyway.

Here is what I know about the art of breaking stupid rules: independence.

Independence in terms of viewing rules smartly, independent thinking, independent accountability and, well, a dependence upon others to independently agree that this is one of those situations in which there is a stupid rule creating an obstacle to doing the right thing.

I would suggest that great business leaders who embrace independence as an organizational concept are often like the great frigate captains of the old British navy <who were kind of like rebels within a larger organization>. They showcased an ability to effectively participate in the larger organizational activities when required and an ability to be effective taking off on independent campaigns.

I would say that if you do want Independence, well, you do have to be smart about it. Once again:

Smart people don’t encourage breaking rules. Smart people encourage breaking stupid rules. Smart people don’t break rules for the sake of breaking rules. Smart people assess rules and break them when appropriate

One last thing on the ‘smart’ aspect.

This is not intuition or instincts. This is rational, logically driven behavior. Intuition means different things to different people, but suffice it to say it is a horrible way to consistently manage a business & make business decisions. Intuition reflects biased views <usually based on personal experience>. Balancing logic & experience & speed & instincts is an incredibly tricky balancing act, but that balance is often the formula for success if you want to break a stupid rule with independent thinking.

All that said.

99% of the time rules are in place for a reason. Someone thought it made sense and offered some value. I say that to remind all the rebels out there you need to “step in” to a rule, understand it, untangle the stupid part, identify what guidelines are meaningful and then envision not only what you need to do <in breaking the stupid rule>, but also envision the consequences.

Hey. I didn’t say it is easy being a rebel. Rules, even stupid ones, should take some work before you break them. The best rebels do the work to insure breaking a rule offers real value <in other words, breaking this rule was valuable disobedience to the construct>. Ponder.

=========

“To be in a state of self-control, a person must know: what he/she is supposed to do, what he [or she] is actually doing, what choices he/she has to improve results wherever necessary. If any of these three conditions are not met, a person cannot be held responsible.”

JM Juran

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

“As automation and artificial intelligence increasingly replace algorithmic and analytical tasks, the economy of The Conceptual Age will favour workers adept in areas that favour creativity, empathy and meaning (‘human’ concepts that are otherwise difficult to replicate by machine).”

Dr Jason Fox

=========

There is a lot of bullshit being written about “The 4^th Industrial Revolution” tying it to technology, renewed business moral awareness, inequality, automation, whatever. I wrote this, and that last sentence, in 2018 and still believe it. I hate labels and I hate trying to attach change to anything specific when it is more likely a confluence of factors.  I will say whatever is happening feels like a seismic shift in business ideology. That said. Whenever I scribble something about the Future of Business I keep coming back to Dr Jason Fox’s Conceptual Age idea he discussed with Mike Walsh in a podcast.

It seems to be the axis mundi for, well, everything we talk about. Purpose, distributed leadership organizational models, data/digital, thinking, innovation, etc.

Well crafted conceptual thinking.

In about 2010 I first wrote about something called “deconstruction thinking” wherein I suggested the future business model will reflect more of a “do, deconstruct & re-do” mentality. At the core of a successful deconstruction thinking model is the ability to think conceptually or in terms of concepts not rigid constructs. It was kind of a bastardized  mosh pit of scenario planning, ‘teal’, Toffler ‘polymalleable organizations’ and a desire to see effectiveness emphasized over efficiency.

I believe at the core of any future success is the coalescing of prioritized fragments into a conceptual whole in a timely fashion. This will demand not only critical thinking, but also the ability to envision how that thinking can exist in a future state.

Simplistically, concepts are about networked value creation which can occur structurally or transactionally.

Structural conceptual thinking, implemented as networked value creation, is not that difficult and has been done for decades.

Transactional conceptual thinking, combined with the actual networked value creation, is hard – very difficult. It’s about envisioning opportunities/issues, envisioning resources/ideas/abilities and envisioning how to put it into action. In other words, its difficult.

I continue to believe the future of business (in any industry) will lie in the hands of people who can not only envision THE work (present & future) as concepts in combination with the ability to articulate it in ways that make it tangible enough to be understood and acted upon (this, generally, is an idea Dr. Jason Fox has discussed).

This will demand one to embrace paradox & contradictions and dismiss either/or choices as too simplistic in a more complex conceptual world of thinking. No one should confuse this with speed or ‘faster world.’ It’s not. It is simply about moving parts of which some move fast, some tectonically slow and the majority somewhere in between.

It will take a combination of accessing ‘black box’ output (which demands some level of trust & learning) and judgement and embracing a conceptual framework of synthesizing paradoxical tensions.

The new decision making Concept world, one enabled by technology and the ‘black boxes’ of knowledge computers offer in terms of knowledge, is ultimately a deconstructive thinking world. A world in which it is understood that a stimulus can create desired, and sometimes undesired, responses, and consequences, and success is often more based on reacting & adapting to an initial stimulus than perfecting the initial stimulus. This demands conceptual thinking both to construct a plan of action as well as being able to ‘deconstruct’ and adapt as plans get implemented.

I would argue that over time the black box thinking <the intangible and vague ‘knowing’> becomes more tangible as well as we gain more faith in certain black box thinking applications. Given that belief I would also argue that Concepts, which outlines are vaguer in the beginning, gain substance & tangibleness over time.

I would also point out there is an inherent ‘human’ aspect to this idea.

Even with all the technology noise there is a persistently human future of work looming over the entire conversation. Computers are just not capable of empathy, curiosity & imagination which are the cornerstones to effectiveness. If I were to label the next age I would steal Jason Fox’s “Conceptual Age” more than just Human, or Technology, or IOT or even digital.

Oddly, the biggest challenge to thinking conceptually is NOT ability, but rather efficiency.

What do i mean by that?

The paradox is that business has a need for quality information more than ever, yet, quality information, in the form of data or minds, is readily available if we can sift through what is available. Therefore, theoretically, concepts exist they simply need to be crafted. Which leads me to what Dr. Jason Fox said:  “I worry about the curse of efficiency.” Once again, paradoxically, the conceptual age is all about the effective use of time. That may sound very similar to efficiency and therein lies the greatest enemy of the Conceptual Age.

How people view time. Efficient time or effective time or a greater “efficacy of time.”

The world has, does and will revolve around ideas. Technology will simply distribute, analyze and amplify ideas. In this case, concepts. This may paradoxically seem both time efficient and time inefficient. In other words, we will get the pieces of the concept faster and faster and, yet, coalescing the appropriate pieces into a meaningful concept will take longer & longer.

Will we be patient enough for the Conceptual Age? Regardless. I continue to believe there is a bigger idea found in just the idea of The Conceptual Age. One which captures the nexus of technology & humans & meaning.

What may help us in our Time war is that, conceptually, concept thinking is motivating. Its action in thinking. Instead of linear problem solving it is more like gathering disparate puzzle pieces and arranging them into a cohesive, or coherent, shape. We may be motivated to concept (think) slower.

The challenge to the Conceptual Age (beyond time).

Concepts, at their core, embrace tension or a paradox (not a dilemma). While a dilemma forces an either/or a paradox, and a concept, synergizes all components of tension into an idea/action/product/plan.

The trouble is when organizations are faced with these competing demands, they often tend to choose one or the other, compromise between them, or attempt to reconcile them. This happens for many reasons, but I would suggest the overriding reason is that business people constantly attempt to simplify a complex reality. Most of us embrace it because, well, people have a general tendency to see the world in black and white terms, which is a false dichotomy (Scandinavian Journal of Management).

Even trickier (worse) when you consider what John Dewey said: “there is no such thing as a final settlement because every settlement introduces the conditions of some degree of a new unsettling.” Concepts are never settled. They are always evolving.

————–

“Sureness will always elude you. The detective will always circle around what he wants, never seeing it whole.  We do not go on despite this. We go on because of it.”

Sara Gran

—————

The Conceptual Age.

The best way I can visualize the Conceptual Age is by leveraging the Swiss Cheese Model , but for concepts and not crisis/accidents.

The Swiss Cheese model highlights accidents occur when hazards align. In my mind, conversely, the optimal concepts can be found when an alignment of ‘organizational depth moving pieces ‘(aspects of business are constantly in motion but at different speeds – fast, medium fast, medium slow, slow & unmoving) is recognized , articulated and acted upon.

Conceptual thinking comes in all sizes (venti, tall, grande), but I will suggest the largest value segments:

Structural

Or

Transactional

———————

Pillars

Or

Opportunistic

The ability to discern these concepts in a timely, actionable framework AND be able to articulate in a way to assemble resources to take advantage may turn out to be the most valuable human resource a business may have. I call it ‘resource’ because it is quite possible in the future this is a human/technology combination. Technology assessing, sifting thru, “information cues” (this does not have to just be data) and highlighting probabilities as they arise with human judgment/assessment of organizational capabilities (mustering resources is accessing mental resources as well as tangible resources). In other words, articulating the varying concepts, defining the definitions, affect the way competing demands are described and how the resulting tensions are dealt with.

Lastly.

The effect on ‘knowledge workers’ and managers. Whenever we speak of ‘thinking conceptually’ there is a belief this is for the ‘intellectual elite’ (the eggheads). It is not. It will affect everyone and it should, if properly embraced, affect everyone in a business.

1. I disagree with many future of work experts. I don’t believe managers will become obsolete in world of automation/AI. Managers are the connective tissue in organizations. In fact. I see managers as integral to any transformation from efficiency to effectiveness. I actually see them as the cornerstone of the Conceptual Age.
2. All jobs will be reshaped by technology and all jobs will play a role in the Conceptual Age (Mike Walsh: design work).
   

In the end.

The Conceptual Age has emerged from not only the emergence of technology in business, but also the challenges to conventional wisdom from science, philosophy and knowledge. I would suggest people, mindful of the of the overarching issues with business (lack of moral leadership, hierarchy control limitations, diminished meaning and engagement in tasks and work) and aided by the easy movement of ideas created by technology, in a larger narrative, the Conceptual Age is seeking a new understanding of a human-centric world. The Conceptual Age will be a cornucopia of ideas, some of them contradictory, but will be defined by reason, conceptual thinking and, inevitably, how those concepts inspire progress.

I do believe The Conceptual Age is going to be an equal opportunity employer. And I think Concepts are the products with the highest value in the future. To me, this is the future of business. Ponder.

===

originally written Fall of 2018

=====

Everyone was born with a limited amount of fucks to give.

During your teenage years you give a ton and slowly give less and less from there.

just shower thoughts

=====

When I saw this quote had to sit back and think.

Why?

Because I could read it two ways.

First.

As you get older you just get worn down and just stop giving a fuck about a lot of things.

Second.

As you get older you learn that not everything deserves ‘giving a fuck’ and you give less, but, you should give more of a fuck when you do.

I pondered this a little.

And then I got curious and found that if you type “give a fuck” in google search you will get about 4,610,000 results (0.38 seconds), but … here is the interesting thing  … you get page after page on ‘philosophy <or ‘the art’> of not giving a fuck.’

Basically the internet is strewn with articles and advice on how to not give a fuck. How crazy is that? It is almost like the google world is attempting to offer some extraordinary justification for being indifferent, to actually practice being indifferent, which, in my mind, is maybe a different slant on how to be a complete moron.

I mean, c’mon, if we really only have a limited amount of fucks to give, well, wouldn’t you expect some really good advice on how to prioritize and parse them out? I say that because it seems like we could all use some good advice with regard to knowing when to give a fuck and when not to give a fuck.

I will say one thing about giving a fuck. Caring about shit is the essence of Life.

Ok. Maybe two things.

Caring and actively engaging in shit is the essence of Life <I actually called it RSVP and Life once>.

But. The moment you become indifferent, the moment you just don’t give a fuck, well, there is no Life. There is no heartbeat. Life is dead.

I am certainly not going to suggest you care about everything. I will not because I agree that we do not have an unlimited amount of fucks to give. But it just doesn’t make sense to not care.

Now. Life does a fairly good job of suggesting not giving a fuck is a much easier way of living Life.

Life is full of a lot of shit we don’t understand.

Life is full of a lot of things that just do not seem to make sense.

Life is full of a lot of things that just doesn’t seem logical.

Life is full of a lot of things that seem different than what you want or think about.

Life is full of a lot of questions and a lot fewer answers than we want.

Life is full of a lot of answers that don’t really solve anything.

Life is full of a lot of things that make you scratch your head and say “I never understood why.”

All of those things seem like “slow” as in “a lot of shit that will slow me down from getting to where I want to go and getting what I want to get.”

I imagine after reading that list and my last sentence many people may think “then why give a fuck.”

Well. Because none of those things make Life any ‘less’ or any less meaningful. They just make it a little less certain. They just make things a little more risky. They just make it all a little less straightforward.

In fact I could suggest that almost all Life throws at you could fall into the “WTF category”. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t give a fuck.

Anyway. I agree with the opening quote. I don’t believe we have an unlimited amount of fucks to give. That doesn’t mean we only have one or two just that they are not unlimited.

But that doesn’t mean you should embrace the thought “well, I have no more fucks to give … so … I just don’t give a fuck about anything anymore.” Nor should it mean you should start seeking opportunities to not give a fuck under the belief it will help you get what you want and where you want to be faster.

Look. Here is what I know about giving a fuck.

If you give enough of a fuck about your life, and trust it to give a fuck about you on occasion, well, a fuck of a lot of good things can happen if you just fucking go out and work hard. Ponder.

—-

==

“There are times in life when people must know when not to let go.

Balloons are designed to teach small children this.”

Terry Pratchett

————–

Well. I have written about how difficult it is for people, in business & Life, to let go of things so much I am not sure I can find any new words to share on that topic.

In fact if you google “reasons to not let go” you get nothing. Nada. You get jack shit on the topic.

All you get is page after page of ‘reasons to let go.’

And, yet, there are certainly times to know when to not let go.

To be clear, a purposeful ‘not let go’ is a different difficulty for us. While not letting go is something that is mostly based on some version of fear or doubt, knowing when to not let go of something seems to be more about our difficulty in discerning what is important, or good, and what is unimportant, or bad.

In fact. I think part of the ‘not letting go’ difficulty resides in how we learned to hold on in childhood <the balloon thing>.

We learn very early on that when you let go of something good it floats away never to be seen again. So we have learned to hold on a tightly as possible to anything that could be construed as good <note: even if it is really a crappy balloon>.

We have become so good at it we are almost proud of not letting go. Therefore the problem isn’t our ability to actually hold on … it is choosing what to really not let go of.

Not letting go is a complex decision compounded by the fact we are complex people.

Why does the complexity matter? Because there is no formula. No ‘rules of not letting go.’

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Some things are obvious. The self stuff, the character stuff, the ‘who you are as a person’ stuff you don’t let go of. They are good balloons. But if you are not careful, after a while, you have so many balloons you can’t discern the good ones from the bad ones. Which leads me to suggest I sometimes believe the ‘what not to let go’ choice is an acquired intuition thing.

Yup. I just typed acquired and intuition side by side.

I like to remind people that you are not borne with good intuition. You may be borne with a good intuition muscle, but experience strengthens the muscle and it takes some time & experience to ‘acquire’ the intuition necessary to ‘not let go’ of the right things.

Regardless. I suggest intuition because unless one of the balloons has lost all its air and has sunk to the ground you are choosing amongst a shitload of balloons that maybe all look pretty good to you.

This may sound crazy because balloons float above you and should seem obvious at all times, but the connections to many of the balloons in your life are actually like links of a chain underwater.

==

“The moment of truth, the sudden emergence of a new insight, is an act of intuition.

Such intuitions give the appearance of miraculous flushes, or short-circuits of reasoning. In fact they may be likened to an immersed chain, of which only the beginning and the end are visible above the surface of consciousness.

The diver vanishes at one end of the chain and comes up at the other end, guided by invisible links.”

Arthur Koestler

==

You see the balloons. Okay. You see some of them.

But the strings get all tangled up and you cannot tell which string to let go of <because you are not sure which balloon will go away> and which one to hold on to. Some of the choices you make as you look at the strings are intuitive. And given some time and experience I imagine the string feels a little different in your hand as you pluck it out from all the others. That is this version of intuition.

So. One of the things I admire most in people is consistent great intuition and how they manage what to not let go of.

It is an interesting characteristic to assess when you meet people and is fairly easy because you can just look up and see the balloons they carry with them.

So, in the end, maybe the balloon metaphor is bad, or maybe I simply overused it, but suffice it to say that while there is a lot of free advice on ‘letting go’, there isn’t a whole shitload of advice on ‘what to not let go of.’

I think it is obvious that there are certainly some ‘be yourself’ characteristics that you should never let go of <although figuring out what to not let go of as you try and improve yourself is not easy either>.
What is less obvious is the other stuff in your life. Experiences, knowledge, even people.

I don’t have any answers today. Just questions. And maybe some prompting that this is something we should think about a little more.

Most letting go advice online is vapid and a waste of time <albeit with good intent>.

I don’t have any advice for ‘not let go’ other than think about it. We all learn to hold on to balloons because they represent freedom and hope and good things waiting above us. Paradoxically, despite the fact it may appear like they should be let free so we can benefit from them, it is actually those that should be the things we hold on to and not let go of. Ponder.

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

“Its much more important to be interested than to be interesting“

Jane Fonda.

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

Let me begin by saying Jane Fonda has been irrelevant to me my entire life. Okay.  Maybe better said she has been on the periphery of what I truly care about.

Let me begin by saying I have bashed celebrities as much and as often as anyone for semi-stupid involvement in things they do not seem particularly knowledgeable about.

That said.

I read this quote and all of a sudden she became relevant to me.  She said something that not only made sense, but was also thought provoking. And that was big in my relationship with good ole Jane. Shit. It was big in my relationship with celebrities overall.

To be clear.

Have I always agreed with what she has said or done throughout her life? Nope.

Have I always agreed with what anyone has said or done throughout their Life? Nope.

But when Jane Fonda says something like this, well, I admit I think about what I think about celebrities who get involved. And rethink her actions. And rethink her words. And absolutely sit back and rethink, in general, about anyone in the public <celebrity like> and their actions & words.

Because I admit.

It typically drives me a little nuts when some celebrity makes a big stink about something – and it feels naïve and slightly out of touch. But with this quote from Jane it really made me rethink a lot of things. And a lot of thoughts I have had about celebrities and maybe all of the seemingly naïve things I have heard and just shook my head over.

Why do I invest any energy rethinking?

Well … they were interested.

Take a moment and ponder that <and even compare it to your own life and involvement>. They took time out of their wacky world and paid attention to something and said something.

Does it sometimes seem misdirected and maybe slightly out of touch to every day people and our lives?  Absolutely.

But. Maybe it shouldn’t be judged that way. Maybe it should be better judged in that they were interested.

That is Jane’s point. And it is a fucking good point.

For, like it or not, they said or did something.  It may have been odd or good or misdirected or right on target, but it doesn’t really matter in the end as I think about it because they chose to do something.

They have a podium <I believe all celebrities in their heart of hearts know that>. They stood up. They spoke out. And they chose to get involved. Shit. They were interested. And they did so knowing full well a shitload of people will scoff, a shitload of people will give them shit and a shitload of people would disregard what they said as “out of touch.”

That said. Jane really made me think. Really think.

“They were interested.”

You know something?.

It makes me begin thinking maybe I was the naïve one. That I was the one who had the wrong perspective. That maybe I have been missing the real point all along.

Why do I say that?

Well.

Don’t I continuously suggest people should step up for what they care about? <Yup>. So why should I think differently about this simply because some person does something for a living? <I shouldn’t>.

It is better to be interested than interesting.

That, my friends, is a big thought. And, yeah, I have elected to ignore the whole listening and selflessness aspect of that quote to focus on “stepping up” because that is the truly enlightening part. Because in the end it comes down to several things.

Jane has always been a lightning rod for issues.

And, admittedly, some people are more so than others and some of them are more comfortable being so than others.

And we may disagree with them.

And we may think they are misguided idiots.

But <and this is a BIG but>.

We should all recognize that no matter what … that they are interested.

Interested in ‘whatever.’

And you know what? That counts for something.

And, in fact, I think it counts for a lot.

Ponder.

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

“Normality is a paved road: It’s comfortable to walk, but no flowers grow on it.”

Vincent van Gogh

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

mener une vie normale <French>

to lead a normal life

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

Benjamin Franklin:

“Human happiness comes not from infrequent pieces of good fortune, but from the small improvements to daily life.”

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

“When inspiration does not come to me, I go halfway to meet it.”

Sigmund Freud

===========

Well.

Let’s just say “normal” gets a really bad rap. It constantly has to fight off “boring” and “same as” and “routine” and … well … let’s just say a shitload of ‘not-so-positive’ sounding words.

I mean, c’mon, is normal really that frickin’ bad?

And what hell is ‘normal’, as in a normal life, anyway?

Anyway. I imagine, as with most things in Life, normal is about balance or ‘proportional’.

Yeah, yeah, yeah … I know a shitload of people will suggest that ‘normal’ is defined by the individual and how they view life but, in general, at one end of the  ‘how to live your life’ spectrum is wacko eccentric person and the other end is bland-milquetoast-boring-to-tears person.

Most of us reside somewhere in the middle of all that. As a corollary to that thought, and tying it to proportional. I would say most of us have individual aspects which reside very very close to both ends of the spectrum WITHIN every day and all we do. In other words, we do thousands of things on a daily basis and some are purposefully bland and some are delightfully spontaneously absurd. Its that mixture which makes us who we are.

Anyway. I tend to believe the problem is in how we most often have this discussion.

When we talk about living a ‘normal’ life it almost seems destined for some boredom and certainly when you decide to sit back with some self-reflection, uhm …, it will most likely be generously dipped in some disappointment. Then, on the other hand, it seems like a choice to live an ‘anything but normal’ life it almost seems destined for some sanity challenges and certainly some self-reflection generously dipped in some discouragement.

Yikes. So your choice is either disappointment or discouragement.

Look. None of us really want to be normal all the time. We want to spice it up a little and maybe do something not so normal for us <albeit, it could be fairly tame, or absurdly reckless, in other people’s eyes>. It is that little choice to ‘step away from what we normally do and think’ that kind of gets us in trouble.

Why? Because most times we ‘step away’ by ‘being spontaneous.’

<note: spontaneous has a dubious relationship with ‘something different than the normal’>

Whew. Truth be told spontaneity sounds awesome <in concept>, but more often than not disappointing. Not many people point this out but spontaneity actually sucks because anything “abnormal” or “not normal” is a great concept, but has a nasty habit of creating more problems than it is worth.

Truth be told routines <which is a characteristic of ‘normal life’> do a shitload to help establish our day-to-day ‘normal’ with a nice side benefit that it encourages us to believe we do have some self-discipline  <because the alternative is that we start thinking we live a completely chaotic undisciplined life>.

Yeah. a lot of these routines look really minor and really mundane if you sit down and think them through.

My advice? Don’t. Don’t think them through. Just let them occur as naturally as breathing because these stupid little things tend to create a larger sense of rhythm or normalcy in your life. And, yeah, even eccentric nutjobs incorporate some ‘normal’ routines in their daily Life.

But here is where proportionality enters the discussion because we want both <although in today’s world it seems like there is no in between>.

It may seem weird, but I tend to believe no one’s sole ambition in Life is to be viewed solely as ‘normal.’ And, yet, we can live a pretty frickin’ good Life ‘normally.’ In fact. Our normal most likely incorporates some fairly ‘abnormal’, or let’s call them ‘unique features’, aspects. Most of us actually incorporate some unique shit into our lives which are simply reflections of our personality uniqueness. But because they are extensions of who we are we overlook them as being ‘normal.’

Let’s face it.

Normal has a shitty reputation.

And it should not.

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

“I don’t really want to become normal, average, standard. I want merely to gain in strength, in the courage to live out my life more fully, enjoy more, experience more.

I want to develop even more original and more unconventional traits.”

Anaïs Nin

===========

This isn’t about ‘fitting in’ or some rigid code of conduct or even seeking approval in what you do. This is about doing shit that makes you happy assuming ‘happy’ means you haven’t been:

<a> laughed at as a fool – just laughed at for having fun,

<b> stared at as if you belong in some loony bin – just stared at because they know you are enjoying yourself , or

<c> doing something insanely stupid just to gain some attention.

Yeah. Sometimes the shit you do may be out of the mainstream, but 99% of the time it is not unacceptable to everyone. It is just is not the normal everyday 100% of the time shit people see or hear.

Whether you like it or not, suggesting ‘normal’ is completely self defined is … well … stupid.

Yes. You should have your own way of seeing the world and the life you’re living.

Yes. You should feel it is normal <as long as it is not a ‘statement’ but rather an natural extension of your ‘self’>.

Yes. You should accept the idea that other people may feel differently about your version of normal.

All that said here is where I think normal and abnormal go into conflict.

Yes. You should understand that normal is actually defined by some standard operating procedures of the people, society & culture as a whole.

And, no, I am not suggesting some of the wacky crap society thrusts upon an individual <society tells me how I should be stuff> but rather the fact cultures, civilizations in a broader perspective, define some accepted rules of behavior – some “what I should do” stuff.

Let’s call them ‘core life action basics.’ These are some normal things which everyone should do and think in a normal day and a normal life.

Here is the good news for people who balk at ‘normal.’

The great thing about culture is it tends to give an individual a lot of room to expand upon these things. You can go about your life wearing whatever clothes you want and saying a bunch of different words as personal expression beyond the core. I call that ‘window dressing stuff.’ In other words I can dress up my core ‘normality crap’ in pretty much anything I want and express it with almost any words I want. The trouble mostly revolves around the fact that some individuals infringe upon the core, change the core and sometimes do things which do not meet what most people would accepts as accepted normal behavior.

Here is not just a Life truth but a civilization truth: a culture cannot permit that ‘abnormal normal’ to become normalized. While we often suggest it takes courage to express yourself in some ‘not-so-normal’ ways it actually takes even more courage to defend core normality.

=========

“My darling girl, when are you going to realize that being normal is not necessarily a virtue? It rather denotes a lack of courage.”

Practical Magic

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

Anyway. When it comes to this topic the bravest people in the world are not the ones who stand out through self-expression of self-identity, even if that identity is ‘not the normal’, but rather the people who unflinchingly defend normal core beliefs & behaviors and unflinchingly express it in whatever personal identity way they want.

Far too often we slot people on one side or the other where, in truth, we should be also slotting people into that third more significant very broad <or it should be broad> slot.

I imagine the problem with that is that those people are not interesting enough to make splashy headlines nor are they boring enough to be masticated for being milquetoast. And, yet, they were the bravest of us all. They chose to be normal & not-so-normal and fought relentlessly for both. Normal may be a paved road, but it still can be a really interesting road.

Ponder. Ponder being normal and celebrating it.

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

just-shower-thoughts:

On my headstone, I think I want, “No one deserved death more.” That way, people will research my life and find nothing interesting, then actually think that for wasting their time.

—

====

“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.”

Plato

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

“A person who can think differently and truly on his feet will always find it difficult to sit and fit as an employee in a workplace, for his attitude & approach towards the work will often hit the ego of most co-workers.”

Anuj Somany

===========

“If u want to work in Corporate, then u should know how to play Chess.”

honeya

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

Ok. I was asked recently about a past job I had where I had struggled to be successful. After hemming and hawing a little <I have never really been sure what hemming or hawing was> I answered “the position required a dedicated navigator with navigator skills and I am a sledgehammer with some navigator vision.”

<note: I didn’t understand that until actually into the role & assumed responsibility>

Yeah.

I am a sledge hammer. Always have been and I assume I always will be.

I respect navigators, but they are too slow for my tastes, far too often worried about political correctness and always too skewed toward what is important politically versus ‘what is the right thing to do.’

Ok.

Let me explain navigators and sledge hammers.

In business, there are just some people who see office politics <which all organizations have whether you like it or not> and they have the skills and vision to navigate them to get shit done <they also tend to benefit personally with this skill>.

In business, there are just some people who want to get the right shit done and believe if it is right then … well … it is better to just say ‘damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead’ rather than screw around with navigating people’s feelings and politics.

Now.

That doesn’t mean that sometimes a navigator isn’t more effective and that a navigator, which is tightly associated with someone who can play office politics, is always a corporate whore.

That also doesn’t mean that there aren’t navigators with good moral compasses because there are a shitload of ‘navigator managers’ who are skilled organizational politicians who do not showcase questionable behavior or even distasteful ‘sucking-up’ behavior.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that pretty much any leader worth a shit takes a realistic approach to managing around workplace politics. This does not mean they are ‘political’, per se, or want to play the political game it’s just they understand that you have to navigate competing interests, whatever resources may be available, the nuances of what is viewed as authority <and who has the authority which is most typically “enough to hang yourself’>, the bendable organizational rules and whatever information is available.

And, to be clear, the best of the navigators have a sledge hammer in their tool box <and use it on occasion>.

And, to be clear, the best of the sledge hammers have either some navigational skills or, at minimum, navigational vision <i.e., they can ‘see’ the politics and organizational rubble affecting your path>.

Me?

I am a sledgehammer. I like to get shit done.

Always have and always will.

Okay. I like getting smart shit done. And I really like getting smart ‘right’ shit done.

The nuance between that stuff is clear because if all I did was get shit done, smart & right being set aside, politics and navigating would become almost irrelevant. Because then you are simply a doer <not a thinker or a thinker/doer>. But even as a sledge hammer you recognize that whether you hate it, admire it, practice it or avoid it, office politics is a fact of life in any organization. And, like it or not, it’s something that you need to understand to insure not only your professional success, but the success of the good shit you want to do.

Yeah. Sure.

“Politics” certainly has a negative connotation. It most often refers to strategies people use to seek advantage at the expense of others or the greater good. In this context, it often adversely affects the working environment and relationships within it.

<and sledge hammers abhor this type of politics bullshit>

I hesitate to suggest there could ever be something called “good office politics”, but some organizational expert asshats believe that is the kind of crap you do which helps you fairly promote yourself and your ideas <they call it networking and stakeholder management – I call it the ‘necessary bullshit you just have to suck up and do in order to get good shit done’>.

As a sledge hammer I realized that there were some things that a navigator was good at and I should learn if I wanted to be a more effective sledgehammer.

About the only thing I truly value in a navigator is “social astuteness.” This is the ability to read and anticipate situations – allows you to prepare, adapt and tailor your behavior based on the people and conditions around you.

In my words this is being aware of the people and what they believe in combination with understanding the context and the situation and, ultimately, bending all existing resources to the situation at hand.

Let’s just call this “360degree context” <at least that is how a sledgehammer views it>.

Now.

Being aware is different than acting upon it. Being aware meant that it prepared me, and my groups, to manage the carnage or consequences of slamming your way straight thru a maze.

As a sledge hammer it pays to understand the real map, or maze, of the organization. I believe we all know that internal politics, more often than not, has little to do with the real organizational chart they give you when you sign on. Informal networks are usually the engine, the real power, that makes any organization work.

Someone outlined this important crap to be aware of really well:

    Who are the real influencers?

    Who has authority but doesn’t exercise it?

    Who is respected?

    Who champions or mentors others?

    Who is “the brains behind the organization”?

As a sledge hammer I realized there were absolutely some things that were in my control as I bashed my way through the middle of the maze getting to where I believed an idea, or the business at large, should go.

But, as a sledge hammer, I also recognized I needed to manage my own behavior <this lesson took some time … and learned thru some painful trial & error>. Through watching others and some painful trial & error you learn what works in your organization’s culture.

But you learn really fast … as in REALLY fast … that as a sledge hammer you invest exactly 0% of your time and 0 energy on:

• Gossip & spreading rumors: you learn to shut up and even when you hear something you wait and assess the credibility
• Interpersonal conflicts – you avoid “like/dislike people” discussions and certainly do not get sucked into arguments
• Integrity above all: this is a sledge hammer mantra … be professional, do not cut corners, do things right and always remember the organization’s interests
• No complaining: a sledgehammer accepts it will not be easy and you don’t whine about the tough path you have chosen <because it is the path you have chosen>
• Confidence: a sledgehammer is assertive not arrogant, proactive maybe edging on aggressive without ever sneaking into aggressiveness
• Never personal: a sledge hammer has only one thing in focus … the good of the organization and business outcomes <it is NEVER personal>
• Transparency:  assume everything is gonna be seen anyway so you may as well share it all

Look.

Here is what I know.

When you are a sledgehammer and everything goes right it is not only the best in the world for you but organizationally everyone kind of goes “whoa, that was something.”

<which is kind of cool and makes it all worthwhile>

I will admit.

Being a sledgehammer is a lonelier way to conduct business than being a navigator. It isn’t that you are not liked nor does it mean you aren’t viewed as a team member at the table, but navigators, I tend to believe, are just more social human beings & employees.

But sledge hammers have one thing in common — we are all homesick for an organization where we can not think about anything but getting good smart shit done.

===========

“I am homesick for a place I am not sure even exists.

One where my heart is full. My body loved. And my soul understood.”

(via lipstick-bullet)

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