===

“People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought, which they avoid.”

Søren Kierkegaard

===

Now that it appears the psycho-pathological liar, narcissistically crooked Trump will soon return to twitter to reintroduce his unique level of toxicity to the world I decided it was time to thank him.

Yeah. In his general absence from public rhetoric Trump has made me grateful for a variety of things.

I am reminded of the importance of competency.

I am reminded of the importance of dignity.

I am reminded of the value of integrity.

I am reminded of the importance of preparation.

I am reminded of the fact democracy is fragile.

I am reminded of the understanding that the freedom we enjoy in America is unique … and always embattled.

I am reminded of the importance of listening without judgement and judgement based on facts.

I am reminded of the fact that conspiracies have no factual basis and, yet, can be confused as such in a mainstream way.

I am reminded of the unfortunate truth that truth itself can be suffocated if:

1. a lie is big enough, or
2. the lies are relentless.

I am reminded of the ultimate truth: one person can make a difference … for good or for bad.

I am reminded of the importance of decency.

I am reminded of how strong a country is and how much bigger it is than one incredibly flawed & misguided individual.

I am grateful that Mr. Trump has reminded me of so many things I believe we had taken for granted.

And while I am grateful for so many things I found an awesome letter, written during his scorched earth morally vapid 2016 campaign, from someone online who is also grateful for a variety of things:

=====

Dear Mr Trump,

It’s taken me a while to realize this and to admit it, but I’m grateful to you.

For the past few months I’ve spent a good deal of time lamenting your campaign and the poison it has so effortlessly generated. I’ve watched our country imploding, our public discourse become polluted, our political climate grow ever more corrosive, and wrongly assumed you were to blame.

It’s only lately I’ve come to understand that you haven’t manufactured our current national ugliness—you’ve simply revealed it.

By saying the irresponsible, mean-spirited, ignorant things you say so freely and so frequently, you’ve given other like-minded people license to do the same.

You’ve opened up the floodgates for our corporate sewage to flow fully. People no longer conceal their vile mess, they now revel in it, they broadcast it and retweet it.

You’ve made bigotry and racism socially acceptable again and that has been a kind of twisted gift because it’s allowed me to really see people; not as they pretend to be on the surface—but in the very depths of their wounded, weaponized hearts.

Over and over as your campaign has persisted, your supporters would tell me that they like you because you “speak your mind”. It wasn’t until recently that I’ve realized that you speak their minds. You’ve given credence to their prejudices and made those prejudices go mainstream.

Thanks to the terrible ground you’ve broken, politicians, pastors, friends, and strangers, both in person and on social media now regularly out themselves as hateful, intolerant, and malicious—and they remind me just how close they are to me, just how deep the sickness in us runs, and just how far we have to go together.

You’ve emboldened people to be open about things they used to conceal for the sake of decorum, and though it turns my stomach, I know that this is the only way we can move forward; to have that cancerous stuff exposed fully so that it can be dealt with. Our progress as a nation is predicated on authentic dialogue, no matter how brutal and disheartening that dialogue is.

In other words, you’ve let us know what we’re really dealing with here and while it’s been rightly disturbing, it’s also been revelatory. That’s the thing about that kind of harsh light: you’re forced to see everything. Beauty and monstrosity equally illuminated.

Now don’t get me wrong, I think you’re the least qualified, least knowledgeable Presidential candidate we may ever have had participate this far into the process, and if you somehow were elected I’d fear gravely for the world my children would inherit—should it survive your Presidency at all. I believe you’re reckless, bitter, and completely reprehensible; the very worst kind of bully.

But whether you win or lose, you’ve already allowed me the blessing of Truth; about me, about you, about other candidates, about our nation.

And in the process you’ve also shown me that I am not alone in resisting you and this ugly thing you’ve revealed about us.

You’ve generated an equally loud, equally passionate response to it and this is where I find my hope these days.

I find it in those for whom equality isn’t just a cheap buzzword, it’s the most precious of hills to die on.

I find it in those people who refuse to be silent in the face of our impending shared regression.

I find it in those willing to be more bold in defending the inherent value of all people.

I find it in the growing army of those who will not tolerate hatred as a core American value.

I find it in those who reject violence as our default response to dissension.

I find it in the ever rising voice of people who will not let malice and bitterness represent them in the world.

Today I find my hope in those who, like me, will not be complicit in allowing bigotry and intolerance to become a source of national pride, because we’ve seen where that leads.

Yes, Mr Trump, you’ve unearthed our hidden sickness and you’ve allowed it to go viral.

You brought every awful thing about us out into the open.

And for this—I thank you.

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

While I am constantly mortified by what Trump did to the presidential process, the presidency itself, democracy, America’s position in the world, and our constitutional rights & freedoms, I tend to believe one of the most egregious actions he did was by doing all of that lying  and destroying any semblance of the overall standard of respectful discourse a civilized society typically has.

But.

I am grateful he has come along and reminded us of  all these things by showing us what the bottom of the barrel looks like.

I am grateful for his avalanche of lies and half-truths, manipulations and peddling of fear because it reminds us all that truth and hope is actually a brighter vision.

I am grateful because his promise to recover the past in simplistic tripe it is ultimately shown as the fiction offered by ‘merchants of clever cheats.’

I am grateful he offers a simple formula “to make your target audience feel good by offering up what is a fantasy to them, but a horrendous injustice to others” because it permits those who know how to articulate the true complexity of reality to speak up.

And, mostly, I am grateful because you cannot solve a problem until you actually recognize a problem. And while he himself is a problem to be solved <which I assume Time itself will deal with> he has uncovered all the problems I have listed above which we should now put our big boy & girl pants on .. and solve.

I have said for years now with regard to Trump that there is really only one word to describe him and whatever he does – carnage. His only plan is to destroy everything in his way. and in his wake, as he sits in his lonely penthouse, i.e., carnage.

I even warned people that when he was finally gone from public office that the next president will be faced with dealing with that carnage.

And I actually thank him for this too.

Yeah. I do.

This will force a new generation of leaders to stand up, speak out and rebuild from the carnage.

This will force a new generation of leaders to, well, lead.

This will force a new generation of leaders to take what was broken and build anew.

This will force a new generation of leaders to embrace a belief that we are actually stronger together rather than apart, a group of people aligned is stronger than an individual focused on self interest and working together is essential to progress.

The strength of a country is defined in how it deals with its worst moments. Trump represents the worst, represented the worst and in his wake he left us with the worst. I say that because, well, he is coming back. Twitter is a megaphone for all his shit.

In closing.

Just a reminder of some Trump trash.

30,573 lies over his 4 year presidency. I begin there to head off any false equivalence, “all politicians lie”, because Trump was in a liar zone of his own.

Also.

-Trump university a sham and a scam and stole money from people

-regularly performed verbal fellatio on Putin

-Russia/ Putin considered him an Useful Idiot

-filed bankruptcy 6 times; sucks at running businesses

-indebted to Russian/ Chinese banks since US banks ceased lending to him

-couldn’t even turn profit running a casino; run out of town in Atlantic City

-claimed tax returns can’t be released due to IRS audit

-lied; IRS claims no rules against releasing tax returns

-lied about being a billionaire, value of his properties and wealth

-sued thousands of times for stiffing small businesses/ contractors/ workers

-said his own sacrifice on par with those of Gold Star families

-dodged draft by claiming bone spurs

-cannot remember which foot afflicted with bone spurs

-McCain was only a war hero because he was captured

-mocks NY Times reporter who has epilepsy

-gonna build a wall and Mexico will pay

-chummy with racists, White nationalists, KKK

-raised dumb sons who are chummy with White nationalists

-refused to repudiate David Duke/ KKK contingent of supporters

-surrounds himself with unhinged far-right advisors

-birther-in-chief

-directed campaign funds to his own businesses

-uses campaign media coverage as free infomercial for his new hotel/properties

-tells blatant lies and denies lies even with video evidence

-often flip-flops within hours or on same day

-needs handlers to keep him from saying crazy things

-has thin skin, keeps Nixon-like tabs on perceived enemies

-said maybe US shouldn’t honor NATO treaties

-said we should have stolen Iraq/ ME oil after Iraq War

-sued for housing discrimination against Blacks, lost but denies guilt

-lied about weight and height so as not be tagged as obese

-used charity money as slush fund to settle lawsuit judgements

-used charity money to buy tacky painting of himself

-said his ’80s man-whoring was his personal Vietnam

-cray cray right-wing Supreme Court appointees affect policy for next 30 years

-disparaged top Generals as dumb and embarrassing

-knows more about ISIS than the Generals

-possible sociopathic/ psychopathic/ narcissistic personality disorder

-posed as own publicist; bragged about imaginary sex life with celebrities

-borderline anti-vaxxer: lied about a child getting autism 1 week after being vaccinated

-constantly says global warming a hoax; denied it in debate

In the end.

Giving Trump a megaphone when he is a con man, fake, pathological liar, amoral bully, incoherent word salad deliverer, seems like it is not a good idea for society in general. But. Thank you Mr. Trump for reminding me to get my head back in the game.

===

“We cannot departmentalize our thinking. We cannot think of economic principles and ethical principles. Underneath all our thinking, there are certain fundamental principles to be applied to all our problems.”

Mary Parker Follett

======

Ethical creation is the intersection between what one thinks and what one does in the pursuit of value creation. It is that liminal space in which a person, who has received stimulus – knowledge, business objectives, management direction, resource availability, etc. – and they are ready to make a decision or choice. Maybe its better said to suggest it is the space between sensemaking and choice making (apologies to Daniel Schmachtenberger because I believe this mangles his much deeper thinking on these topics). It is where what you end up creating is shaped by, well, what one views as right or wrong. The reason I see its importance residing between value creation and progress/velocity is because if an organization crafts a concept with high value, absent of ethical creation, and it moves on to the next phase and gains its likely velocity the concept shifts into high gear only amplifying its lowest aspect – lack of ethical value. In other words, velocity amplifies value whether it is created ethically or not.

To me this means the business of the future needs to embrace the idea that value creation has external consequences simply beyond sales, revenue and profit. With ethical value embedded its value carries an intrinsic benefit almost immeasurable in value. To be honest, most businesses never notice the absence of ethical value nor even recognize any value in ethical creation. To quote Futurama: “when you do it right, nobody notices.” Yet. Unnoticed, it has an impact in the home, community and society. Ethical creation is structural lift in which the value will not be found in dollars & cents, but rather a more ethical society which will end up seeking more ethical products & services as a reflection of who & what they are.

Now.

Let me be clear. I have never been a fan of Business Values statements or any simplistic desire to define ‘good behavior.’ My belief has always been to establish some principles and let people do the right things and they will invariably bend their behavior toward doing the rights things. My belief certainly lends itself more toward McGregor’s “Y” than his “X” in combination with Mary Parker Follett’s view on values and morality:

—

“Morality is never static; it advances as life advances. You cannot hang your ideals up on pegs and take down #2 for certain emergencies and #4 for others. The true test of our morality is not the rigidity with which we adhere to standards, but the loyalty we show to the life which constructs standards.”

Mary Parker Follett

—

Regardless. This does not mean ethics and ethical behavior should be ignored. In fact. I believe one of the outcomes of a well-implemented future business model is better ethical behavior.

So, let’s talk about “well implemented.”

From a human perspective I will not invest any energy explaining people’s desire to act ethically other than to say I believe 98% (I made that % up) of people in the workplace, left to their own devices, would act more ethically than most businesses act now. That alone would be progress.

This leads me to technology because algorithms play a significant role in the future organization business model.

While ethical creation is unequivocally a byproduct of human actions and behavior it would be absurd to neglect the role technology has in influencing or impacting human actions. As Marshall McLuhan said decades ago “a technology creates an environment” from which people will inevitably takes cues to think and do.

Yes. Technology plays a role. It plays a role because it amplifies. It is here that I will suggest that morality, ethics and empathy needs technology. Yes. I just said that. The destiny of all those things are dependent upon technology. If that is so then I imagine I could say society’s fate resides in the hands of technology. That may seem backwards in that all of these things reside in humans, not technology. Well. They do, but technology will either flatten, amplify or even extend the reach of all. I am certainly not suggesting that technology will guarantee morality or ethical behavior, but I would suggest improving ethical-ness of technology increases the likelihood that morality and ethical behavior becomes more pervasive (expansive) all of which are integral to a healthy culture.

That said. I will speak of technology’s role on ethics and ethical creations as an indirect consequence. At the core of the business model idea is conceptual thinking and at the core of conceptual thinking is better pattern recognition, better critical thinking/assessment and better knowledge (the more you learn the more ‘wise’ you get). The outcome of all of this is actually better behavior. It offers a person a broader perspective of things and consequences of not only what they do but what they think. It is the thinking version of “in and of society.”

There are dozens of thinktanks tackling the issue on ‘coding with conscience”.

• ** note: my personal favorite is The Ethics Centre in Australia. Simon Longstaff discusses ethics in this podcast with Mike Walsh: Ethics in the Age of Smart Machines  and the Ethics Centre  ‘Ethical By Design: Principles For Good Technology’ manifesto is a good place to begin the discussion

That said. Where I differ from many of these thinktanks is that they focus on the design and I am dubious this resolves the issues. Why?:

• Software is designed by humans who will all have some bias which will either overfit the code to some ‘ethical design’ or underfit based on the same criteria. In other words, any ethical design guardrails will be imperfect
• Imperfect code tends to amplify at scale
• Tools are designed to measure what the tools are designed to measure. In other words, well intended design is not crafted to measure bad intentional usage
• Algorithms focus on symmetrical resolutions and people are asymmetrical behavior machines or, as Brian Christian said: “When computers guess they are alarmingly confident.”

Ethics are not absolutes. Your ethics, or values, may not be mine <so maybe we should seek empathy toward other’s feelings and beliefs>. Yet. We must demand our algorithms have some absolutes in order to kill off the bad or evil we know exists. Maybe technology should be seeking what someone called “approximately moral.” This can be done in the actual outputting software (inputs to people), but it is possibly even more important in the ‘constraints’ software – the spies spying on the algorithm spies.

It is the latter point which I believe ethical technology’s hope resides. The spies spying on the algorithms. Just as diabetics have wearable tools to adjust blood sugar in real time, technology should have tools developed to attack and adjust the, well, tools. On a grander scheme, the internet as a whole, this certainly looks like a daunting task. On a smaller scheme, say a business level, it appears less daunting. Business behavior can be defined in ways to insure parameters on unethical use of knowledge and in actual practice.

I also believe the starting point for technology ethics is simpler than we tend to make it. Back in 2010 I designed an online global educational initiative directed toward 3-8 year olds and in it I suggested the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a reasonable foundation. Interestingly, in Flynn Coleman’s fabulous 2019 book, A Human Algorithm, she suggested the same thing:

“.. using established international human rights declarations as our model for how to preserve human rights as we incorporate intelligent technology is a good starting point.”

I like this because technology includes not just software design, algorithms, but data usage as well as all artificial intelligence, all of which should be seeking to not only not infringe upon people’s rights but actually seek to augment positive behavior (morality).

Others will focus on how to demand accountability for software design, I will focus on how an organizational Knowledge Sharing software system, through algorithms, can encourage ethical behavior because, inevitably, if I am suggesting technology augments people than we should seek to augment their better business angels, i.e., responsibility, accountability and empathy with regard to consequences of choices & doing something outside the auspices of the actual business and creator.

To be clear. No algorithm will ever solve any human ethical dilemma. Period.

But an algorithm can certainly influence how one thinks about that ethical dilemma. This does not absolve software engineers of moral responsibility, it simply does not ignore the fact people are responsible for sensemaking, choice making and the consequences of things they actually do.

In other words, everyone at every level has a responsibility and of everyone is ethical, or acts within an agreed upon ethical framework, that in totality we increase the probability that ethical decisions are made and ethical doing is achieved.

I admit. I get tired of all the negative discussion with regard to artificial intelligence. I believe, developed well and used well, it feeds positive progress – not just for business, but for humans and humanity.

It seems like people don’t speak often enough about the positives of algorithms and what they can make (isolated crowd or tribe aspects) it can actually unmake. It is possible to take apart larger unhealthy ideologies, or beliefs, so that new more healthy ideologies or ways of thinking can be constructed. Algorithms can be used in a variety of ways and if we elected to create a conceptual thinking community/organizational/societal mindset embracing ethical creation at its core, it can be done – even in a competitive finite ideology world.

That said. I view a checks & balance system as not only a check on bad use of AI, but rather also an iterative positive progress mechanism. I envision a looped ethical creation system to constantly check, and place constraints, on unintended negative consequences or unethical output or use which actually frees up the type of conceptual thinking that benefits people, business & society simultaneously.

I believe this is a reasonable way to think about this mostly because:

• One need not be prescient to envision future unethical behavior
• One capable of envisioning future unethical behavior has the ability to design to manage/constrain it
• One only needs to see constraint design as an ongoing progress commitment

• ** note: “Don’t fear superintelligent AI”: Grady Booch, Tedtalk

—

“I do not think we have psychological and ethical and economic problems. We have human problems with psychological, ethical, and economic aspects.”

Mary Parker Follett

—

Ethical creation, therefore, is never dependent upon one check, but rather people, humanity, AI, output and results, are looped and iterative in terms of its feedback. I believe this thought demands some emphasis because humans really do not have a chance against the onslaught of algorithms. They are often smarter than us but, more importantly, all are embedded with behavioral trigger mechanisms to tap into our mental models to encourage us to do whatever it is they desire us to do.

• ** note: what if, for businesses who seek a more measurable evaluation of ethical creation, an algorithm were designed to measure activity based on a score developed from Triple Bottom Line, Freer Spreckley, components? I envision an open source measurement feedback code which can be slightly adapted to each business’ focus/vision/purpose. For example a business focused on environmental responsibility will weight those components in its Ethical Creation value assessment versus a business which desires to focus on use of specific material resources.

I do believe the key to ethics in technology is to recognize it as a connective decision or initiative and not a specific task initiative.

I say this because I envision the conceptual thinker of the future will be connected not only to those in the group, but the organization, the cloud (knowledge and data of other unmade, ethical or unethical, humans) as well as community and society (as one’s concepts become reality). Things made cannot be unmade from an ethical standpoint – they ripple out almost infinitely. Let me say it another way. Buyer beware is unacceptable in a future business world grounded in algorithms. It cannot be.

Somewhere within my writings I have reminded everyone that the cloud, and access to knowledge, doesn’t make people smarter. While the cloud represents an almost limitless pool of ever growing knowledge and data I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that the cloud, in and of itself, can be just as stupid, if not stupider, than any one individual. More knowledge, used poorly, simply makes one stupider rather than smarter. The collective knowledge is only as good as who uses it. This is also true of ethics.

Individuals, and small groups of people, within an institution (augmented by the cloud collective knowledge) get more ethical iteratively (even if they misuse knowledge because they learn from mistakes). Conceptually they actually get more ethical than the cloud due to understanding of context.

Now.

Let me remind everyone of a slightly contrarian assessment with regard to morality I said earlier before I move on to business being in, and of, society: Morality needs technology. Yes. I said that. Technology is not going away so discussing morality in the absence of technology is a fool’s task. This means, without technology continuing to progress, morality will bend toward bad rather than good. A static technology machine will most likely degrade humanity rather than improve it – morality included. If I could ever argue for ethics in technology, this paragraph would be it. Think about ethics and morality as you ponder Marshall McLuhan’s words” “we shape our technology and our technology shapes us.”

In the end (part 1: technology).

Ethics in technology is a given. We should stop discussing and start doing. The one thing business could teach the technology ethics people is that it will never be perfect and success is rarely found in what is initially created or offered, but rather how well what is developed improves as it faces new unforeseen contexts. Embedding ethics INTO software development, algorithms and technology, at minimum, embeds ethics into value creation at a structural level. From that point on, ethical creation is in the hands of the conceptual thinkers – the people.

In the end (part 2: people)

“Ethical is a polysemous word in that it can refer to process, outcomes, and values. The process refers to the internal procedures that are adopted by the firm to guide decision making on product/service design and development choices. The values aspect refers to the value set that is both adopted by the organization and those of the public within which the product/service might be deployed. This can include values such as transparency, equity, fairness, privacy, among others. The outcomes refer to desirable properties in the outputs from the system such as equalized odds across demographics and other fairness metrics.”

State of AI Ethics, Montreal AI Ethics Institute

We can discuss ethics and technology until we are blue in the face, but I will always, inevitably, come down to people. People doing the right things. Creating the right things in the right way. It was, once again, Mary Parker Follett who can guide us toward the right future using her own words as she described ‘Right’:

1. We do not follow right, we create right;
2. There is no private conscience;
3. My duty is never to “others” but the whole.

“Morality is not the refraining from doing certain things – it is a constructive force” (Mary Parker Follett). Far too often we view morality and ethics as limiting. We should not. ethical creation is freeing and a constructive force. We should stop thinking of principles as things meant to tell people what to do or how to act or even manipulate them, but rather to offer touchstones for agreed upon behavior that benefits value creation – to the individual (ethically and in meaningfulness), the community and society.

Give people some guidance for how to act in choice making situations or ethical dilemmas, not because they determine outcomes but to use as an energy to guide all elements as they face ‘the law of the situation’ (contextually what I best in that time and place which will endure in a positive way in terms of consequences).

Ethical creation for business should be a given. Ethical creation benefits people, business, home, community and society. Ethical creation increases value as it progresses and gains velocity. And, maybe most importantly, ethical creation, well done, actually embeds meaning, and meaningfulness into the people actually creating the value.

=====

“It’s dark because you are trying too hard.

Lightly child, lightly. Learn to do everything lightly. Yes, feel lightly even though you’re feeling deeply. Just lightly let things happen and lightly cope with them.

I was so preposterously serious in those days.

Lightly, lightly – it’s the best advice ever given me. So throw away your baggage and go forward. There are quicksands all about you, sucking at your feet, trying to suck you down into fear and self-pity and despair. That’s why you must walk so lightly. Lightly my darling… “

Aldous Huxley

=====

Life truths.

Hard and lightly.

Haste with patience.

Forward diagonally.

Happy and sad.

Success and failure.

Right and wrong.

Thinking and doing.

Dreams and hard work.

Whew. This means that the truly great things in Life may be a coin you can put in your pocket — a coin made up of two sides and two faces.

Yeah. Life is usually a combination of opposites fighting a tug of war moment to moment. I bet no one told you that when you were growing up.

Far too often we are told the secret to life is one thing.

Far too often someone is not telling is the truth <or maybe they don’t really know the secret to life?>.

Th truth is Life <and business also> is a wonderful, maddening blob of inconsistency.

The only way to survive , and not be totally boring, inept or a hermit, is to steal a little of something from both sides and do your best to proportion it all out in the end.

Proportional?

I need some sadness to recognize true joy <only I certainly don’t want to dwell on sadness nor walk around as Happy the Clown every minute of the day>.

I want a leader who is energetic and demanding and cajoling, pushing, shoving, pulling, inspiring people toward a horizon < but I want the moments of idle strength and compassion intertwined>.

I want to work hard … so hard the muscles, brain and/or physical, are strained and hurt … and get to maybe get a glimpse of one of my dreams on occasion <so I can dream a little when not working hard>.

I want people to play hard and play to win <in any endeavor> … but do so with grace in victory & loss, with sportsmanship & fairness and respect for the game.

I want, well, it doesn’t matter what I want. Pick your ‘hard-lightly’ Life combination. I guarantee you will find the most interesting people, most interesting experiences, most interesting moments, most interesting anythings are a reflection of this ying-yang combination. Life is meant to be lived, and experienced, hard & lightly.

Now. By the way.

Just because Life is meant to be lived this way doesn’t mean it is easy to actually live it that way. Living hard, or living lightly, is not only addictive, but also often generates a sense of ‘lostness’ when shelved for a bit.

Why lostness?

Well. It is mostly fear that we will not refind or regain it therefore we hesitate to ever let it go from the way we currently live our Life.

So what do we do? We ‘take a break.’

We ‘get away from it all.’ In other words instead of seeking some ‘how we actually live’ balance in our lives we just step away from the way we live our Life by simply not going lightly <if we typically go hard> or not going go hard <if we typically go lightly> and we don’t do anything other than how we live our Life so, ultimately, we just choose to do nothing to ‘recharge.’

I would suggest that you don’t need to ‘take a break’ to recharge, but rather if you seek the proportional ‘yang’ to your ‘ying’, well, you will find additional purpose as well as your ‘ying’ takes on an entirely new image n your eyes & mind.

• *** note: proportional versus balance: I purposefully use proportional rather than balance because on an individual, person to person, basis it is rarely a 50/50 split – even over time. everyone customizes their life between hard & lightly as is appropriate to their personality, ambition and life desires. once again, this is rarely 50/50 and everyone should just seek what their optimal proportional mix is.

Regardless, just approaching Life one way means you miss out on what is most interesting in life – going hard & lightly.

Aw shit. Look. All I really know if that if you can figure out how to go hard and tread lightly at the same time, you will most likely be successful in business & in Life. You will most likely be appreciated, respected, sometimes liked and certainly not hated. I know … I know … the ‘tread lightly’ part is really really hard if you like to live Life going hard.

But.

As I just told someone go hard for the things you want and dreams you seek to reach toward and if you continue to do these things for you, knowing that your moral compass is set correctly and that your instincts with regard to ‘what is right’ versus ‘what is wrong’ are good, you will be happier and the people around you will rarely be disappointed.

Ponder.

===

“Once the inner connection is grasped, all theoretical belief in the permanent necessity of existing conditions collapses before their collapse in practice.”

Karl Marx: Letter to Ludwig Kugelmann (July 11, 1868)

==

“Chance favors the connected mind.”

Steven Johnson

===

The truth is in today’s shopping world a business, and its brands, maximize its value not through consistency, but coherence. This creates a somewhat tenuous inner connection of things wherein nothing can collapse; except within more of itself. What I mean by that is there is no one thing that creates the value, but a number of things linked which can shrink in on itself without nurturing. What this means is to nurture one must find ‘selective consistency’ (the structural value embedded within) and tie it to agility (the ability to be malleable to accommodate individual buyer preferences). This is where a Human Algorithm (or algorithms driven by a behavioral data lake) offers a unique opportunity. We often don’t think of a behavioral data hub or AI design as part of experiential value consistency, but we should. Often the core is not a shared strategy, but a shared engine.  And, yes, through that distinctive engine you can create a distinctive “shareable” brand asset. It was Mark Ritson who suggested every brand should have codes or distinctive assets which create links to customers of a brand. He mostly suggested so with consumer brands, but we would suggest it is even more important in B2B in that it creates mental availability AND value association. What it does is create simple Mental availability, grounded in value offered, as a key driver for success to customers.

Which leads us to Data has always been a tool, now it’s a brand asset.

Data has always been a competitive tool in B2B. CPG companies effectively used data for years to increase facings, gain shelf positioning, negotiate promoting in store and acquire orders with grocers & retailers. Car manufacturers did the same with dealers and, well, wander an aisle of any retail outlet and you will most likely find a manufacturer, or owner of some brands, who dominate that aisle simply by use of data. That said. For decades large businesses with multiple brands have struggled with how to embed the manufacturer brand value within each of the individual brands. In the past we would see “manufacturer coupon events” on an annual basis where companies like P&G or Nabisco or almost any CPG company would have huge ads with coupons for all the brands in their purview or maybe there would be an insert showcasing all the brands. The hope was that at least once a year each of the brands would get a one-time structural value lift through association. Technology has changed all that. Now data is the glue and the fact that all the brands within a CPG portfolio can combine all their shopping, and shopper, data in a behavioral hub permits each of the brands to gain some agility in the marketplace (through knowledge) and, yet, maintain some linkage to all the other brands. What technology did was hone the tool and what algorithms did was made it an efficacy weapon – targeted efficiency and effective shopping experience tool. A mature behavioral data hub wielded with a well-designed algorithm offered a holding company the ability to not only tie their brand portfolio together strategically, but also enabled an enhanced value structure to all brands. What we mean by enhanced value is a historically coherent data transaction accumulation created a solid foundation to apply learning from one product/service transaction journey to another – lateral, or adjacent, thinking in algorithm form. It stops stratifying behavior – siloed bounded behavior – and enables incremental iterative progress from one brand to another.

This is brand coherence and the data hub offers some structural value lift. It permits individual brands to scale tied to core value. The database becomes a multiplier advantage to each individual brand. Correspondingly, it becomes a multiplier in value to the distributor/seller as it offers coherent positive experiences, of value, across multiple brands.

Which leads us to the reality that businesses with a full portfolio of brands are always in a tug of war between “I” and “We.”

At the core of this tug of war is, strategically, the agility of a brand alone to capitalize in its market segment versus collective power of portfolio to offer some structural value. Philosophically, this is self-interest versus collective interest (and, yes, a brand within a portfolio pursuing its own self interest can do so to the detriment of the greater portfolio whole). This tug of war is common and natural in that brands inevitably deem distinction, and/or differentiation, as the key to maximizing value in a specific segment. This is true, yet, this tug of war runs the risk that the parts ‘grow’ to the detriment of the whole. The intent of any brand portfolio owner should be to find ways, or a way, to raise the value of the ‘whole’ so that all the parts rise in value WHILE permitting individual brand agility. This is structural value creation, but more importantly it means each brand/product can pursue self-interest (agility in niche), but the center holds offering value to all.

Which leads us to experience coherence through a Human Algorithm.

When we experience something in the physical world, we absorb a wealth of information in front of us to help build a picture and form an impression of what we perceive, taking in the sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and textures. A Human Algorithm needs to sense the preferences for all those things to create the optimal shopping experience. Often this is created through what someone ‘feels’ which is where a robust behavioral data hub offers its greatest value advantage in two ways:

• Transactional coherence.

Cadence. Every shopping experience has a cadence. A rhythm it seems to work to. Now. It isn’t just one cadence, but a coherence of cadences. What we mean by that is there are patterns embedded within patterns and each shopping experience has a subtly different cadence of its own. The effective AI design cadence accommodates each sub-cadence. It is like a dance similar to one of those huge ballroom things where partners get exchanged at different points in the dance. It isn’t always seamless but, yet, the dance (viewed from overhead) has a sense of coherence and cadence.

Anyway. Everyone just should accept the reality that every shopping experience has a cadence driven by the shopper, but also is a reflection of how the system works. It is, in essence, what we generally feel. The danger resides in the failure to acknowledge this ‘vibe’ is a complex mix of pacing and cadence dynamics – fast, easy, slow and thoughtful. Even a Porsche engine has slow moving, even solid, pieces in combination with pieces moving at rates almost invisible to the eye. To be clear. Cadence is difficult to ‘see’, but with a mature behavioral hub and well design AI interaction system cadence occurs. Cadence is latent value.

Gravity. Every shopping journey has gravity. What we mean by that is left to its own devices a shopper will end up on the ground. A great shopping experience is one in which the AI sees and senses the shopper gravity in order to (a) fly or (b) simply keep things from crashing, i.e., end up in a place where preferences & expectations are not optimal. Here is the tricky part. This center of gravity is good important because, in its conserving energy, it keeps all the expended energy from flying off into chaos, albeit it can also be bad important in that it sacrifices progress in doing. Gravity keeps the shopping experience grounded, but the danger resides in that the experience only has the feeling of speed and achievements and all the while it’s just one huge hamster wheel, i.e., the shopper is spinning their wheels getting nowhere to their desired outcome.

To be clear. Gravity is difficult to ‘sense’, but with a mature behavioral hub and well-designed AI interaction system gravity is effectively navigated. Gravity, well navigated, is latent value.

• Structural coherence.

Each of the things highlighted above point out the transactional experience, but what about shared experience among all brands when a behavioral hub undergirds all brands and all transactional journeys?

Well, going back to cadence, a shared behavioral hub has a cadence; a rhythm. That shared rhythm among all brands creates a subtle consistency offering coherence to all brands interacting with the hub. We would be remiss if we didn’t point out that this cadence expands out to the retailer and, over time, shoppers also gain a sense of “what it is like to interact with them” which is part of overall value and creates a subtle shared value experience throughout all brands.

As for gravity, successfully navigating gravity translates into shopping experience progress – which is often overlooked in the value equation when assessing ‘buy satisfaction.’ As noted upfront, people don’t buy experiences, they buy value, and the experience is simply an accumulation of value interactions. Once again, navigating this gravity expands out to a retailer as in “they didn’t rush me” or “they let me explore some of my preferences without wasting too much of my time” or any number of valued ‘customer respect’ touchpoint moments. It is a subtle shared value experience among all brands.

Which brings us to subtle little things translate into non-subtle larger experience.

The purpose of coherence should serve the purpose of the business – to benefit people. In benefiting people everything in the experience gains value. In other words, subtle, well applied, creates experience coherence which increases final transaction optimal value <if not highest value possible>. Human Algorithms subtly shadow people offering value behind the scenes, but that value outcome appears in real tangible achievements – higher sales, higher velocity of sales, higher satisfaction.

Which brings us to subtly improving everything.

The reason this depth of discussion over algorithms and AI is important is because in an algorithm driven business world everything has a goal in mind, but the consequences are often unseen. Business goals are usually innovations and sales/revenue/profit, but in the pursuit of those there are a variety of externalities created or affected that inevitably are not only of importance to the economic effects of AI but to societal effects. AI is inherently an iterative innovation itself and one that triggers cascades of complementary innovations. Each of those things have externality effects to, well, humans .. either by creating opportunities or closing doors on opportunities – both of which have real world consequences to the lives of humans. This entire paragraph is a rationale for why subtly improving everything is important – either thru intent or in reality. And because this piece is about coherence that is where we will end. Subtly improving everything maintains some inherent ‘goodness’ coherence which will fundamentally engage some sense of coherence for everyone and everything. In a world in which people are feeling increasingly uncertain and everything feels increasingly fragmented, this coherence action will prove invaluable not just to some business who embraces it, but to society as a whole.

====

“From where you are you can hear their dreams. The dismays and despairs and flight and fall and big seas of their dreams.”

Dylan Thomas

====

“No machine can replace the human spark: spirit, compassion, love and understanding.”

Louis V Gerstner Jr.

====

The most insidious aspect of “it’s just work” is that it strips away dreams. I am certainly not suggesting that every workplace aspire to fulfill everyone’s dreams. Its just that if you strip it away as an option, I can guarantee one of two things:

• An employee will invest their ‘dream energy’ elsewhere
• An employee will feel, to some degree, that their work doesn’t have meaning or that it matters

So, let’s start with dream energy. The business world has invested a lot of energy focused on efficiency and ‘skill development’ for quite some time. In doing so they ignored the consequences, or, the truth that in doing so it came at the expense of something else. Efficacy would leave some room for dreams and imagination and potential which, if business would get its proverbial head out of its ass, are the intangibles which offer value creation – expansive not reductive. Dream energy, in business, is, and always has been, a proportional system of pragmatism and possibilities. The trouble is that business sees it as a zero-sum game that if “I encourage you to pursue your dreams it comes at the expense of my profits/efficiency/objectives.” I imagine in an objective/milestone/KPI driven world that zero-sum game thinking may be true. Unfortunately, that zero-sum game isn’t what it is best for business and surely not the best for people. When you let people’s dream energy die in the workplace, well, energy dies. That is not good for business. Ponder.

Now its time for meaning and mattering. The business world, even in today’s world with lots of hollow words about Purpose, has invested a lot of energy suggesting how a worker define meaning/mattering is in terms of KPIs with bonuses and objectives tied to them as a tangible way of measuring meaning/mattering. As a correlation they see meaning/mattering as an intangible (unmeasurable). The challenge is that even if meaning/mattering was intangible (and its not) that intangible has immeasurable value in terms of productivity and intrinsic energy. But meaning/mattering is measurable – through contribution and benefit. I don’t care if you are a maintenance person in a plant, someone who washes cars or even works on a garbage truck, if someone points it out to you, you don’t even have to squint to see the measurable, tangible, ways that what you do contributes to another person at some point. Maybe not all the time on everything, but no one’s job does that, just at some point, with some action, you will have directly contributed to bettering someone else’s life. You have made a contribution to the business, to the job, to society and to a person. If you strip that away, or do not acknowledge it, a worker will only be encouraged to believe (a) they don’t contribute, (b) they don’t matter and (c) how they do what they do doesn’t really matter that much (unless it has some extrinsic KPI-ish reward). When you let meaning/mattering not mean anything or matter much, well, energy dies. Ponder.

All that said.

If you listen closely and you can hear people’s dreams die, you may as well accept the fact it means our business dreams have died.

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.

—

====

“The whole difference between construction and creation is exactly this: that a thing constructed can only be loved after it is constructed; but a thing created is loved before it exists.”

Charles Dickens

====

Sometimes happiness can be found in the nuance or the distinction in thought.

Some people are good at constructing.

Some people are good at creating.

One is not any better than the other.

Both are to be, well, ‘loved’ in Dickens terminology.

Both make people happy because both are grounded in (a) doing and (b) outcome.

That said. In a binary world it seems like we too often try to put a higher value on one versus the other <and it depends on your perspective on which you put a higher value> where it becomes an odd-ish competition if not an unhealthy “us versus them” narrative.

Businesses, in particular, seems to try and assess value to each end of the spectrum constantly swinging back & forth with such force your stomach roils and you want to puke.

I sometimes worry we do the same with kids and what we tell them.

Regardless.

We need both.

And we need people who love construction and creation and, in a utopian business and world, each should love the other.

Ok.

But we do not have a utopian business world <mostly we eye each other with a certain feeling of disdain … maybe sympathy> so, realistically, let’s just say ‘you can do no wrong if you place yourself as close to the enemy as possible.’ <paraphrasing Admiral Nelson for business>

Let’s just say that in a great business environment the culture can find chemistry in the conflict.

The combination, and friction, between creators and constructors is positively powerful. Equal as ‘enemies’ and in value.

For a great idea, creation, is meaningless <i.e., less than great> if it never gets constructed let alone of it gets constructed poorly.

As a corollary, a lovingly constructed shitty idea is simply a Potemkin. A movie set. Looks beautiful but empty behind the facade.

Look. I tend to believe we would love each other <well … okay … certainly respect> if everyone would leave us alone to do so.

If businesses would stop trying to put value on one versus the other.

If parents didn’t always suggest “you need to be realistic”.

If life would stop suggesting if you are one you have less value than the other or even that you need to be both <which, oddly, in a binary world SHOULD be of the highest value but yet it is of no value because you haven’t chosen a side>.

Let me say this.

The reality is most likely a person loves to construct or loves to create.

Sorry.

Just saying the truth.

Which leads me to a wonderful thought from a young blogger:

“I’d rather pour myself into a world I love and understand than try to make something up out of nothing.”

Rainbow Rowell

What a wonderful thought and kind of a human truth before we all get battered by what society, or business, starts telling us what is right or what we should do.

It’s not about being a dreamer versus a doer.

It’s not about ‘doing something you are passionate about’.

It’s about pouring yourself into what you are good at in an environment, a culture, you love <once again, not doing something you love>.

Just as an example.

I found a career not DOING something I loved. I found a career where I was IN a world I loved surrounded by smart curious restless people. Some were creators. Some were constructors. But in that world all were smart curious people.

Oh.

And restless.

I never had to create something from nothing. I was in a world, a business environment, in which I could simply reach out and grab something wherever I looked. I imagine I share that because we tend to currently live in a world where we want to define things and people and slot them and say ‘what are you passionate about.’

Well.

Maybe we should be discussing <more often> “what environment would you love to be in.” Not ‘what do you want to do.’

I know … that is crazy talk.

But I am also the guy who would build a business around a culture and character rather than a 5 year strategic plan.

Yeah.

Give me some restless curious learning people and I bet we could figure out how to both create and construct something in an industry we elected to drop ourselves into.

Yeah.

Now THAT is crazy.

Ponder.

=====

Creating a company takes more than an idea. It demands a vision. And visions are more difficult to sell than products. Because a good vision isn’t easily attainable but still remains worth reaching for.

Great visions are grounded by the practical pragmatism of what it takes to reach a destination which is often located somewhere over the horizon … unseeable but imaginable.

Visions should be lofty and grounded.

Simple yet reflective of a complex world.

Pragmatic & practical yet not the status quo.

A combination of pragmatism and possibilities.

====

This is about having a vision, vision statements and thinking of a ‘place to go’ and a place to aim for in business.

Let me state upfront.

I think quite a lot of business activity – is desperate to prove the efficacy of what it itself does. To me this answers, generally speaking, the question of why so many businesses are buying into the overall Purpose bullshit and ‘start with the why’ silliness. The proving efficacy’ issue has garbled the entire discussion between the purpose of business, Purpose in business and whether “Vision” has a role in this new world. To be clear. I believe business has focused on efficiency, growth and squeezing margins out of the ‘least’ to such an extent that not only has value decreased in the marketplace but people – inside a business and outside – are questioning the actual value a business offers <this ‘questioning’ bleeds into a discussion of what the purpose – not Purpose – of business actually is>. As a consequence of that fairly abhorrent misguided activity, I think the pursuit of something better has become increasingly important to an increasing amount of people. There beget the seeds of “Purpose’. And while I began this longish paragraph with ‘desperate to prove efficacy’ let me say this is also true of Purpose. Richard Shotton, in The Choice Factory, does a spectacular job of dismantling any ‘value of Purpose’ evidence discussed in Stengel’s famous book “Grow.” Once again, to be clear, I love the discussion of Purpose but it should be done not to prove efficacy of a business, but rather to prove the business wants to benefit people. And before I move on, I should say that I believe the ‘purpose’ of every business is “to benefit people”.

Anyway.

I am an admitted vision guy (not Purpose) and, in particular, a ‘hope vision’ type guy.

The vision statements I write and the visions I gravitate to almost always have some ‘bigness’ to them, always strive for aspirations and attempt to offer a sense of hope — as in hope for something better in what we offer, maybe make things better in Life, certainly give people hope for something better.

This can be small hope <if I make nuts & bolts my hope is everlasting strength … of something else>.

This can be big hope <if I am remaking how everyday healthcare is conducted my hope is enabling people to live a better, fuller, Life>.

Specificity. Be bold in vision, but not broad in intent. What I mean by that is business is in the business of doing business – create something of value, sell something that has value. I cannot think of any business that shouldn’t desire to offer something that benefits people and, in doing so, it benefits the world, i.e., making it better as a consequence.

Visions should be actionable, not just feel good. Your people SHOULD feel good about it, but they should also know how that gets imbued in what they actually do. It should permeate not just attitudes, but behaviors. Why? Because then the Vision has meaning and the work THEY do becomes more meaningful. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that is organizational value.

Regardless.

Let me get the practical ‘what is a vision statement’ crap out of the way first.

To be clear. A vision statement shouldn’t be confused with a mission statement.

• Mission statements are present-based statements and reflective of your external existence. A mission statement answers the question “why does my business exist?”

• Vision statements are future-based and internally focused. A vision statement answers the question “who do I see myself as in a bigger picture <and where do I see my business in this bigger picture?”

A well crafted vision statement should communicate the company’s goals in a single sentence, uhm, or a few concise paragraphs, uhm, or in a tightly knit manifesto. Yeah. No formula. Just make it inspirational with specific intent.  … excepting it should inspire. Make it stretch the imagination as well as offer some construct for direction and culture. A good vision statement will help inform direction and set priorities while challenging employees to intrinsically grow INTO the vision. Lastly, develop a good vision and I promise you a good strategy will follow <note: strategy never leads to a vision>.

Now. The problem is that some vision statements consist of one vague statement which, frankly, anyone could say. Some are too long, unstructured and wandering reflecting not only a management’s lack of understanding of what a company really does, but also reflects a lack of understanding for meaningful aspirational direction. There is something called the Golden Bull award “for excellence in gobbledygook” for which many visions could be nominated. Let me unequivocally state I would rather have no vision then a bad vision.

Yet.

Creating something that whispers ‘be dynamic beyond your purpose’ in everyone’s ear can become one of a company’s cornerstones.

This is a fairly important discussion because according to a Harvard Business Review study up to 70% of employees do not understand their company’s purpose & strategy <that is a bad thing>. It’s bad mostly because failure to understand your company’s position typically leads to poor decision making <that’s the practical side> and leads to thinking commodity-like thoughts about your company <that’s the ‘value’ side> and, finally, doesn’t lead to any ‘wow, I am part of something big & purposeful & meaningful’ <that’s the aspirational side>.

Anyway. I like a business aiming for something in the future. Shit. I like aiming for something in the future. I like an organization that feels like it is doing something more than making something or providing some service. I like that the people making and doing the business stuff actually feels like they are doing something more than just making and doing business stuff. I like that a vision aims for some “what”: as in what could be & what do we want to happen. I like a vision that is so big that it is compelling, not only to everyone else, but to me. I like no matter how big that vision gets it is still very specific in outlining who you are as an organization.

Now. That last point may sound obvious but, this may sound crazy, but I have seen dozens upon dozens of companies who have not taken the time to define themselves … or … define themselves so broadly it is meaningless … or … the worst … create a bunch of beautiful words and then behave in a completely different way. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out many “Culture” people point to this as ‘unauthentic’ or something that suggests a business is a fucking hypocrite. They are right.

Look.

Here is what I know.

Your vision is your dream. It is your company’s north star. And while its primary objective is to inspire and create a shared sense of purpose <not Purpose> throughout the company inevitably it sets the direction for new products, company culture, future decisions, hiring, incentives, and, well, everything.

It should be, well, dynamic beyond your own purpose so that you, as an individual, can fulfill your Purpose.

Anyway. I will end with where I began:

Creating a great company takes more than an idea. It demands a vision. And visions are more difficult to sell than products.

Because a good vision isn’t easily attainable but still remains worth reaching for.

Visions are difficult mostly because they are difficult to ‘sell.’

Sell to yourself as something practical and worthwhile <because Life has a nasty habit of suggesting there are more important things to focus on> as well as sell to others <because people have a nasty habit of being scared of big things>.

I would suggest to truly be happy in business, you should demand the business have a vision and encourage you to attempt to fulfill an individual Purpose toward that vision.

I would also suggest stop trying to ‘sell’ anything when it comes to a vision. Shit. Do you think the night sits down every day wondering “how the hell am I gonna sell all those people own there that this star is the one that points North?” Direction & vision feels right. It doesn’t need selling. And maybe I end there because it sure as shit sounds like a bunch of people are suggesting you need to ‘sell Purpose’ and that is absurd. Almost as absurd as a business not embracing a Vision.

====

“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)

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

===

“Life is always sweeter when the dice are still in the air.”

===

“Life, even at its best, is a gambler’s game.”

===

This is a little bit different than dancing on the icy brink, this is more when the game is afoot and certainty doesn’t exist although there will be a certain outcome at some point. This is a finite space and event. These moments are shapeless yet have shape. Things exist within the time and space when the dice are in the air, it’s just that the outcome is unclear. But. There is a beginning (the toss of the dice) and there is an end (the dice stop tumbling).

But before I get to my main point let me say this.

As soon as the dice are tossed there is an inevitableness and uncertainty of which that combination is not everyone mentally thrives, i.e., they don’t think life is sweeter in this moment. As a consequence some people will (a) refuse to believe dice are ever in the air and over-control everything or (b) refuse to actually throw the dice for fear of what happens when tossed. The former believes everything is controllable so no dice should have to be thrown and the latter simply fears the every day chance that weaves its way through any business. to both I say “pick your poison.”

Which leads me to gravity.

Gravity is inevitable. Dice do not remain in the air and eventually gravity brings them to a standstill.

Now. Before gravity takes over the space is actually in a state of oscillation.

Oscillation is a natural state between good & bad, better & worse, righter versus wronger.

That said. As a counter to the oscillation is the fact that all things, left to their own devices, will “irrevocably slide towards a state of maximum entropic dissemblance.” (Metamodernist Manifesto). Therefore, unfortunately, gravity, in & of itself, is ‘worse’. Conceptually this suggests ‘better’ needs to exert some force greater than gravity to not only achieve lift off but to also maintain some velocity/momentum against natural gravity. I imagine I am suggesting vigorously throwing dice in the air is possibly better than begrudgingly dropping dice. Am I suggesting doing so increases the odds of a better result? Not really. But air is air, movement is movement, tumbling is tumbling, and the longer the dice remains in the air theoretically positive oscillation can occur. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that if the dice are never thrown there is no oscillation therefore atrophy is setting in.

That said. Everything in business, process/systems/outcomes, gets compounded in the oscillation. Assuming oscillation exists in the ‘infinity’ loop ‘better’ is at larger risk in downward loop sections as gravity, as gravity does, snatches momentum & drags it down.

Wait.

It gets worse.

Ponder the dimensions of gravity:

• entropy (natural state to stagnate)
• attitudes (failure begets stronger belief of future failure)
• the natural order that there are more ways to fail than succeed (which is somewhat like a gamblers odds in Vegas).

—————————-

“Negative things are real enough to be managed, we are bad at predicting positive things for ourselves (even with the help and wisdom of others), and we all create our own spice in life that makes things work for us in our own way.”

Zat Rana

—————————

This means fighting this gravity is:

• a desire for happiness (which most of us view in a misguided way)
• a desire for success (which most of us view in results/achievements rather than progress)
• a lack of desire to gamble with our Life (yet, no risk, no return).

Well.

That’s a depressing formula.

Regardless.

Despite natural gravity, 99% of us do not find simply accepting chance, or bad, results acceptable. Despite all the depressing thoughts I just shared, 99% of us ‘get on with getting on.’

Despite having tossed the dice, 99% of us will seek to impact the oscillation in some way to increase the odds of a good toss.

Well.

Let me continue being depressing.

Unless you can change the dimensions of the dice themselves, i.e., maybe weight a side, all of your attempts to affect the oscillation of the dice is meaningless. The probabilities of any specific numbers arising do not decrease or increase no matter how hard you try and effect the dice while they are in the air.

This is kind of an important point because unless you are just starting out, you have tossed the dice before. It brings in something called the ‘disjunction effect’ or, in other words, how you think about the future tosses of the dice are affected by what happened on previous dices tosses.

Imagine that you have just played a game of chance that gave you a 50% chance to win $200 and a 50% chance to lose $100. The coin was tossed and you have either won $200 or lost $100. You are now offered a second identical gamble: 50% chance to win $200 and 50% chance to lose $100. Would you (a) accept the second gamble or (b) reject the second gamble? Whether they have won or lost in the first gamble, a majority of participants accept the second gamble. However, they are likely to do so for different reasons: In the win scenario, they reason that they can easily risk losing half of the $200 they have just won. In the lose scenario, however, they might take the second gamble as an opportunity to make up for their previous loss. In these two cases, while the choice is the same, the reasons for making it are incompatible. Thus, when participants do not know what is going to be the outcome of the first bet, they have more trouble justifying the decision to accept the second gamble: The reasons seem to contradict each other. As a result, a majority of participants who do not know the result of the first gamble reject the second gamble even though they would have accepted it whatever the result of the first gamble. The authors tested this explanation further by devising a comparison that had the same properties as the one just described, except that the reasons for making the “accept” decision were the same irrespective of the outcome of the first gamble. In this case, participants made exactly the same choices.

(Tversky & Shafir 1992)

My point here is people toss the dice for any number of reasons but they all do so hoping for some reward or prize. The dice don’t care. And that’s the mental game. Its not risk (if you have elected to toss the dice you have accepted in some form or fashion risk). Its chance. And chance is just not something that business is comfortable with. But the truth is that all uncertainty has at least some element of chance. And while chance is a universal characteristic of almost everything in business, business chafes at this thought and will encourage everyone to attempt to manage the oscillation of the dice in air in its attempt to eliminate chance, or, as Talleyrand suggested:

====

“The art of statemanship is to foresee the inevitable and to expedite its occurrence.”

Talleyrand

====

Well. The dice are in the air. For that period of time your fate lies in the hands of chance no matter how hard you attempt to manage the oscillation. Uh oh. Chance is the turn of events that cannot reasonably be foreseen and over which we have no control. And while we business folk hate to admit it, there is a constant potential for chance to influence outcomes in everything we do. Like, well, all the time. So, maybe my point is life is sweeter when the dice are in the air, but most of us, in business for sure, only have a sour taste. Yet. The dice don’t care. Ponder.