———————-

“You will never be happy if you continue to search for what happiness consists of. You will never live if you are looking for the meaning of life.”

Albert Camus

—————-

“Happiness is defined by the unhappiness that follows it”

Dan Harmon

————————–

Back in 2013ish I wrote Manufacturing happiness. In it I stated this:

the biggest issue in employee engagement discussion.

As soon as someone speaks out about employee engagement, or disengagement, or ‘building a dynamic organization’ or even ‘motivating employees’ they inevitably suggest one big ship making progress in some direction. They are wrong.

While direction may be consistent the speed in which individuals, teams, departments is different. Some may be engaged and be as slow as snails and some may be engaged and faster than Usain Bolt.

The disengaged are still moving and, on occasion, can be compelled to move a little faster. And, on occasion, these same people and groups may seem to be disengaged … and yet they may only be recuperating <and, boy oh boy, a shitload of managers misread that scenario>.

All this unevenness, combined with the fact that everyone knows a happy employee base is a more productive employee base, means the business world has become quite creative <often in some very absurd ways> to manufacture synergy, happiness and engagement.

I begin here because whenever I write about a topic, or business issue. I like to point out there is typically an underlying reason for why we do things – even the stupid shit. So, while I believe manufacturing happiness, or even seeking happiness in the workplace, is fairly absurd, the idea of increasing engagement is not. So, while I chafe on ‘fun in the workplace’ or tying Purpose to joy/happiness, I do not begrudge people the intent. I am not “anti-happiness” I just think happiness and work is a silly objective.

In general, happiness and work is one of those nice sounding bullshit ideas which actually have negative consequences. Negative consequences? Yeah. It begins to imply that work should make you happy and if it doesn’t make you happy all the time then you are (a) in the wrong job or (b) there is something wrong with the place you are.

Now. You could quite possibly be in the wrong job and the place you are working is a crappy place, but work isn’t always fun. Work doesn’t always make you happy. Work is sometimes a real grind. That, for the most part, is the work of doing work. It’s the 60-80%ish which you have to do which enables the 40-20%ish which is actually fun and which creates the shit that makes you happy – maybe even some joy moments.

Typical of the current binary world, happiness seems to be the solution to unhappiness. This simplistic diagnosis ignores the subtleties of actual work and grabs onto the headlines of the day that work sucks and work is killing us. I am not suggesting the workplace cannot be improved (shit, I have written dozens of pieces suggesting new ways to structure work and organizations), but I am suggesting ‘happiness’ is not the correct objective.

All that said. Happiness is an interesting topic. While happiness clearly matters to people should it matter to people (as an objective), should it matter to a brand/business or even matter to an organization?

What I do know for sure is that anyone who talks about happiness takes for granted everyone is always seeking it. This is an incredibly easy task for the happiness peddlers in today’s world. In an “us versus them” narrative (or hero/villain), thems and villains abound within all the questions people are asking.

People are increasingly questioning wealth and consumerism.

People are questioning the meaning of work.

People are questioning perceived victimhood, global distress and overall, they feel the world has more problems than solutions and less smart responsible people to solve them.

In that kind of world view anyone who suggests you should have happiness, any quantity above your current happiness status, is offering a drink of water to someone dying of thirst.

But beyond the ‘happiness peddlers’ even countries are pursuing laws to make happiness an inalienable right (Brazil did), China and Thailand developed happiness measures and a number of countries have considered well-being/happiness factors as part of GDP.

“a nation’s total production of goods and services is at best a means to other ends, and often a dubious means at that. In contrast, happiness, or satisfaction with life, can lay claim to be not merely an end in itself, but the end most people consider more important than any other.”

Derek Bok

While I believe the pursuit of happiness, and in particular, the business of happiness, is slightly insidious (Barbara Ehrenreich “Smile or Die: How Positive Thinking fooled America and the World”) my largest concern is with business. Businesses have begun to explicitly pursue happiness as a way of growing the bottom line (under the guise of ‘good culture’ or ‘healthy employee engagement’).

                                     ** note: for brands I do not believe ‘happiness’ should ever be an objective. Research has shown ‘likeability’, in communications and perceptions, translates into positive brand value and building products with an intent to meeting people’s problems (offering ‘better’) actually creates a more meaningful value proposition, happiness as an objective seems absurd.

But let’s get to happiness itself. What is it? If I stick with how people are actually trying to measure it, I would suggest it is a combination of ‘satisfaction with one’s life’ and attitude. The problem with the measurement on the former is a lot of it is based on ‘positive psychology.’ Problem? 99% of positive psychology is bullshit and the measurement appears to revolve around satisfaction in the entire experience with Life. The next problem is that much of the measurement has to revolve around social narratives of what success (or happiness) should look like. Maybe better is Kahneman’s “positive affect” which attempts to view actual experience rather than memories of happiness. This is an attempt to delve into actual moods and attitudes. Let me be clear. I think it is absurd to attempt to not only measure happiness, but try and define what makes people happy. I say that because happiness is contextual and personal.

The reality is happiness is a combination of factors, none of which are equal to each other and each may actually have different value to different people.

• Basic needs

• Money (wealth)

• Relationships (human connection)

• Independence (autonomy or ability to not be reliant on things)

• Meaning

                                            ** note: I am fairly sure I stole these factors from somewhere, and someone, but I do not have the source. The words within the aspects are mine.

• basic needs

Simplistically, people suggest that meeting the fundamental aspects like food, shelter, health and education is meeting basic needs. Well. They may be right, but I am not sure its that simple. Fundamental needs more often get defined by which social context (your income bracket, job and family experience). Basic needs to a low-income home is significantly different than basic needs of a wealthy home, i.e., happiness is not the same. I tend to believe an individual’s happiness cannot be de-linked from their own context and society expectations tied to that context <albeit many of us attempt to do so>, therefore while basic needs need to be met to fulfill the fundamental foundation of happiness – those basic needs cannot be defined in a common way. Basic needs are not created equal and are quite personal.

                            ** note: hedonic adaptation actually suggests basic needs evolves coinciding with accumulation of income or wealth.

• money

It is absurd to say money doesn’t matter. Of course, money matters. It matters not just in terms of non-luxury (fulfilling basics), but also luxury (in terms some additional life comforts). I would also note, similar to fundamental needs, luxury is contextual to the individual. And it is even absurd to say the uber-wealthy don’t care about money, just things. They became absurdly uber-wealthy because they actually care, absurdly so, about money. This isn’t to say money is everything, hence the reason it is on a list and not weighted, but money & wealth is something. And that something doesn’t matter to some median number (the most publicized is $75,000 as the critical tipping point, but that number is dubious at best), it matters to each individual in their own definition. Money matters.

• relationships

Human connection is integral to any level of happiness. There is absolutely self-satisfaction which can lead to happiness, but there is some truth to “double the joys & halve the griefs.” Just as with meaning, which tends to be optimized when recognizing how what one does positively impacts others, human connection (or actively participating in a social system) permits one to connect with a variety of emotional and societal cues which undergird self-belief, awareness and value. Relationships, in and of themselves, are essential because we are social beings not really designed to be solitary. But relationships’ relationship to happiness is just as important because when relationships exist, that may appear to have no direct benefit, happiness increases.

                                        ** note: it is typically within ‘relationships’ which business rummages around to create a ‘happy culture’ or seek to optimize connections with people (most likely with a business intent – innovation, problem solving, etc.).

It is quite possible I should have called this ‘connections’, but I tend to believe if you don’t have a relationship the connection is simply transactional or hollow and doesn’t transfer its total potential.

• independence

I could have called this freedom, but freedom has a variety of definitions so I went with independence. To be fair, because this is about business, all workers are reliant on the institution they work within. The trick here is found in the word ‘subservient.’ If a worker feels like they are subservient to the institution, the job takes on slave-like perceptions (or machine-like – “I am just a cog in the machine’). I probably don’t need to note that neither of these things are positive nor are fundamental to happiness.

A worker should feel like they have some independence within the systems they work or, well, they will feel controlled. And maybe that is where independence resides – you have to feel like you have some controllable aspects of your work life (this is also true for Life in general). Without some independence joy is either difficult to achieve or, at least, the joy you do gain is constricted/constrained. No one wants their happiness to be reliant, or totally reliant, on some entity/institution.

• meaning

Meaning, contribution, purpose, whatever you want to call it (but please do not call it “your Why”). Bottom line. Meaning is mattering. Period.

But I shouldn’t even write my thoughts here and simply say go listen to, or read, Zach Mercurio.

That said. Let me say this about meaning. Meaning (see: Mattering) is created through a transaction, i.e., you do your best and someone benefits from your best.

                                             ** note: in business mattering has two sides – recognition from within and acknowledge from without. Business that does not acknowledge that what you do, even some small things, impact the greater good of the business means there is no link. In addition, business that doesn’t encourage an individual to recognize that what they have done doesn’t benefit someone or someones (thru the actual value delivered) means there is no link. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out tat the highest order of ‘mattering value’ is achieved when all mattering, individual, family/tribe. Business, society/world is aligned.

I would also note that when that alignment occurs one most likely achieves “joy” not just happiness.

But I am not a psychologist.

Now. Continuing on meaning. In order to believe you have power to transfer your best from a moment (doing what you do), but also to whomever you are interacting with, you have to be open to the engagement. I won’t call it a ‘dialogue’ with someone just an investment, an opening of yourself, to embrace whomever and whatever is within the moment (some people will call this ‘vulnerability’). I imagine I am suggesting that you think you are not inserting yourself into the moment, but rather you are linking into the fabric of whatever exists in that moment and doing your best to make it the best moment possible. That may sound very “I”, but I would argue that something as mundane when viewed simply as an “I” responsibility can be viewed as a way for anyone to not only energize someone you intersect with, or impact, but get energized yourself.

That is linking.

That is an attitude.

That is, well, meaning.

I would be remiss if I did not point out this is not choiceful, as in “today I will do this but tomorrow I may not”, but rather a 24/7 attitude to be brought to living Life.

I am sure I am missing something but I would argue that some mixture of these five things create happiness.

“I finished by saying that it struck me that all the ethical systems I was discussing were after the fact.

That is, that people act as they are disposed to, but they like to feel afterwards that they were right and so they invent systems that approve of their dispositions.”

Alexei Panshin

One last thought on happiness itself and how business mismanages the idea. while I imagine almost every worker with any experience thinks ‘happiness’ as a culture objective is bullshit, I can almost guarantee that as soon as it is promised as an objective people will establish some expectations. According to psychologist Gary Stollak, a psychology professor, most people have a “happiness set point.” Let’s call that a “5” on the self-happiness meter.

Therefore, when we get up for something, and it concludes satisfactorily, we rise to a high. Our happiness meter goes to 10 <maybe 11 if you are a Spinal Tap fan>.

Unfortunately, your happiness meter balances out. That is partially why your happiest highs are often followed by depressed lows. The worst part of this aspect is what we fill the empty space, which happiness used to hang out in, with doubts, questions, regrets, what ifs, whatever else we could add in that diminished the true happiness and high. Included in this, in a business perspective, will be blame & cynicism toward the institution itself.

Bottom line result? We go high, we go low … and, hopefully, normalize.

Heck. Research has linked the let-down of perceived stress with an increase in flare-ups of pain and other ailments. One study found that people experience more panic attacks on weekends, and a 2015 study from Taiwan found that holidays and Sundays have more emergency room admissions for peptic ulcers than weekdays do. A 2014 study showed migraine sufferers, in times of stress, didn’t impact migraine occurrence, but a decline in their perceived stress from one evening entry to the next entry was associated with increased migraine onset over the following six to 18 hours<they called this a “let-down headache”>.

My real point here is that we will never always be happy and even attempting to have a ‘median happy’ business is absurd. Business will have highs & lows – happiness and sadness, anticipation and disappointment and while a business may like to flatten it out to point out the happys beat the sads. It doesn’t work that way in business.

In the end.

Of course, happiness matters. And it should.

The Listening Society: Hanzi Freinacht

Sure. We should be having hard discussions over the relationship between materialism & happiness and the future of work & happiness as well as economic aspects (anxieties & inequality) & happiness. But maybe we should be seeking a workplace that is “authentizotic.”

‘authentizotic’

“places where people find a sense of belonging (whatever their background), a sense of enjoyment (which promotes innovation and creative thinking) and a sense of meaning (where people can put their imagination and creativity to work on challenges that feel worthwhile to them)”

Manfred Kets de Vries

I bring up this relatively absurd word (but great thought) to address the ‘bring your total self to work’ bullshit. If I create an ‘authentizotic’ environment I don’t need to tell people to bring anything, they will just be. We should stop focusing on how to make businesses happiness making environments and focus more on making workplaces places where people can thrive and maximize their potential. I don’t guarantee much when I am doing things in business, but I can almost guarantee if you do that, I would be willing to bet the people working there will be happier.

———————–

“Releasing complexity is a much different process than reducing complexity.”

Bonnitta Roy

———————

I propose insights don’t reduce complexity, but rather release complexity. For people to agree with that they will need to agree to several things:

• Everything is connected with everything, in other words, insights are about connectivity and connectivity is made up of minute linear fractals within a non linear complexity.

Note: this means fractals relate linearly at a minute level

Complexity is non-linear. It could be said that postindustrial societies are more complex than premodern societies—there are many more things happening, in many more domains (largely because of how networked/entangled we have become). Likewise, it could be said that a tropical rainforest is more complex than a cornfield, or a parking lot. But is ‘more’ complexity ‘better’?

There is no objectively correct answer here, of course. It’s a ridiculous question.

But, for what its worth, I suspect that the more we lean into ‘complexity thinking’ (lived and embraced)—the savvier we get at coordinating at higher orders of complexity—the better we will be at navigating the myriad hypercomplex transnational challenges of our times.

• Simplicity is found within complexity NOT instead of complexity (coherent linear fractals represent the complex whole)
• Complicated is reflective of ineffective, inefficient, linear fractals (limiting features)
• Complexity is reflective of effective, efficient connectivity (expansive features)

I propose insights are not causally linear (they simply release a non linear aspect of probabilities) nor are they simple rather they are reflective of unleashing complexity’s non-linear potential. To be clear. Insights may appear simple, because at their best they focus on some linear fractal, but they are complex in nature.

Clarity on insights

The main issue with insights is the lack of clarity. The lack of clarity is actually explainable because there are product insights, human insights, organizational insights, behavioral insights, mental insights, shit, insights on insights. They can be big, medium, small and, yet, big insights can create small effects and small insights can create big effect. Maybe another way of saying this is that insights look very much like finite things, yet, are actually infinite.

Note: clarity and language

We all play a role in guiding shared language. I should note language is always shared within context (words can take on different meaning in different environments) including organizational, community and culture. Accepted, or rejected, by whether it flows or not. In other words, perspective shapes the language and the language shapes the perspective (non linear or causal, but looped).

(recommended reading: How to Speak Human/Jackson & Jackson)

I will offer two thoughts on insights in order to try and get a grip on the infinite aspect:

• Distribution and benefit of distribution
• Insight hunters have distinct abilities

Distribution & benefit

1. We should think of insights in terms of distribution.

By viewing an insight from a distribution stance we can assess it at its most functional aspect – a connection in which there is a transferal of something between a & b. Within a complex world the closer you can get to identifying the distribution connection as possible the more likely you are to find something that can move the behavioral, attitudinal or emotional dial. Some people may haggle and say this is about connectivity and they would be partially correct. Correct in that by viewing this in distribution terms you are delving into the connection, but in treating it like distribution you view it as a distinct transferal of value, goods, feelings, etc*. This translates into a pragmatic view of an insight.

** note: for example, in the Insight world Valentine’s Day is not a transferal of cards, chocolate or diamonds, but rather a transferal of feeling (me-to-you) wherein it is defined in a specific way to context.

2. We should think of insights in terms of the benefit of that distribution

What is the consequence/impact of that distribution:

• Does it improve it (solve a complication)?
• More efficient?
• More effective
• What is the value in the transferal connectivity or the value in what is given or in what is gained?

Rather than simply seeing this as “something gained” the insight would reflect “something offered” within this fractal connection (a linear moment within complex nonlinear connective relationships).

Insight hunters

“Insight hunters” should do some reflective thinking. They should because they have some distinct abilities:

• Can identify patterns among linear relationships, thus for­m­­ing syst­ems of relations among abstract variables and how these inter­act.
• Can compare and synthesize several systems with differing logics, put together “metasystems” or conclusions that hold true across different system, reflect upon and name general properties of systems.
• Can see how one system can be changed in corresponding or differing ways to another system.
• Can deal with several very abstract metasystems to create new ways of thinking of the world, new paradigms.
• Has a fractal way of thinking, so that the universal principles found are applicable to many different levels of analysis and phenomena.

(source: The Listening Society by Hanzi Freinacht)

I would suggest if you do not have these distinct abilities you may not be an effective insight hunter.

1. The confusion between simplicity and the illusion of simplicity

Nothing is really simple. There is only the illusion of simplicity. Simplicity is a magician’s trick, a sleight of hand, when done well. It gives one a sense of simplicity, a sense of elegant brevity, a “known” for us to ignore – or accept – the unknown.

The issue in doing this is that we then confuse simplicity with complexity by bifurcating them – when they are actually one & the same (or simplicity is the shadow of complexity). In a complex confusing world this can be quite handy. But in a complex, confusing world this creates a sense that there really is simplicity and simple things – and there are not. While maybe in a smaller sense, like some insights, this may be (slightly) acceptable I would argue tin the longer game and the bigger sense you are simply creating a problem you will have to deal with at some point in the future. And, as we all know, problems snowball. So what you have claimed as simplicity today will have all its complexity begin snowballing at that exact time and inevitably you will have a shitstorm of an avalanche to deal with.

I am not arguing against elegant simplicity in narratives/descriptions. They are handy heuristics getting people from here to there thought wise. What I am arguing against is not accepting you are simply sharing the illusion of simplicity.

In the insight world, in the complexity management world and in the business world, in general, using the illusion of simplicity is, well, business malpractice. You are simply a peddler in fortune cookie wisdom.

So how should we view insight discovery? Think of it as peering into the shadow of complexity. Assume complexity is good and it represents the incredible weave of productivity, positive progress, possibilities and people potential. This means complexity is your friend and simplicity is the most effective way of introducing your friend to everyone else. This is most often articulated as ‘an insight.’ This is important because complexity, in and of itself, is mind numbing and an amorphous blob of confusing interrelationships. This leads me to something Jackson & Jackson said “complexity isn’t the issue, its confusion.’ Simplicity, therefore, is non-confusing complexity offering the highest order of value generation (understanding, beliefs, attitudes, behavior impulse). Yes. Make things easy to understand and while it may be complex, it feels simple and useful. The insights, therefore, has released the power of complexity through its understandability.

Subset: the binary illusion

If linearity is seductive, binaries are seductively dangerous. They are a simplistic attempt to formalize relationships between different abstract variables. Its silly. Its simplicity is dangerous. And its mostly wrong. The allure of them is understandable for 2 reasons:

• The best answers are often found in contraries. Great good presupposes great evil. In fact, one cannot be present, relatively speaking, without the other. It is uncommon to find both polarities within one person, but it is not unknown. Predicating thought on a binary framework makes sense, making conclusions from a binary does not make sense.
• The complexity of the world around us, and within us, defies easy definitions and binaries permit false contrasts to provide definitions. It is natural to respond to a complex world in simplified manners: black & white, either/or, us versus them, this/that.

I suggest the road to binary thinking is the search for stability/certainty (optimal certainty**. This is actually where insights reside. Below the surface of complexity outcomes lies a complex arrangement of fractal connections. By rummaging around the connections between what a person grounds themselves on behaviorwise/attitudewise (lily pads of certainty) or some recurring patterns that ground everyday life AND the more nebulous inconsistent interactions/connections with the daily moments of uncertainty. These are actual ‘fractal simplicities’ or what Alvin Toffler warned us of in 1980 with the advent of mass consumed technology – halfisms versus wholisms.

 ** optimal certainty: optimizing adaptive change within an existing construct. Offer enough probability so people can accept the uncertain realities.

Insights actually straddle halfsims and wholisms (albeit we could suggest insights are halfisms which lead to a wholism). Regardless. Insights reflect a connection TO the truthism while not offering the whole truth in and of itself.

Earlier I suggested complexity is expansive. This translates into a belief an insight, articulated through understandable simplicity, should release complexity potential.

We cannot eliminate complexity, its air. Breathe it or suffocate. That said. I believe the fractal connections are the oxygen and within that oxygen are the insights.  I say that to make a point about the bigness, and smallness, of this entire issue and how we may struggle with the concept of ‘insight’ if it is neither simple nor big or small, yet, IS, in its fractal simplicity, big and small. Let me explain.

Life, the world, the individual’s behavior is like a spinning three dimensional double helix. You can look at an individual that way – personalized string of DNA constantly in motion – in which its configuration subtly adapts contextually based on need/want, functional, emotional & social. Somewhere therein an insight seeker must identify and pluck out an insight. The insight lies somewhere within a fractal, halfism, connection which resides within a larger context (wholism).

That said. I propose that insights, generally speaking, release complexity in one of three ways:

(**note: this thought kills customer journey. Full disclosure. I have used customer journeys to make a point but in its simplicity, it more often offers false connections & false conclusions than it does any insightful, non-superficial, results)

1. Seamless

This is about fitting in to an existing double helix DNA behavioral map. Success, with this type of insight, more often than not, is not creating something new forcing people to do something different, but rather fitting in <in a new way> what they are currently doing. This insight is all about “persuasion versus accepting”. Persuading someone that they should do, or try, something versus having someone accept something as part of the natural flow of Life & what they do.

I will note this insight is tricky because while it CAN be about improvement, “broken connections” (fractals) fixed simply puts a system back to the normal complexity. You may be solving a specific complication but, in reality, it reverts back to a “comfortable complexity.” This may sound like semantics, but in an insight world in which we attempt to want to espouse “improvements bettering people’s lives” seamless insights are actually more about “doing something that no one really notices.”

Ponder that.

2. Nudge

There are a number of excellent books defining and discussing a “nudge” insight. Nudge (Thaler), Tipping Point (Gladwell), Herd (Earls), The Choice Factory (Shotton) … all discuss aspects of nudging type thinking. That said. This type of insight is carefully incongruent to the natural flow of things. Its comfortably uncomfortable (or uncomfortably comfortable). It nudges your entire rotating double helix of behavior so its axis shifts without discombobulating the entire flow of someone’s life.

You fail if it shifts the ground people stand on and succeed if people feel like they remain on solid ground, but actually have eased into a parallel dimension.

3. Rearrange

—

“So the universe is not quite as you thought it was.

You’d better rearrange your beliefs, then. Because you certainly can’t rearrange the universe.”

Isaac Asimov

—

You can’t rearrange someone’s universe. Well. Sometimes you can, not often, but the right product with the right insight can get a person to rearrange their universe. I imagine some people would call these disruptive ideas, I will not. They are simply moments in time in which the is a product insight that aligns with a human insight which rearranges people’s behavioral universe (and even how they make think about themselves in doing so).

This insight is tricky. While this one purposefully taps into the expansiveness of complexity and is a full on “possibilities”/future-looking insight, it can often look quite random. Rearranging often looks random in the moment and, of course, obvious** in hindsight (which makes it difficult to convince people it is meaningful).

** obvious (def.): We neatly arrange things so things seem linear/causal. Taleb (Fooled by Randomness) “regime shift corresponds to situations when all the attributes of a system change to the point of it becoming unrecognizable to the observer – time aggregation eliminates effect of randomness.” Rearranging IS evolution and evolution is asymmetrical. Insights, too often, are presented in symmetrical ways (attempting to make them look obvious or simple), yet, their power is in energizing asymmetry. Ponder that. 

With a ‘re-arranging’ insight you really have two basic choices:

• Full newness
• optimal newness

Full newness is always tempting. We like to call these disruptive insights and they just may well be. Just be aware the majority of people do not like to be on the bleeding edge.

Optimal newness is art & science. Too new increases the risk assessment, too grounded it becomes a ‘so what’ insight. To achieve this insight you see a fragmented thought (combination of existing & nonexisting fractals) of which the formula is not formulaic but rather contextual to the opportunity.

Unfortunately, insight seekers must deal with much more complex issues than selecting single variables as “wholisms”. Simplicity and complexity are partners in crime. The world is complex and, yet, to navigate its understanding we need some simplistic lily pads of certainty. Therein lies heuristics and insights.

2. The confusion between complicated and complexity.

Let’s begin here:

“Complicated problems originate from causes that can be individually distinguished; they can be address­ed piece by­ piece; for each input to the system there is a proportionate output; the relevant systems can be controlled and the problems they present admit permanent solutions.

On the other hand, complex problems and systems result from networks of multiple interacting causes that cannot be individually distinguished; must be addressed as entire systems, that is they cannot be addressed in a piecemeal way; they are such that small inputs may result in disproportionate effects; the problems they present cannot be solved once and for ever, but require to be systematically managed and typically any intervention merges into new prob­lems as a result of the interventions dealing with them; and the relevant systems cannot be controlled — the best one can do is to influence them, or learn to ‘dance with them’…”

Professor Roberto Poli

Now let’s move to this.

“A complicated system can be reduced down to linear causality between simple components. An experienced expert can usually run a diagnostic to identify and ‘zero-in’ on broken parts, which can then be fixed to make the complicated system function again. Think of this as akin to someone repairing a mechanical watch. Or, if your car breaks down, it is less than helpful for your roadside assistance mechanic to wax philosophical about how the problem is nested within a more complex system. Rather: you want them to use their expertise to diagnose the problem, reduce things down, find the root cause, and fix it. Because in this context, a clear fix is possible.

A complex system, however, cannot be reduced reliably—causality is networked and non-linear, multiple interconnected components interact with each other, with no clearly distinguishable pathways of cause-and-effect. But complex systems can sometimes demonstrate ‘fractal simplicities’—recurring patterns that make a (self-similar) kind of ‘sense’ across different levels of complexity and abstraction. Still, there are no singular root causes for the phenomena that emerges from within a complex system. And thus the challenges complex systems are often wickedly entangled.”

Dr. Jason Fox

Now to this. Complexity is actually good and complicated is bad. Complexity is actually how the world works, it’s a representation of the co-evolution of things. Things beget things. The evolution of the human psyche is always dependent upon the development of its environment – in terms of technology, institutions, ecology, culture, language, the psychological development of others and the relations between them. Complexity is, and will always be, a mixed bag of co-development (an interaction amongst things with rippled consequences begetting new things).

This does not mean a person, a product or an idea/insight CANNOT purposefully reshape the environment (individual and social context) itself but no insight, or idea, lives in isolation – it is co-dependent upon multiple domains. At any given point that you are attempting to ‘rearrange things’ someone and something is also attempting to rearrange things. There are layers upon layers of behavior, attitudes and imperfect people. I could suggest here that in a complexity world everything you do is the Monte Carlo Simulation. Well. It is and it isn’t. As JP Hanson has pointed out a number of times, principles and principled thinking can limit the risk and possible consequences. Taleb calls this “skewed bets.” That said. I’d encourage most insight seekers to think its closer to a Monte Carlo Simulation than a ‘done deal’ locked in outcome*.

*note: Outcome: the good news — the Sinus Milieu and the lock-in principle. It was the French sociologist, Emile Durkheim, who developed a psychographic method analyzing groups of people called the Sinus Milieu. Basically it is a model that challenges us to think about behavior, preferences and culture. Within the model resides the key point – ‘the lock-in principle.’ The principle simply states that if we get used to something we do not want to change our habits <or attitudes and beliefs> even if we are presented with something new or different that might be better. Simplistically, it consistently shows <to a point that it is almost an unequivocal behavioral truth> that habit, or the current way of doing things, is stronger than the desire for improvement.

3. Confusion between chaos and complexity

“To thrive amidst chaos means to cope or come to grips with it. But that is too reactive an approach and misses the point. The true objective is to take the chaos as given and learn to thrive on it. The winners of tomorrow will deal proactively with chaos, will look at chaos per se as the source of market advantage, not as a problem to get around. Uncertainty and chaos are (will be) market opportunities for the wise.”

Tom Peters, June 1987 “Thriving on Chaos”

Yes. Tom Peters actually explored managing complexity in his 1987 book “Thriving on Chaos.”* And, yes, I actually believe you could call the book “in search of insights.” Everything within the book reflect ways of thinking, principles and navigating the natural flow of a complex business with the intent to find leverage insight opportunities.

I will say that, in general, I believe people who talk about the value of chaos in business and creative process are simply embracing complexity. (note: I have used chaos in narratives because it sounds more impactful than complexity)

** note: Alvin Toffler in Future Shock & The Third Wave, 1970 & 1980 respectively, Peters in 1987 and even The Cluetrain Manifesto 2000 all warned us of the increased complexity of life and business with the advent of mass-technology.

As noted, insights are anything but simple. They are complex, multidimensional with non-linear (unpredictable, only probabilistic) things.

Insight and insights seeking is architectural in nature

Why are insights so important within complexity? Well. Complexity, as part of natural order, does not seek chaos, but actually seeks optimal stability (lily pads of certainty/stability so the ‘gyre not fly off the wheel’). I call this the ‘construct-to-agility* ratio.

*agility is the ability to shift resources to meet needs (reading: The Cactus and the Weasel).

** construct-to-agility ration: optimal certainty in which you find the perfect ratio of stability to freedom/chaos.

*** Note that this is just not a business definition but also an individual behavior definition (time, energy, knowledge, emotion, need, etc).

Suffice it to say that lots of things exist within complexity and people like to swirl around some steady things.

*note: insights can reflect the steady parts or the swirling parts (see ‘seamless, nudge, Rearranging’ explanations).

The way “in” to complexity is to recognize the system and connections. Basically, we need to connect the inner workings of people to structural forces in their world (head, heart, wallet) and the social world (the construct they live within) and see these as an always-ever adapting, to context, interconnectivity.

A final thought on navigating complexity and insights

While understanding what an insight is certainly enhances the likelihood of actually seeing an insight ultimately an insight is, well, nothing unless it is shared with clarity & clarification. Remember. An insight is simply a heuristic for a complex connection point – a description of connectivity. Therefore, it will need some clarification (so that people gain some understand). Which leads me to “definition not details”. Far too often we see details as the path to creating understanding – offer some tangible detail as rationale. In some worlds one could call these “reason to believes.” This is a trap. The best insights DO provide clarity of complexity and detail begins to unravel that clarity creating scenarios in which people will then inevitably hold on to details like buoys in a stormy sea of complexity. Definitions. It is definitions that matter.

Definitions create the platform to what Michelle Holliday describes as “thrivability”:

“thrivability is about identifying and committing to the best means of enhancing life’s ability to thrive. Aligning with life’s core operating patterns across every aspect of the organization.”

** I will appropriate this organizational thinking to insights and suggest an insight aligns with behavioral operating patterns to product/service offering **

This may sound nebulous, but insights are not a means to an end, they are actually about releasing (complexity) and opening up behavior, in other words, thrivability.

Just ponder.

Let me end with intentions.

Strategy, strategic insights and “insight hunting” for the most part is a road paved with good intentions.

Intention 1: reduce cognitive load. I don’t care if you work with concrete, software , nano-anything, insights are made (uncovered) by and for humans. Therefore, inherent to any good insight is the reduction of cognitive load (once it is understood and accommodated within attitudes/behavior). People make 1000’s of decisions daily (35,000 I believe) and an insight should not add to decisions but rather subtract from decision making. That is an intent not always realized but the pursuit is of value.

Intention 2: a relentless pursuit of clarity to provide certainty to others – in other words – a solid place from which others can launch some thinking, behavior, ‘doing’, whatever.

Therein also lies its greatest challenge. In a complex world true ‘solid’ is often fleeting and one can quite easily offer some misguided hope, or belief, that this answer is a panacea for uncertainty in a complex world. I have found this piece from Sonja Blignaught, “7 lessons I’ve learned consulting as a complexity practitioner” as a helpful guide with regard to intent and articulation.

In the end (part a).

In general, the reality is we should seek to work WITH complexity not kill it (because it actually maximizes future and present potential). Specifically, with regard to insights, an insight should release something within complexity – a vivid improvement or vivid feeling. Yes. It could be simplicity (or the trappings of ‘simpler’) but that is simply a means to an end. Maybe we should be judging insights not on simplicity but rather outcome/effect/affectation. In other words, how does it expand possibilities within a complex world for someone? This may feel counterintuitive but I would argue this is simply a different articulation of benefit or “makings someone’s life better.”

In the end (part b).

Be intent. Be intent on embracing complexity and be intent on articulating complexity. I will note that because Complexity is expansive embracing Complexity is not for the faint of heart. Some people shrink from its immensity and other find riches within its immensity – especially the insight seekers.

Some final insight seeker advice.

I do not agree nor believe we need to use some business jargon or bullshit soundbites in order to create salience especially with regard to insight articulation. In fact, I find it counterproductive and even dangerous to what is most important – the idea itself.

Thinking, thought making, and especially insights, demands lack of bullshit. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be utilizing any and all of the thinking behind all the bullshit words & fortune cookie wisdom memes. We should be the ones embracing the complexity and rejecting the simplicity. If not us, who?

To conclude.

If I were to treat this long stream of consciousness post as an outline for a book, there remain many unanswered questions and several open ended thoughts to explore in its chapters:

the physics of insights: if insights inherently expand space, is space infinite? (exploration aligned with ‘as galaxies expand and increase space between the universal space expands infinitely’)

the psychology of insights: if the best insights, in essence, encapsulate a finite decision yet its power is releasing the infinite possibilities, how does the human mind grasp this? (exploration of Carse’s Infinite Game)

do fractals have codes: the neuroscience of insights (exploration of Barden’s Decoded)

the relationship between insights and progress: is progress, or even a Quest, simply coherent fractals? (exploration of Fox’s How to Lead a Quest)

fractal semiotics: the language of insights (exploration of Petkova’s Brave New Text

the philosophy of insights: does everything have an insight? does something have to have an insight to exist?

Maybe there are more questions than answers. As it should be I imagine.

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

About the piece:

While I have written a number of pieces about the ‘complexity of simplicity’ and insights it was Dr. Jason Fox and this thought that made me sit down and write:

Maybe there’s a part of me that bemoans the fact that so many folks seem to yearn for simple ‘solutions’ whilst in denial of complexity. The result instead is that we end up treating complex systems as complicated—and thus our ‘solutions’ are reactive, short-sighted, simplistic (not simple) and liable to perpetuate the deeper issues at play.

If you have people in your organisation: it’s complex.

Because we—you and I, each and every one of us—are infinitely complex. We are not merely individual cogs in a machine (though classic and conventional approaches to management might have you believe otherwise, thus dehumanising). And while we must of course work to remove unnecessary complications in our systems of work, we must do so knowing that this complicated system sits within much more complex contexts.

This.

And almost exactly the same time a tweet from Tom Goodwin crossed my thread saying “not everything has an insight” (with regard to advertising). I knew I disagreed, but had never articulated why I disagreed.

Bruce McTague

==

“Not only are you responsible for serving your community, but you are partly responsible for there being any community to serve.”

Mary Parker Follett

==

“In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries the industrialization of England accelerated at such a pace that historians have found no term adequate to describe it save one usually reserved for violent political change – revolution.”

Leuchtenburg, Perils of Prosperity

==

Ah. Technocrats. This is a companion piece to “circulation of elites” just that this time I am focusing on technology and monopolistic technology autocrats who think of themselves as the elites to guide us all to a better future. Now. The bible of how technocrats have hijacked capitalism is Technopoly by Neil Postman, but the concept of technocracy can be traced to William Henry Smyth, a California engineer, who introduced the term “technocracy” in his 1919 article titled “Technocracy – Ways and Means to Gain Industrial Democracy,” which was published in the Journal of Industrial Management (Corporate Finance Industry). Anyway.  Technocrats not only have an odd view of capitalism, but of society in general. Generally speaking, they have an inordinate dislike of constraints which only encourages technological advancement without any constraints, or any real moral boundaries, as they believe the market will naturally sort itself out.  That is a dangerously naive thought. As Leo Marx said:

“The simple republican formula for generating progress by directing improved technical means to societal ends was imperceptibly transformed into a quite different technocratic commitment to improving ‘technology’ as the basis and the measure of — as all but constituting — the progress of society.”

The technocrats play an interesting game. They say just enough reasonable things to suggest maybe they are doing something good for all of us, and they even use some key enlightenment ideals without really understanding enlightenment. What I mean by that Is they tend to think of reason without any real boundaries. It is almost like they embrace Foucault’s nihilism. Rather than the philosophical ideas that are central to progressive society like a commitment to universalism over tribalism, firm distinction between justice and power, and a belief in the possibility of progress (Susan Neiman), this generation of technocrats tend to look at these ideas as disconnected rather than connected. In other words, progress above all even at the expense of universalism and justice. Their reason is justified by outcomes, not process and they tend to believe that all technological progress is good. This leads to a belief because they are forces of ‘good’ that their power should be unconstrained. Yeah. Its unconstrained technology development combined with unconstrained power. Ultimately this version of technocrat doesn’t really see monopolies, just ‘scale.’ That trickster nuance leads this merry band of technocrats down a path where business is more important than, well, anything (because they believe the business ‘serves for good of society’) and they see their redesigning of society as simply reengineering humanity (without tending to humanity’s needs).

• ** note: there is a significant difference between reengineering and redesigning. The former is simply reshaping the system and structure that exists, i.e., simply propagating an already existing flawed construct; the latter actually demands a vision to build toward, i.e., design something new and have technology enable it.

This can get a bit worse. Similar to the originators of the world wide web (most of which have reflectively accepted their naivete) they still view the limitless flow of information as a net positive for society and humanity. This includes limitless information flow to and from what their ultimate objective – computer intelligence which surpasses people’s. Their vision is all encompassing in that it envisions an entire system, an infrastructure in other words, to undergird everyone – regardless of (a) whether humanity has the capacity to absorb the limitless flow of information in any meaningful way, and (b) all will be equally empowered to take advantage of this new system. They seem to ignore, well, lots of things. But they mostly tend to ignore how power and control and information/knowledge pools. Maybe that is so because they see the existing pooling benefiting them and they see some undemocratic view of the world where a weird meritocracy is generated – weird in that it truly isn’t the best of the best, but rather simply the best at taking advantage of the system.

They are reengineering society, but just to be clear, they do so in the pursuit of scale and profit over safety concerns and public accountability. But maybe what should concern us most is HOW they seek to reengineer. Its not just that their objectives are a bit naïvely dangerous, but they also are crafting a structure of numbers and measurements (its kind of an extension of a belief that machines are the future so the way the future should be shaped is in machine terms).  They are shaking the entire etch-a-sketch of society and they don’t care if any of the sand is lost while shaking. They have a structured ideology of mathematical measurement to justify anything and everything. It’s a warped vision of even the warped Taylorism that got us to where we are today. It is almost like we are being led by an illiterate group of people in that their only literacy is in numbers, scale and machine technology wrapped in a loose, but extreme, libertarian etch-a-sketch. They weave webs of ‘progress’ under the guise of numbers – usage, engagement, and views – while ignoring whether those individual usages, engagements & views, are actually good for human beings. “It will all sort out” and “scale flattens negative affects” represents the technocrat mantra. They ignore the relationships between morality (what is good) and the power of the tools they are crafting. Once again, if you squint hard enough what they say seems reasonable, but stop squinting and it all becomes a blur of dangerously unconstrained technological innovations and systems. They will claim they are not doing this, but they are sacrificing progress for humanity and society for a hollowed out, but profitable, progress in business (because they see their ‘business’ as not really a business but a societal infrastructure development – for which they get paid for). I say all that so we can stop being surprised by the horrible existing leadership. They have no vision for what they are creating. They are just creating things assuming a vision will emerge from their technological wizardry. The past is all unworthy of consideration (even the important things of the past), they believe the future will be shaped not through some grand strategy but rather by chasing things – at exponential scale/pace – that seem beneficial, and numbers become proof of performance (note: numbers are not people). All of this is done rather than creating and sustaining a substantive healthy society.

Yeah. I know their arguments. Their entire argument revolves around “it is because of technology lives have dramatically improved.” The problem is that immediately veers into a warped unconstrained development with “if you restrain any development, imagine what you are costing humanity.” Yeah. Its technological development no matter what. I would be remiss if I didn’t mention something I pointed out in my “will of the institution’ piece. Business over the past 100 years has encouraged everyone, all workers, to view business in a religious sense – “business is the savior for not only you – your family – btu society in total. Technocrats simply warp that idea (an idea I would note has had incredibly negative repercussions to human psyche, meaning, life purpose and even the nuclear family) to an exponentially existential level – technology is THE hope for a better future. It absolves them of any moral clarity and suggests we, the people, would benefit by hedging our moral bets. To be clear, this isn’t anything they actually say out loud, but, similar to the robber barons of the past who argued they are beneficial to society, they will not say this shit. This means we cannot rely on some grand sense of business responsibility or moral clarity from these technocrats as they pursue unconstrained ambitions.

Which leads me to how their ambitions get conflated with freedom.

Throughout the technology world we hear endless talk of individual freedom, yet, there has never been such pressure for conformity from the market itself. I don’t mean capitalism, but rather when wealth is the objective, the peoples reduce their ambitions to speculation over reason – albeit we label it as being reasonable. In fact, technocrats depend on the masses to have blind faith in the value of reason while, if we are honest, it is simply speculative thinking at the moment (it sounds possibly reasonable with benefits, with no probabilities attached to the possibilities nor penalties). Reason sifts into every dimension of social life and technology is the tool of ‘reason.’ Reason becomes how we administrate a confusing life (and the sense of impending crisis), which means moral forces get kicked to the side. We become directionless other than that which technology wrought. Bereft of true sensemaking and morality, we plod along at the speed of technology. And technocrats endorse that vision through their ambitions.

If technocrats get their way, we will become a society of immense technological power where people will increasingly dwell in a world of illusion, or delusions, comforted by tribes of likeminded dwellers. Well. That’s what I believe. This isn’t to suggest that increased information flow to more people isn’t a good thing because it does inevitably increase the general knowledge of the population, but it comes with some problems if that information isn’t constrained in some ways and continues being delivered in its firehose way. Anyway. The only universality is not humanity and justice, but simply the ubiquitous reach of technology. Technocratic planning is simply an extension of the existing corrupted industrialization thinking – just on exponential steroids. The truth is the technocrat ultimately, sees economics as the sole measurement and technology is the material with which to build these economies. They see their private advantages as things which will inevitably ‘trickle down’ to public good. Its just a different, but equally horrible, version of trickle-down economics. Industrialization is, and has always been, a system to maximize material welfare. Technocrats may twist this truth as they discuss enhancing the brain, optimizing the body’s potential and any number of human enhancing features, but they do so with the objective to increase productivity and wealth. Technology is certainly only increasing its role in the weave of lives, personal and professional, and the general infrastructure of how life is lived. There is no lack of technology ‘plenty.’ But one should reflect upon the harsh truth that nothing cuts deeper to a society, or any business in fact, then the unhealthy relationship between ‘want’ amid ‘plenty.’ Technocrats cannot envision anyone ‘wanting’ in the future when the reality is, unless constrained in some key ways, while technology will be plenty, plenty of people will end up ‘wanting’ for something other than technology. I will say that the one thing the technocrats are clearly right on is ‘technological driven future is inevitable.’ Technology will only become more and more ubiquitous in our lives; often in some fairly invasive ways. Some of the issues this creates cannot be ignored and, I would argue, should be resolved before we go off to the technological races (this is an excellent conversation between Yuval Hari and Mustafa Suleyman, a cautionary pessimist and a reality-based optimist, on some of the issues at hand). We shouldn’t cast aside the machines, but we should view them as reasonable tools for progress, not unreasonable replacements of humanity. Technology has certainly revolutionized how we do things, but inevitably humans decide what to do. I fear technocrats want technology to decide what humans want to do. And maybe that is where I will end. With technocrats’ stronger belief in technology than in humans. This is important because, well, let us remember Mary Parker Follett’s words: Not only are you responsible for serving your community, but you are partly responsible for there being any community to serve. Ponder.

Thinking of everything in business, planning and ideas and, well, anything is a fallacy. Okay. It is impossible. Yet. Day in, day out, we run into people who manage business, projects & people with ‘think of everything’ as their behavioral compass. Note. I said “behavioral”, not thinking. Far too often this topic gets slotted into overthinking, perfection and intellectual masturbation. It is not. Thinking of everything is all about behavior or behavior avoidance.

thinking of everything is a procrastination method. “we cannot start until we are sure we have thought of everything.”

thinking of everything is a fear of responsibility method. “i am going to get blamed if we didn’t think of ‘x’, so let’s make sure we thinking thru everything.”

Once again. this is simply behavior stuff cloaked in thinking.

This issue gets compounded because many people in the business world have a very focused linear horizontal ‘think of everything’ on a topic. Unfortunately <part 1>, inherent in that type of thinking is invariably you haven’t thought of everything <because most business things are not linear and one dimensional but rather multi dimensional and complex>. Unfortunately <part 2>, far too many people force fit linear into a multidimensional world because the business world prefers tidiness, ‘this leads to that’ and certainty.

And then there is the ‘multi tangential double helix all over the place thinking’ methodology <I made that up> which is like trying to be prepared for “what happens if they ask us about how an atom is split” and, yet, all the meeting really is about … well … how to drive foot traffic into a store thinking.  Inherent in that thought methodology is that you haven’t thought of everything because there is not enough time in the world to fulfill this methodology <… plus most people cannot do a multi tangential double helix>.

And then. Despite your methodology and all the preparation and things you have thought of you will always have some senior person, who has only been peripherally involved, turning to the team at the last minute and adamantly stating: “have we thought of everything?”

That is why I would have this illustration I opened with. When asked that question <by said wise senior person> this is the picture to whip out of my case to prove “yes, we have.”

It’s perfect. It showcases the often randomness of all the factoids and trivial and important stuff you … well … stuff into your head for a meeting to explain how you have thought of everything and how ‘the plan’ just is never going to be a nice, neat, tidy, linear plan.

<note: plan on getting fired if you pull this illustration out in response to a senior person question>

That said. Sure. I have certainly been accused of over thinking things on occasion, okay, maybe just over preparing for meeting questions. I would like to think that I spared everyone <slightly> except when we really had a good idea <cause good ideas are different>.

No, I don’t believe anything can be perfect, but with good ideas the closest you can come to perfectly protecting it and thinking of ‘everything’ from day one is a good idea. It at least gives you some hope for implementing the idea you want to implement.

Bottom line? When you think you have thought of everything something will not be thought of.

<that is a postulate I believe>

Oh.

Thinking is messy.

Shit.

Plans are often messy.

Suffice it say that no matter how linear you want to make thinking, inevitably the best thinking has some aspect of randomness to it. Which leads me back to where I opened this piece.

Randomness decreases uncertainty of outcomes when actually doing something. This inherently encourages one to use their procrastination muscles as well as encourages anxiety over accountability & responsibility once one actually does do something.

That said. Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t. So you may as well do.

Go think.

Go be messy.

And, as Dr. Jason Fox says, “take strong tentative steps” because no matter how much you think about everything, you will never think about everything. Ah. Therein lies the fallacy.

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

updated April 2010 post

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

Up to a point a man’s life is shaped by environment, heredity, and the movements and changes in the world around him. Then there comes a time when it lies within his grasp to shape the clay of his life into the sort of thing he wishes to be. Only the weak blame parents, their race, their times, lack of good fortune, or the quirks of fate.

Everyone has it within his power to say, ‘This I am today; that I will be tomorrow.’

The wish, however, must be implemented by deeds.”

–

Louis Lamour

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

So. This is about living Life and personal velocity (progress with momentum). I have written about self esteem and self image and living life, but until now I have never found a quote that summarizes a belief I have always had lurking in the back of my head.

“Then there comes a time when it lies within his grasp to shape the clay of his life into the sort of thing he wishes to be.”

How awesome is that? (pretty awesome)

It is absolutely true that a lot of what may hold us back from our dreams, or maybe more importantly, being whatever it is we want to be isn’t our fault <or in our control>. Life throws a shitload of shit at us and a lot of it is completely out of our control. It would be foolish to not recognize that.

But.

The days when nothing seems to go right.

The days where dreams seemed to have vanished.

The days where ‘not drowning’ is the focus instead of ‘swimming.’

All those days are gonna happen – to all of us. And it is on these days where it becomes really really easy to focus on excuses. But. We do have power to shape our tomorrows. Ignore the excuses and recognize that even if circumstances make things difficult, improving things is NOT impossible.

Sure. Sometimes a little ingenuity is required.  Sometimes you almost have to trick circumstances. Sometimes you have to zig when Life zags and sometimes you have to take some risks and get a little lucky.

Which leads me to these words:

“That I am today; that I will be tomorrow.”

Absolutely … most people underestimate what they can do today.

Absolutely … most people over estimate what they can do tomorrow.

Despite that … it still comes down to two things: action and objectives.

Actions.

What I am tomorrow depends on what I do today. My actions today make me who I am tomorrow. You get it.
This is all about first step, baby. Takin’ that first step. You constantly hear “I’ll do it tomorrow”. And when it doesn’t happen tomorrow, it becomes the next tomorrow and the next and …. well … you get it (and I will explain why under objectives).

But. While you hear that … what is actually the truth? What do people really do? (and you just may not always see it)

Here is the truth behind actions and this thought. People who decide mentally to “do something” actually, uhm, do something. No shit. They do take action. They do begin to “shape the clay of their life to become what they want to be.” They do.

Then what is the problem?

Objectives.

Doing is often dependent upon how we view our objectives and this sometimes gets mired down in meeting the sometimes farcical absurd expectations in the mind. That said. Let me take a minute on ‘objectives.’  Scott H Young wrote in May 2006, in a piece called “Balancing Today and Tomorrow“, about a nifty concept called “velocity based thinking (or goal setting)” versus positional goals:

—————————

How is it possible to balance living in each moment and the concept of personal growth and improvement? Doesn’t personal development imply a certain dissatisfaction with where you are in life? At the very least, doesn’t an obsession with personal growth indicate that you are constantly living in the future, rather than enjoying each moment? How can we remove this apparent dichotomy and get the improvement we desire along with satisfaction now? In other words, how can we live for today and still strive for tomorrow?

The old position based paradigm told us to focus on where we are in life. If we have a big house, a nice family and are in good health, then we can be happy. If we are poor, miserable and alone then we are depressed. Pretty simple. In this paradigm, our main focus is on our current position.

Some take this position based thinking to a slightly higher level when they don’t think about where they are but where they are going. Instead these people draw their level of happiness from the position they feel they will be in the future. Although this is an improvement, the cost of being unsatisfied with today is simply too high a price to pay for this paradigm.

There is an alternative paradigm, however. This is a velocity based paradigm. In this paradigm, where you are doesn’t matter. It doesn’t even matter where you are going to end up. From this perspective, our focus not where we are going, but rather, the rate we are getting there. This perspective tells us that being homeless or a millionaire makes no difference. It is only the rate at which they are improving that distinguishes them.

The major distinction between a velocity based goal and a position based one is mostly in how you view the goal. Positional goals are usually viewed as a means to achieve something. If I set a goal to lose x pounds in three months, then what I am pursuing is the goal itself. Velocity based goals take a completely different approach. The purpose of a velocity based goal is to serve to direct, focus and amplify the growth you are experiencing right now.

Imagine life is like climbing an infinitely large cliff side. Positional thinking tells you to try and get as high up the cliff as you can. Positional goals are used to reach new plateaus on the cliff. Velocity based thinking tells us that getting really high up on the cliff is irrelevant given its infinite nature. Instead velocity based thinking tells us that the true experience of life has to come from the rate at which we are climbing the cliff. Sitting at one notch of the cliff for too long is boring and unsatisfying regardless of your height. Velocity based goals in this sense are not used to reach the plateaus themselves, these goals are used to encourage, push and measure the rate at which you are climbing.

The key difference between positional goals and velocity based goals is simple. If you fail to achieve a positional goal, this is usually very demotivating. This is often why so many new goal setters fail to continue with the practice. The pain of failing to achieve when you’ve tried your best is often too great. Velocity based goals remove this problem entirely. Because the goal was simply a servant of directing and pushing your own growth, as long as you know you were trying your best (maximum velocity possible) then the goal was successful regardless of whether you underestimated the deadline necessary.

A velocity based paradigm is actually far more effective in improving our position.

The reason is actually rather simple. Positional based thinking is built on the notion of competition. As a result, we strive to make leaps ahead in our position based on where we are compared to others. If we are on the top then we slow down, for what is the point of trying really hard when you are already in the lead? If we are on the bottom, negativity and pessimism often cripple our growth. Position based thinkers tend to only achieve a maximum velocity when they feel they need to increase their position, yet that positional increase is achievable. Velocity based thinking doesn’t have this weakness. People who truly live this ideal are at a maximal velocity all of the time. Being at the top or bottom holds no distinction to these people. Rich or poor, strong or weak, healthy or ill these people are always traveling at a speed which is the most they can possibly achieve.

—————————-

I have always been a Velocity believer but what I like about personal velocity is it isn’t about frickin’ milestones and moving up the ladder and crap like that. It is about actions and objectives in a “movement” framework. And movement at your own pace. Its not a competition, but rather just with a goal of improving personal being. Judging yourself against … well … yourself I guess.

And with that I get to complete the circle on this quote and thought:

“That I am today; that I will be tomorrow.”

The only really important word L’Amour uses throughout this thought is “I.”

It’s not about competition.

It’s not about goals and objectives.

It is about I. And what “I” wants <or needs>.

That said. Life is tough enough without having to have someone else tell you how to ‘progress’ personally. Go your own speed. Fuck what anyone says.

Sure. Business weighs you down with meaningless milestones & expectations all the time.

Sure. Society, in general, crams goals down your throat all the time.

And, sure, becoming who you want to be “tomorrow” takes lots and lots of work.

But. I would suggest you are actually minimizing your chances of success if you always go the speed of what everyone else is demanding of you. Maximizing your ‘self success’ is most likely found in finding, and going, your own velocity.

Anyhow.

I love this quote.

Love it mostly because I like the way it gives the truth instead of some pithy inspirational flippant quote. I like it because while it frames time in a today-tomorrow dimension it doesn’t say how fast it should be, or needs to be, done. You choose the velocity in which it happens.

This I am today, that I will be tomorrow. Words to live by.

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

edited from original post from August 2010

===

“After nourishment, shelter and companionship, stories are the thing we need most in the world.”

Philip Pullman

==

When it comes to business creating value through communications there often is a chasm between brand and pragmatic on-the-ground communications (Binet & Fields would call this “The Long and Short of it”; I simply call it the wretched hollow in between long and short). Often, in today’s business world, a business will seek out “an expert”, or specialist in one or the other assuming that if you are an expert in performance marketing you cannot do branding, and vice versa. And you know what? Sometimes this is true. You can get some shoddy thinking if you ask someone to do something out of their wheelhouse (note: there are many ways a specialists can effectively avoid this trap). Anyway. As a consequence of everything I just shared is that performative and branding exist in their own little worlds and the connection between the two is dubious at best. This lack of connectivity leaves a void in value creation of which nothing suffers more than the actual value of the brand let alone the value of the product/service transaction. This is where stories can truly play their most important role in building overall business value and transactional value.

Stories are metaphors, heuristics and parables wrapped up in one.

Since the dawn of time humans have used stories to communicate wants, desires, hopes as well as practical and pragmatic “what’s happening” events so that people can stay within the guardrails of effective life, i.e., making sense of things so they can make good choices and creating a framework for what things should be valued. These stories come in all shapes and sizes and are made up of imagery, words and heuristics. Generally speaking, the rationale for a story is to educate as well as offer a mental shortcut to the learning – and value.  For example. Aesop’s fables were not real, but they communicated real messages. Sherlock Holmes was never real person, but we learned how to think about real ways of thinking. My point is these stories were metaphors for something real and tangible and of value. That’s the true power of stories. They can affect minds and how we think. Which brings me back to long and short. Fables play the long game, timelessness, to communicate the short of it – moral lily pads for everyday life. But I use that as an example to show that’s where many businesses run into trouble. Business isn’t in the fable writing business, they simply do not have the money. Business is on the pragmatism and possibilities writing business – value in the now and next. Writing needs to fill the gap between the brand message and the messages that happen in the day-to-day retail environment. It is within that gap a business should be developing communications, or content if you elect to use that word, to unleash the full value potential. The most valuable company communication isn’t just filled with content that is intended to capture traffic on the back of SEO, it is content that increases value in the mind of a potential customer (of human beings in general). The best content contains opinions, storytelling, data, research, experience of culture, insight, instructions, but all providing connectivity between the ‘long’ (the brand and branding) and the ‘short’ (the menus, table tops, door hangers, store signage, etc).

The stories within the inbetween.

Stop thinking about selling your idea or selling your product/service or even selling your company, think about telling a story. For example. I could work for a nuts & bolts manufacturer and be able to put a picture of two nuts & bolts side by side <one mine and one someone else’s> which look 99.9% exactly the same and be able to say: “Let me tell you a story about this nut & bolt because its story is different than this nut & bolt. They look the same but their story is different.”

Now. This story wouldn’t be solely some manufacturing mumbo jumbo, but rather a story about who counted on it and how my nut & bolt was the best friend to someone and, well, you get the point. I make this point because despite talking about being in the storytelling business we don’t really seem to be in the storytelling business in business these days. Instead, we bore down on manufacturing specifications, stress quotients, side by side rankings and a whole bunch of technically important functional aspects.

And you know what?

That kind of detail is important. Really important. To be sure, if it is my nut & bolt holding a wing on some plane carrying 300 passengers you can bet your last dollar the technical aspects of my nuts & bolts matter. I don’t argue that. What I argue is HOW the technical aspects are articulated and delivered. What I argue is that if I can make my nuts & bolts look like a city of ideas through some story; I win.

• Stories make bland functional aspects take on some color <which equals value>.
• Stories persuade people think <and thinking equals engagement>.
• Stories to motivate us to see beyond the simple nut & bolt <which equates to higher price acceptance>.
• Stories link the brand essence and the product reality and bring value to life.

The “win” is everything a business desires – higher brand value, higher transaction value, higher mental value, higher word of mouth value.

Storytelling has been a mainstay of the marketing world since the dawn of business. I could argue that stories are the essential driver of value, change & persuasion throughout the history of business. And while it tries to sneak into the non-marketing aspects of the business world it often gets stiff armed by functional communicators – “get to the point” people. This ‘get to the point’ point is nonsense.

Storytelling doesn’t sacrifice the functional and pragmatic and practical; it actually elevates it to its highest value. No sane communications expert would ever tell a business to not show the numbers, graphs and facts. It is important. But strategic use of a good story can make those same bland things surprise people, make them become compelling characters in a story and instead of being cold hard facts laying on a page they can become things that make us think and feel.

Story telling is important in that it engages people, communicates relevant meaningful information, builds value on some things that can often be difficult to build value on and, ultimately, it makes you, your product or service and your company distinct. It is within that distinctiveness where salience (top of mind, easy to find) value exists, mental value exists (I think of them), and transactional value exists (the price has some substance). Every brand/product/service has many stories to tell beyond the simple performance marketing tactics and the broad brand executions. Ponder.

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

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

An aboriginal saying

====

“We’re making our decisions … or so we think. Yet in truth, ignorance, greed, and the scourge of immediate gratification are often the things that are making them. So if we’re going to truly live well, maybe the first thing we need to decide is who’s deciding.”
Craig D. Lounsbrough

====

All of this goes to show that without the initiative that comes from immediate responsibility, ignorance will persist in the face of masses of information however complete and correct. It persists even in the face of the meritorious efforts that are being made to go beyond presenting information and to teach the use of it by means of lectures, classes, discussion groups.

Results are not zero. But they are small. People cannot be carried up the ladder. Thus the typical citizen drops down to a lower level of mental performance.”

Schumpeter

====

Technology suffers from nearsightedness. Yeah. I said that even as the technology futurists discuss 5G, metaverse, blockchain and more.  The trouble is while we get dazzled by some imaginative fantastical futuristic headlines, the reality is most technology business models are driven by lack of imagination and building toward immediate returns and feeding immediate consequences. What I mean by that is every innovative widget they develop is paid for with algorithms that drive immediate returns and immediate consequences. This is the underbelly of an instant gratification economy in that it is fed by (a) drive immediate engagement and (b) exploit human tendencies to engage. In other words, monetize immediacy. This misguided objective setting is exacerbated by purposefully conflating people’s needs and wants by exploiting the wants <not necessarily the needs> and isolating individuals over the collective <i.e., give me what I want even if it may not be best for all’s needs>.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out this technology nearsightedness is shared by many industry and policy decision-making leadership. As an example, energy independence today means reaching for whatever energy source exists today. In general, decisions are made to meet existing infrastructure not any future possibilities ignoring longer term consequences with labor patterns, environmental structural issues and even the fact today’s dollars are being invested in structure being outdated on a daily basis. In other words, each dollar is diminishing in investment as soon as it is used rather than investing in future structure which actually increases in value.

But I focus on technology today because they are playing mindbender with time frames to cloak unhealthy short-term consequences. It’s almost like the long-term considerations are too remote in the future <or they are naïve enough to believe “problems solve themselves”> to be concerned at the expense of present-day income/revenue.

The problem with this type of time horizon myopia is that technology is an exponential accelerant versus many other additive accelerants. What that means is yesterday’s 10-year time horizon can often become a 10 month or even 1-month time horizon. This means that time horizons have become so radically altered that having an immediate return/immediate consequence business model simply adds gasoline to an existing fire.

It’s a fault, a shortcoming as it were, in their capitalistic DNA. This fault is an impediment to technology being wholly effective or even truly desirable in a total-value-provided view. This shortcoming infects almost everything they do. Every innovation for the future of technology is cursed with this immediate return myopia. So while they speak of farsightedness and future, they are doomed by economic shortsightedness.

To be clear. This isn’t flawed thinking on their part, it’s a fault, a characteristic of how they think. Flaws suggest detracting from completeness <or the best>, fault points to things that actively impair progress from completeness or the best it can be. It is something that exists and inherent to the nature of who they are, what they do and how they think. This fault means technology, and technology businesses, will continuously only offer us empty innovations – empty of real meaningful long-term returns – which will continue to empty, and mar, society as a whole.

Look. They could refuse to think this way. Yeah. Refusal is always an option. It’s just that refusal comes with consequences. If you make a choice, then you’re responsible for the consequences – short & long term – of that choice and they are not willing to accept the consequences. Technology time horizons must be extended but, to be clear, to plan and behave with a more distant future in mind does not mean dictated, prescriptive, strategies and initiatives. I even say that with infrastructure in mind which demands a constructed (efficient & effective) future. Some agility does not demand shortsightedness, it actually demands situational awareness along a continuum of progress points. I would also note that being ‘future-conscious’ is not about having some Purpose. It is actually more likely to contain more transactional elements like integrity to a societal objective and sacrificing some simplistic black & white “cause & effect immediacy” and incorporating some rich & royal hues of expanding thinking and sensemaking.

Anyway.

I believe it was Toffler who stated “every society faces not merely a succession of probable futures, but an array of possible futures, and a conflict over preferable futures.” I would add we should parse this discussion out to ‘want-fit futures’, ‘need-fit futures’ and preferable futures <the latter most likely being some combination of the two former>. In my mind this is not futurism, but rather ‘future-fitting.’ This may sound like I am dancing on the head of a pin, but the truth is we need to fit into a positive possible future and we are more likely to do so if we engage in the belief that getting humans, and humanity, from here to there is dependent upon showing a future they can fit in <a place in which it can feed both wants and needs>.

Regardless. Assessing the possibility, and probabilities, of future states demands assessing all dimensions of the future. What I mean by that is Pace Layering. Leisure patterns are different than geopolitical patterns and energy patterns and, yet, they are all connected <even in some fairly obtuse ways>. I bring this up because if technology focuses solely on immediate returns and immediate consequences, they, well, screw up pacing. This means an asymmetrical world becomes even more asymmetrical. Asymmetrical is actually the norm but the concern on this is that a complete lack of alignment leads to complete dysfunction. So, while it may feel dysfunctional now <society, etc.> the truth is it is most likely simply discordant pacing, not out of whack asymmetrical pacing – but that can change if technology continues to pursue it immediate’ business model.

Circling back, we need to increasingly focus on the interconnectedness of disparate events and consequences and devote increasing attention to the social consequences, to the individual and society, of technology. The mostly negative social and cultural effects of technology are becoming increasingly obvious and while there are likely a myriad of reasons, let me circle back to ‘immediate returns, immediate consequences’ as a mindset.

Look. Business has always been trapped in a short-term mentality and I tend to believe people have increasingly become more ‘immediate return’ focused <by the way, this may be a Halo Effect thing where it a is a looped consequence relationship>. That said. Technology is exploiting this AND amplifying it. We need to change the narrative. Change the mindsets and rearrange attitudes and beliefs. In doing so we can change reality.

In the end, I would suggest the technology elite shortsightedness view of immediate returns/immediate consequences, is a constraint, not just a fault.

As a parallel thought, while removing the constraint within an organization releases value potential/opportunity, the similar is also true in the marketplace itself. Knowledge should always be applied against removing existing constraints in the marketplace and in doing so value is achieved. And, in fact, the higher the order of constraint the higher the possible market value. I would argue, at least for today, an immediate return/immediate consequence attitude is a higher order constraint. This is a big issue and I don’t believe we talk about it in big enough terms. We point fingers, wave hands around and, in general, think of this as some issue too big to get a grip on. It is not. If we grip immediate return and immediate consequence and, consequently, throw it in the trash, we can permit the market, and technology, to pursue a healthier objective and vision. Ponder.

====

“To learn to see- to accustom the eye to calmness, to patience, and to allow things to come up to it; to defer judgment, and to acquire the habit of approaching and grasping an individual case from all sides. This is the first preparatory schooling of intellectuality. One must not respond immediately to a stimulus; one must acquire a command of the obstructing and isolating instincts.”

Friedrich Nietzsche

==

“In the kingdom of glass everything is transparent, and there is no place to hide a dark heart.”

Vera Nazarian

==

“Miracles and catastrophies are two sides of the same coin.”

Hannah Arendt

==

Interestingly, in a data AI driven world it will come down to human conversations. Words & dialogue. Commitments have structure: request, negotiation, agreement, explanations. Clarity, trust, transparency.  people will still depend on speech acts for effective communication.

Purposewashing, greenwashing, incentivizing responsibility, ESG, all of these issues revolve around the conflict business faces in doing right things, incentives, creating value in the marketplace and proof (measurement). I thought about this again while reading Alison Taylor’s piece Incentivising ESG.

The title of my piece actually comes from two trendwatching reports from 2007 called Transparency Tyranny and Transparency Triumph where they highlighted the fact that business is going to be in the business of transparency whether they liked it or not. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that the original source for transparency as a business issue, to the scale it is today, is most likely The Cluetrain Manifesto. Strewn throughout the manifesto is the idea that in an interconnected world nothing can be hidden and everything can be said. Most likely the best chapter for that is on the hyperlinked corporation. Regardless. Transparency is just simply a characteristic of business. It is no longer a choice to make or not make; it just simply is. Having said that then the business must choose how they’re going to go about handling this characteristic. I do not believe that today’s business is inherently political, however, I have said in today’s business environment a business cannot not be involved in social issues. What that means is in a political world – context – a business decision, de facto, will become construed as a political thing (but a business is not being political). Anyway. I have always believed in embracing Peter Drucker’s idea of ‘business in and of society,’ but I believe it even more so in today’s business world. The other thing I believe I draw from John Grant’s fabulous book, The Greener Manifesto, where he makes the point that the choice that many businesses have to make is just simply doing better (or do less harm). That certainly comes with some challenges in the social arena, but it is a business choice.

Which leads me to state we are now living in a transparent world (whether you like it or not).

Global transparency now means the noncompetitive, the incompetent and the imperfect have few places left to hide. The problem is even the competitive, competent and quasi-perfect have no place to hide either. Trendwatching suggested Transparency Tyranny now rules:

“Old economy fog is clearing: no longer can incompetence, below-par performance, ignored global standards, anti-social & anti-eco behavior, or opaque pricing be obscured. In its place has come a transparent, fully informed marketplace, where producers have no excuse left to underperform. TRANSPARENCY TYRANNY for some, TRANSPARENCY TRIUMPH for others. “

What transparency really means is you have to perform at your best all the time. In the past you could get away with not performing at your best, let alone the industry standard’s best. Today, there is no excuse and, in fact, how you perform (do what you do) has actually become part of the public’s assessment of your value (not just the benefit your business offers). There are a number of issues wrapped up in this, but let’s just say ‘performing at your peak performance’ is a confluence of factors, not just one thing, and at any given point, as Barak Obama said once, “someone at some point will be doing something boneheaded.” Anyone interested in exploring peak performance should research Tony Fish’s discussions on navigating the tyranny of peak paradox.

Which leads me to the pragmatics of tyranny.

• You will never be environmental enough.
• You will never be diverse enough.
• You will never be purposeful enough.
• You will never be ethical enough.
• You will never be socially responsible enough.
• You will never be patriotic enough.
• You will never be organic enough.
• You will never be healthy enough.

That is the reality. You will never be ‘enough’ to someone. No measurement, no proof, no amount of PR releases will be enough. Accept it or run yourself into the ground chasing ‘enough.’ Business is imperfect and a quivering mass of vulnerabilities. Accept it. Embrace it in fact. Accept what you are, accept what you are not, accept what you have chosen to do, and accept what you have chosen to not do. There are realities in business and while there will always be people who are seeking a pristine business; you will never be it.

–          A business that produces paper cuts down trees.

–          A business that produces oil drills for oil.

–          A coffee company who has millions of pounds to distribute will inevitably use a dubious source.

–          A global manufacturing company will inevitably use some resource that is not particularly good.

That is reality. Yet those things do not make you a bad business. What makes you a bad business is if you do not responsibly attempt to limit the bad things. In a transparency tyranny world, triumph may actually be found in admitting your imperfections and simply telling everybody that you’re just trying to do your best and trying to be better and attempting to do ‘less harm.’

Yes. Sometimes someone will be doing better than your best and someone will be trying to be better than you are. But this isn’t a competition for best or better, this is simply doing the best that you can. In fact, maybe you should triple down on the really good things you do. Don’t ignore the bad things, just accept that by tripling down on the good you will, well, do less of the bad as a % of your actions, i.e., do less harm as an outcome. And that is where transparency triumphs reside. I disagree with many people with the thought that if you are explaining you are losing. If you are in the business of progress, intentions to do better today than you did yesterday, and running your business profitably but purposefully trying to do what benefits people, you explain that. And if that type of explanation is losing then I wish all of business was in the losing business.

Which leads me to 24/7 world encourages everyone to believe everyone is losing.

Thousands of blogs, newsletters and millions of people are dedicated to tracking down and promoting the best of the best, and, uhm, the worst of the worst. There are no barriers, there are no filters, and there is no nuance. In fact, it is actually a bit worse. What I mean by that is a term I scribbled down once: “incitement capitalism.” Today’s world encourages extreme emotional responses – anger, passion, love, disdain – and all of that is encouraged by an online system built to heighten ‘incitement.’ So while I mentioned ‘performing at your peak performance’ earlier, it really does not matter. Someone, somewhere, is going to find a crack in your best or, even more likely, make up a crack in your best. And while price transparency tyranny is the most obvious thing, the reality is tyranny is reigning in what makes up that price – your sourcing, your sustainability, your hiring practices, your ‘purpose,’ your culture, your, well, everything. Business is in a glass house. You can try and wish away your glassness, but the glass house will remain. What should matter to you is the foundation upon which it is built.

Which leads me back to the beginning – ESG, Purpose, green, whatever.

Business has warped a number of good ideas into, well, business ideas and metrics. Its almost like none of these things have any value unless you can prove its value. That’s absurd for a couple of reasons. First is that no number will completely capture your entire performance let alone your entire output. It creates a false sense of success. Ponder that awhile before you move on. Second. Everyone loses in this situation – before the race has even begun. I am not anti-measurement and I encourage every business who elects to pursue some principled path to decide how it wants to see how well it is doing in its pursuit. But that is an internal discussion. Externally just let the chips fall as they may. Some will unfairly attack you and some will fairly commend you. All you can do is be what you want to be, don’t be what you don’t want to be, and take a stand for any and all of those things. Those are the principles on which you stand – for good and bad. I imagine I state all of this in the way I am because measurement for external proof is wasted energy. It’s the wrong objective, will take energy to share and even more energy to defend. Screw that. Invest your energy in doing the business of doing business – do better, do less harm, do the rights things. Choose wisely. But do. Ponder.

Tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor, rich man, poor man, beggar man, thief … which will you be today?”

Capitalism. I am going to attempt to discuss capitalism objectively. I will admit I am getting better at doing so mostly because so many young people question me on the benefits <as well as the seemingly endless array of drawbacks>. That said. If you speak with young people there are a lot of thoughts surrounding communism, socialism and capitalism. While many of us older folk get in a tizzy over that, I do not. I believe it is healthy to discuss the nuances and aspects.

Communists view capitalism the most cynically.

“Capitalists are no more capable of self-sacrifice than a man is capable of lifting himself up by his own bootstraps.”

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Schumpeter viewed capitalism with a practical and realistic eye.

“There exists a parallel between education and the scale of moral values in the intellectual sectors and the administrative or bureaucratic sectors against the values and technical criteria of the economic system as it operates.”

Joseph Schumpeter

Which leads me to say I am not sure there is a more polarizing or oft-discussed issue in today’s world than Capitalism — its merits and its flaws and its effect on society & culture.

Capitalism seems to get wrapped up in right versus wrong and morals and greed and a bunch of other things. I have said it before and will say it until the day I die: capitalism is simply a system in which people work and think and behave. It may encourage some things and discourage some others, or let’s say incentivize people to do and think certain ways, but in the end it is a system in which people make choices.

That said. Stephen Covey <author of ‘7 habits of highly effective people’> reminds me of some important principles when it comes to business and capitalism. I admit I originally wasn’t a big fan of Covey and thought “7 habits of highly effective People” not only a vapid read, but the kind of tripe that encouraged non-effective people to think they were effective simply because they ‘implemented’ what effective people seemed to do <rather than make their behavior extensions of their general being>.

But I also admit that i believe almost any business book with regard to ‘what makes people successful’ tripe and relatively useless in the scheme of things <in that people tend to use them as a ‘how to be successful’ rather than thought pieces>.

So my initial thought was nothing against Covey in particular.

Anyway. In hindsight I think I missed the real point of the book (and Covey). I read the book as “a things to do” primer. By the way, my fear is the bulk of readers did as I did.

My point?

I should have taken note that he really was arguing less about discipline, but more about characteristics of personal character and purpose <beyond dollars and cents>. He was adamant that employees were not merely pistons in a machine, powered and oiled to efficiency through rewards and punishments, but rather employees were people. And, even better, individual people <not flocks of sheep>. I should have taken note that he drew inspiration from researching the past. He read almost 200 years of “success literature “.  He discovered that for almost 150 years the most common theme in American business leadership literature was character and that it was only after the Second World War it switched to touting superficial qualities such as appearance and style.

I should have taken note when he added an 8th habit:  “find your voice and inspire others to find theirs.”

I believe in hindsight I should have taken note of his steadfast belief in character above all else.

The Economist wrote this about him:

“… he tried to rescue the notion of character from both the simple minded purveyors of self-help (who imply that you can change your character as easily as your underpants) and the social service establishment (which ignore questions of character by blaming everything on the system).”

And maybe what I wish the Economist writer had noted is that it seems like we have become a working society of “how to” lists.

• How to get things done.
• How to be a better person.
• How to be happy.
• How to be a good leader.
• How to be effective.

I wish Covey were still alive because once he saw how we have become a ‘how to’ society <rather than one which learns how to on their own> I tend to believe he may have just gone back and written a new book called “oops, 7 equals zero if you don’t understand the notion of character.”

In my pea like brain I see the issue as this.

Today’s business world has become a person silo business issue.

Huh?

• Silo one – I am a person of character.
• Silo two – I am a person who can drive profit.

Uhm. And both silos are in one business person. And what this means is exactly how we get these crazy cause related business issues. What I mean is that the profit person is in one room and then goes to another room and says “well, let’s do something good.” And good is just something else you check off your list so that your character person can pat itself on the back and say “yup, I do have character.”

Do I know how to solve it?

Nope.

I know I do not believe Lenin ‘Capitalists are no more capable of self-sacrifice than a man is capable of lifting himself up by his own bootstraps’ because while I do agree that no one can lift themselves up by their own bootstraps I don’t agree that capitalists are not capable of self-sacrifice.

I also know that I wish I could send an email to Stephen Covey or even Peter Drucker.

They would know what to do and what to say.

Maybe they could address the natural challenges capitalism offers to businesses and business people that, in general, it is system that is not needs based, but rather profit based. And that translates into despite the fact we have huge needs that don’t get filled, our business world seems to remain mostly all about the profit.

Capitalism, at its worst, focuses money, profit and success on the already successful. It doesn’t oppress the poor it simply ignores the poor as the rich get richer.

Historically speaking this bears out.

Corporations used to be ‘collective’ enterprises: for the people and the people’s people <society>. Well into the 1970’s companies still defined themselves in terms of products/services offered and overall contribution to society. It was beginning in the 1980’s when finance capitalism drove vision and shareholders profits to become the ultimate objective <trumping even quality of offerings>. Raakesh khurana <Harvard> stated at a business roundtable in 1990:

“Corporations are chartered to serve both their shareholders and society as a whole.”

Ah. But then in 1997 he denied responsibility beyond that of the shareholders.

“The notion that the board must balance the responsibility to stakeholders other than shareholders fundamentally misconstrues the role of directors… “

I am not picking on him, he was simply reflecting upon the current status of the business world. What this really means is that companies, and people in companies, focused on the mere aggregation of financial assets.

This also means business simply stressed every man for himself (and, yes, i purposefully say ‘man’).

And CEOs have certainly thought of themselves. Between 1965 and 2000 the ratio of CEO pay to the typical worker expanded from 24:1 to 300:1. Maybe more concerning is the spread increased significantly between the CEO and the 3rd in command. CEO’s, due to income alone, became isolated from the real worker as well as the real world. They started living in their own bubble <or some version of a business hell>.

By the way, this aggregation of financial assets also means management became inherently more short term focused … and ended up rejecting slow thoughtful methods of decision making and became enamored with gut & instinct.

An outcome of this trend?

Leaders became charismatic; not thought leaders. They became more inspirational and less rational.

In the end I will state the obvious: the pursuit of wealth, or profit, for its own sake not only creates objective blindness, but that blindness strips all productivity of morals and ethics.

And I will also state the obvious: pursuit of wealth and profit is a complex formula.

It is very easy <too easily I may add> to make it an “I” issue. As in ‘person decision’ which inevitably leads to some random ‘psychopathic’ type discussions where this person is ‘this’ or ‘that’, but it really isn’t.

It is a societal and cultural multi-dimensional issue, as in, ‘I do some things because external factors either encourage or demand it <in business and every day Life>’. Yeah. Beyond the incentive levers of an individual business, society wields its own levers of incentives.  My last comment on this part about capitalism is that any crisis we may believe we have with regard to capitalism is first and foremost a crisis <or some derivative of crisis> of society’s character.

Which makes me circle back to Covey.

Effectiveness and ‘greatness’ in leadership begins, and ends, with character. Despite what some boardrooms suggest and some ‘results based’ ideology, profits do not measure true effectiveness.

Regardless. I will close with something David Simon <producer of The Wire> said very well about capitalism:

“Mistaking capitalism for a blueprint as to how to build a society strikes me as a really dangerous idea in a bad way. Capitalism is a remarkable engine again for producing wealth. It’s a great tool to have in your toolbox if you’re trying to build a society and have that society advance. You wouldn’t want to go forward at this point without it. But it’s not a blueprint for how to build the just society. There are other metrics besides that quarterly profit report.

The idea that the market will solve such things as environmental concerns, as our racial divides, as our class distinctions, our problems with educating and incorporating one generation of workers into the economy after the other when that economy is changing; the idea that the market is going to heed all of the human concerns and still maximise profit is juvenile.”

Ah.

…. the idea that the market is going to heed all of the human concerns and still maximise profit is juvenile.

Rationalizing what is happening in today’s society is a natural tendency and it is much much easier to focus on ‘capitalism’ rather than suggesting any dysfunction as effects of modern society: over-stimulation, consumerism, something in the water, the kids today, or too much television <despite the fact we often do>. But I find it difficult to believe there was ever a time … within any economic system … when people weren’t constantly running afoul of their own basic human traits.

What do I mean? We tend to rationalize the pursuit of our own drives. We always have and always will. We tend to, well, denounce, condemn, criticize, censure, attack, rail against, lambast, vilify, revile <pick whatever word you would like> other people for pursuing theirs if theirs happens to oppose ours. All this natural conflict of our ‘humanness’ leads to general unhappiness with ‘the system.’ But before we start wagging our finger at capitalism as if it has been a naughty little boy, we should be looking in the mirror.

We should be examining our character.

Anyway. So I close this brief discussion on capitalism with words from a USA State of the Union address:

“… wheel of progress – to create and build and expand the possibilities of individual achievement; to free other nations from tyranny and fear; to promote justice, and fairness, and equality under the law, so that the words set to paper by our founders are made real for every citizen. The America we want for our kids – a rising America where honest work is plentiful and communities are strong; where prosperity is widely shared and opportunity for all lets us go as far as our dreams and toil will take us – none of it is easy.”

Sometimes we take things for granted.

We certainly take aspects of capitalism for granted and when things don’t go well we lash out in a seemingly indiscriminate fashion.

We look at big things as little things we deserve.

We see what others have and expect that we should have it also.

That isn’t capitalism’s fault that is our <people’s> fault.

Honest work.

Well.

That takes character.

So maybe the issue isn’t capitalism, maybe its, uhm, our own character. Ponder.

——-

“My idea of Christmas, whether old-fashioned or modern, is very simple: loving others.

Come to think of it, why do we have to wait for Christmas to do that? “

Bob Hope

——————–

“Gotta take the time to search the mind.”

Traci Spencer

————-

Children laugh

Children cry

They’re the future of our time

Will they hold us to blame

For all the things we’ve turned away

I don’t like what I see now

I don’t like where we’re going

I don’t like it, no

You and I, we’re getting older now

You and I, who will show them

If we don’t show them how

I want to know is it true

Is there a house of hope for me and you

I want to know is it true

Is there a house of hope for me and you.

<House of Hope>

Song by Toni Childs

——————————-

 Ok. I admit. I am most likely using Christmas as an excuse to highlight two songs with great messages about vision & hope.

I would suggest, in general, the Christmas gift we end up finding the most value in is hope.

It is a fairly simple idea to suggest we all need hope.

I tend to believe all of us understand a hopeless existence just isn’t worth living. Or maybe I could say that the moment people can’t see Hope, life becomes dangerously hollow.

I think all of us humans <schmucks too> instinctively know this so we spend at least some portions of our lives searching for hope.

However, sometimes we settle for something a little short of hope.

What do I mean?

Well.

With a legitimate desire to feel good about where we’re headed, we tend to mistake positive thinking for genuine hope.

And this year not only did it seem to be more difficult to think positively, but hope seems to be challenged by a world that may appear to be in flux to many people.

Now.

Even if it is not in flux, we do perceive it to be, so therefore the natural reflex is to, well, cocoon our hope.

What I mean by that is we begin to worry a little more on “I” than “we.”

We focus hope a little more on self rather than selfless.

Now.

This doesn’t mean we have suddenly become selfish or that we do not care about others, this is more simply ‘survival mode.’ In that I can’t care as much about others until I know that I have been cared for enough that I feel I am in an okay position & place.

I say that because Hope’s biggest challenge in the future is going to be from a larger world view. With everyone hunkering down avoiding the ‘crazy world’, the world may be put on strict Hope diet.

That’s okay.

We will figure it out.

But for today, maybe just around this Christmas, ponder a world view of Hope.

Take the time to search the mind, “is there a house of hope for me and you?”

Because I believe that if you take a moment and touch it and feel it and sense it, when the future occasion should arise – when you are in a position to care – that world view Hope will touch the spark that resides within and the world Hope will light on fire.

Music is always a great reminder of things that matter and finding music to share hopeful messages is like putting a gift to music.

I could share Christmas music & songs, but instead I am going to share hopeful songs. These are two older songs that are nice to listen to and nice t learn the words to.

Here is my Christmas music gift for this year:

——–

Song: House of Hope

Toni Childs

bonus …

House of Hope Live <she sounds exactly like she does in the recorded version>:

The second song is by Traci Spencer and called This House. The video is horribly early 90’s video making at its worst, but the message is so good you should ignore the video and listen to the words.

——

Song: This House

Traci Spencer

——————–

Well. There you go. Gotta take the time to search the mind … Is there a house of hope for me and you ?

Search your mind.

There is always a house of hope for you & I.

Sometimes, and some days, you just have to look a little harder to see it.

===

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.