====

“If you think the worst and get the worst, you suffer twice.”

Loretta LaRoche

====

“We all have one foot in a fairytale, and the other in the abyss.”

Paulo Coelho

====

“Awfulizing and catastrophizing,” I believe is a phrase Loretta LaRoche coined in a Tedtalk. The idea is that our inner dialogue has a nasty habit of elevating events, spanning the truly inconsequential to the truly consequential, to stress inducing drama levels. Inevitably this increases negative feelings and diminishes not only positive feelings but, maybe more importantly, positive events.

Which leads me to today’s world.

If you are not careful, especially if you are active on social media, to think everything is awful and each individual event is a catastrophe of epic proportions.

I am not suggesting this is easy. There are real issues and some really awful events, but even the most simplistic looking things are challenging to think through because of their dimensions. The headlines capture the ‘catastrophe’, but while events may seem fairly awful and unsettling, we have to weave our way through the things that are a bit more difficult to see and some of the underlying truths.

It is only then that we can get clear sight of the present and reality. This is important because if we only see things as awful or a catastrophe not only will our attitudes be driven by that, but also our solutions. At its worst people will throw up their hands and give up. This translates into thoughts like “we are so divided, why not just split the country up so likeminded people can live together.” I think even the person who brought it up realized it wasn’t really a solution, but it is also a sign of the depth of awfulizing and catastrophizing seeping into the general gestalt of society. While I have sought to discuss this gestalt feeling as a ‘lost grand narrative’ the truth is there is an asymmetry between minority opinions/power and majority opinions/power. The majority opinion (wants) feels like everything is awful because the minority opinions are using disproportionate power to put their opinions into control actions for the whole. This asymmetry is like living in a liminal space – a transition as it were.

Which leads me to say that every transition has its own singular issues.

Every situation has its own singular issues. And, let’s be clear, every one of those situations has singular problems. We should all recognize that in the overall life cycle of societal problems and opportunities, practical and possibilities, hope & despair, heroes & villains, will appear in different forms – all with the intent to either further our ambitions or steal our ambitions.

This is not cynical, this is … uhm … reality

And within that reality someone has to navigate pragmatism and idealism mostly by assessing the problems, or obstacles, to your ambition.

Harping on whatever you view as awful or a catastrophe doesn’t really get you anywhere.

They are what they are.

Which leads me to say I could also argue that arguing over idealistic ideas and vision without admitting some pragmatism and practicality doesn’t really get you anywhere.

In fact, I could argue if you don’t everything will feel awful and most things will appear to be a catastrophe. It is not a binary discussion nor are pragmatism and possibilities, idealism and practical, are mutually exclusive.

====

“Idealism increases in direct proportion to one’s distance from the problem.”

John Galsworthy

===

Look. We all hate cynicism, but far too often we confuse it with pragmatism and practicality. I would also suggest we all get tired of pragmatism because, well, far too often it sounds small.

But I would also point out that we all not only get tired, but absolutely unequivocally hate, false hope and unrealized idealism mainly because it forces us into an awfulizing & catastrophizing mindset. This happens because “large” unrealized equals zero, nothing, nada. People don’t like a zero, nothing, nada no matter how large the zero, nothing, nada is.

Neither option, looked upon in isolation, is attractive or likeable.

On our good days we do our best to walk the tight rope. We sit down and assess what we have, assess what we could have, assess resources, money, whatever, and figure out, pragmatically, how to get going doing what needs to be done so it doesn’t feel awful or a catastrophe.

We know we may not always get it right and we may not always get done whatever is needed to get done to alleviate the problems, or all the problems, that exist in the here and now. But I would point out that, realistically, you can never alleviate all problems and that problems exist, contextually, no matter if an idealist or a realist, a pragmatist or a ‘possibilities driven’, a hope or a practical mindset steps in. You take a stand against “awful” and realize the only constant is that problems existed to be addressed, exist to address and will exist to address all to eventually be solved ONLY if both idealism & pragmatism and possibilities & the practical are embraced. The idealism is the spark of possibilities and imagination while the pragmatism stops you from simply being a ‘dreamer’ or wasting resources tilting at windmills.

==========

“Maybe we feel empty because we leave pieces of ourselves in everything we used to love.”

R. M. Drake

Which leads me to catalyst for good.

There is a huge chasm between awful and good and life, itself, is simultaneously wonderfully good and horribly bad. And even while I believe the arc of life bends toward the good, I also believe that arc is only enabled by people. Life, society, business, kindness, even hate, is fueled by catalysts. The transformation, managing the liminal space, of anything is dependent upon specific catalysts – or let’s call them enzymes. These enzymes are catalysts that remove barriers, speed things up just a bit (or a lot) and unlock the embedded potential for, well, good … not awful. The beauty of catalysts is that they do their work without diminishing themselves meaning that their process, their work, can be repeated again and again. This is the heartbeat of being a catalyst for good. The other beauty of being a catalyst is that the goodness binds so that it can choose its own path even without you having to tag along. Good, in and of itself, is a traveling enzyme and the binding process, once again, repeats itself over and over. The transformation, the arc of good as it were, happens bit by bit. An additional consequence is a sense of belonging. While you may have been the catalyst for good that enzyme is shareable to a point where good belongs to everyone. It makes it easy to stay in good, rather than the awful, and cultivates paths easier for others to travel and easier for everyone to embrace. I believe the future is always defined by the value you, or people, bring to others. Good is additive, awful is subtractive. So maybe instead of awfulizing and catastrophizing, if we believe in unifying around good, we can see the future we desire and begin shaping it not by accepting the awful, but purposefully making it less awful. Ponder.

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

fearlessly-fiona:

“I’m an adult” I whisper as I try not to panic while I’m filling in all those forms that I don’t understand.

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

“Liminal” means “relating to a transitional stage” or “occupying a position at both sides of a boundary.”

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

Ok.

First. Liminal spaces are real spaces.

Liminal spaces are throughways from one space to the next. Places like rest stops, stairwells, trains, parking lots, waiting rooms, airports feel weird when you’re in them because their existence is not about themselves, but the things before and after them. They have no definitive place outside of their relationship to the spaces you are coming from and going to. Reality feels altered here because we’re not really supposed to be in them for a long time for think about them as their own entities, and when we do they seem odd and out of place.

Second. I plan on discussing liminal spaces as intangible mental spaces.

If you feel that you are anxiously floating in the inbetween perhaps you are in The Liminal Space. The word “liminal” comes from the Latin word limens, which means, “threshold.”

“… it is when you have left the tried and true, but have not yet been able to replace it with anything else.

Okay.

Mentally this in-between is a space in which we have lost context and, uhm, uh oh, our brains love context <and hate lack of context>. This ‘hate’ translates into discomfort, maybe some anxiety and absolutely an innate mental desire to get the hell out of that space and into some space where we can reengage some context.

Rationally we know these spaces are irrational and we can mentally stifle the anxiety … for a while. Because no matter how good we are at stifling it there will always be an underlying sense of uneasiness. In business you either figure out how to manage the anxiety or you are never gonna make it in the business world.

Why? Because a career is riddled with these moments and spaces.

All that said.

I think we, as people, enter liminal spaces in our heads all the time. I don’t mean every minute I just mean on a fairly consistent basis we lose some context and enter into some wretched mental in-between space where, well, we feel uncomfortable. We feel uncomfortable because we are mentally in some transition space from which we cannot envision what will be there <outside this wretched space> when we actually find the exit we can leave the space by.

Yeah.

Unfortunately, while we seek an exit to get out of the liminal space we also feel uncomfortable because <insert a ‘shit’ here mentally> the next step may actually place us into a tangible “unknown” place.

Not only does that suck, but we do not like that it sucks. It is a weird combination of tangible and intangible and  shitload of unknown.

It feels tangible as in you walk in some blank-ish vanilla type room and actually exit by some door which appear at some point. That part we may not like but we can semi-understand.

And, yet, at the same time this space is truly 100% intangible <lacking context> which creates a sense of instability and warped perception space. I imagine a lot of people flail about a bit in this space trying to not only find context or something tangible to hold onto, but also a frickin’ door to get out of this wretched liminal space. All the while we flail about in a space which naturally encourages some confusion and a lot of “things seem off” feelings. I would argue part of our angst is we seek some one-dimensionality in this space. What i mean by that is our natural inclination is to seek some linear path <this & that> to get us from what feels like it should be “here to there.” But the truth is liminal spaces, in their vastness, are multidimensional spaces in which the really important doors open up not on some simplistic one-dimensional pathway but rather as a combination of dimensional fragments put together in some way that unlocks an unseen door.

Which leads me to ‘Worse’. It not only feels wrong, but feels like something is going to go wrong. You cannot really put your finger on it <although most of us try desperately to try to put a finger on something> and it increases anxiety.

Sometimes that anxiety is high and sometimes it is just a bothersome niggling in the head, but it is anxiety nonetheless <and it is uncomfortable>. The anxiety occurs because reality is not really being altered, but it appears slightly warped. It is kind of like looking through an imperfect piece of glass – where things can look a little fuzzy or odd. Its kind of like time has warped a little and you are coming and going at the exact same time where in the blur of the transition your brain is suggesting “this is not good … this is not normal” and you desperately want to move on, but cannot find that frickin’ exit.

All that sounds horrible.

Oh. And it sounds particularly horrible if we are talking about the business world. The fact is that business people are more often than not judged on how well, and how quickly, they can navigate the mental liminal space.  We, in business, don’t really talk about it much but a lot of the shit we do is transitioning from the known to some version of known/unknown. That’s kind of what managers and leaders do. And it is certainly a main component of shifting from a young less-responsible employee to an older more experienced responsible employee/manager. Heck. Its change management 101.

Along the way the stepping stones are actually lily pads with differing expanses, dimensions & depths of water in between. You either navigate the transitions or drown in the liminal space.

Oh. And, yet, liminal spaces are also throughways to places of the imagination – kind of the construction sites of “what will be.”

We like that kind of shit. That’s ‘future’ and ‘hope of something better’ type stuff.

That thought helps us out a little. It helps because this isn’t the kind of stuff that gives any tangible context, but it does give us some fortitude to get through this space.

Anyway.

I admit. I love the whole concept of a liminal space and I do believe if more people not only learned to manage the anxiety & angst of a liminal space AND embraced the fact it was a valuable transitional space … well … we would be much more efficient & effective in business and in Life in gaining the more valuable “what could be’s” — which are what we all live for anyway.

Ponder.

===

“Change does not take place by trying coercion, or persuasion, or by insight, interpretation, or any other such means. Rather, change can occur when the patient [or client] abandons, at least for the moment, what he [or she] would like to become and attempts to be what he [or she] is.”

Arnold Bessier

===

This is a companion piece to my thinking on “we are all a bit purposefully ignorant.” That said. Let’s be clear. For the majority of things, no person ever gets to know the whole of a truth. If you don’t believe me, just think about how time has effected many of the ‘truths’ you have held throughout your lifetime. Shit. Even experiences you had, things you knew to be ‘true’, can often take on a different narrative once you know everything that occurred before, who was involved, what was involved, and the consequences that followed. Things that seemed self-evident take a back seat to things you thought were trivial at that time. Shit. This is even true about honesty (and lying). You may discover you have become a liar not because of you intentionally lied, but rather because of things you did not know that become known.  I say all of this to suggest history, and beliefs, are not truly fixed but defined, and redefined, as time breaks down their construct. Well. That is true if you let it be true.

Which leads me to beliefs, and history, can be pretty resilient.

We have a tendency to have a self-sealing logic <Chris Argyris> with regard to our beliefs. Self sealing is when we find information that confirms our beliefs and ignore some ‘truths’ which could challenge our beliefs. In other words, once we settle in on a belief, especially if we view it as a ‘governing belief’, we seal it off from additional information.

To be fair. Most people like stability with regard to their beliefs. And this means beliefs kind of seem to gain some strength the longer they are perceived to have lasted. In addition. The more uncertain the world becomes, or we believe it becomes, the more likely we will latch onto even some conspiracy theories (or dubiously grounded theories) to moor our belief world. These ‘governing beliefs’ become kind of like the color filter which hues everything you see from that point on. I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out superficial beliefs are relatively easy to change, but governing beliefs can be stubborn motherfuckers. They gain some emotional “I care about this belief” aspects and caring is not only the engine to do something, but also the glue to hold on to something.

Obviously, the problem with self-sealing beliefs is new information should shed some of the boundaries around existing beliefs.

“Once you see the boundaries of your environment, they are no longer the boundaries of your environment.”

Marshall McLuhan

Now. We have access to new information all the time, but the truth is that the brain is an inherently limited storage unit <and computer>. We rarely know as much about a given topic as everyone else in a room put together, and even if we do, our perspective is partial and biased in a variety of ways. That ‘room together’ thought is important because research has shown that human connectivity <dialogue and interaction> is the most powerful tool in shaping, and reshaping, our beliefs. It is within interaction, exposure to new ideas and thinking as well as the discussion of new ideas and thinking, which can reshape what we have in our brain. Alternatively, as Jaron Lanier has pointed out, more people can make us more stupid. Depending on who your ‘connectivity’ is with, you can easily fall into pack behavior, identity signaling and a variety of ‘I have found my tribe’ characteristics. It is a version of “group sealing beliefs” which only feed into conformation bias for ‘self sealing logic’ and ‘self-sealing beliefs’. It’s a vicious loop to get trapped in if you are not careful. Oh. And most people are not careful. Why? Well. Its easier to wander around the world with self-sealing beliefs, find other with similar beliefs, and scratch your head <or get irritated> when someone doesn’t see what is obvious to you.

All that said. I imagine my point is almost everyone’s belief systems do some shapeshifting within a contextual environment wherein we get influenced by other mindsets, i.e., beliefs, attitudes which effect ours at times in our Life.

“Defensive routines are thoughts and actions used to protect individuals’, groups’, and organizations’ usual way of dealing with reality.”

Chris Argyris

Look. We all need beliefs. They shape who we are, how we think and even what we do. We couldn’t really survive without any beliefs. At the same time, beliefs are constraints <constraints can be good and bad>. Those constraints can make us both more efficient and effective while, at exactly the same time, make us less efficient and less effective. I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that beliefs wielded like a dull axe guarantees a dull person. That said. The interesting thing I don’t believe people think about enough is that governing beliefs are typically grounded in some ‘needs.’ What I mean by that is as we need things, not just want, we craft a belief system around how to get them and filter ‘stories’ as we get them. Our beliefs assess reality in terms of filing away reality and assessing the ‘non-knowable’ stuff as it moves into reality. This is partially why governing beliefs can be so damn stubborn – they shape the reality we ‘see’.

Which leads me back to ‘obvious.’

Earlier I mentioned something about ‘obvious to you, but they don’t see it.’ I cannot remember where I read this, but, “the obvious is not obvious.” What I believe they meant by that is your belief system crafts your ‘obvious’. That means someone else is using their own belief system to craft their own ‘obvious.’ Uhm. The probability that your obvious perfectly matches someone else’s is fairly low. Obvious has shiftable dimensions and yet we tend to think of it as a whole concrete thing.

Shit. We think of stories as concrete things and the truth is most stories we accept as simply constructs of things we believe. Our belief structure is, well, constructed. It’s a narrative constructed of a tapestry of stories. I mention stories because that means self-sealing beliefs are constructed by stories we tell ourselves. Now. We may claim these stories are real and these stories are truth, but, well, for the most part they are stories OF stories which we like to tell ourselves so we can justify our ‘self-sealing beliefs.’ Ponder that for a moment or two.

I think I’ll end there to state – “you set a thief to catch a thief.” You tell a story to kill a story. In today’s world far too many of the self-sealing beliefs are unhealthy and I think we need to become better ‘healthy storytellers’ to help reshape some of the more unhealthy ‘self-sealed belief stories’ in existence. To be honest, I am not sure self sealed logic or beliefs is a good thing. I know why we do it, I am not sure we should do it. My sense is self-sealing beliefs can quickly become dogmatic thinking and in a dynamic world in which the world itself reshapes almost on a minute-by-minute basis, it would seem like our belief systems should be a bit more malleable. But, hey, that’s me.

 ============

“Autumn shows us how beautiful it is to let things go.”

Unknown

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

“You can’t be who you’re going to be and who you used to be at the same time …”

TD Jakes

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

Today is the first day of Fall.

……………………………. first day of fall 2016 google ……………….

It is kind of a reminder to everyone that everything is temporary. On another note. I do also sometimes find it slightly strange that death and dying can contain so much beauty.

Anyway.

I kind of find it nice that Life, in the form of seasons, forces us to let go of things. And while we even go kicking and screaming with regard to seasons, Life ignores us … moves on … lets go of the last season … offers us a new season, and once we get over it we are once again shown how beautiful it can be to let shit go.

I kind of find it nice that Life, in the form of seasons, forces us to distinguish what often looks the same from one day to the next. as we keep our heads down to the Life grindstone and each day dawns without any major incident, other than  the same aggravating everyday incidents which inevitably occur, Life ignores our obliviousness … moves on … let’s go of another season … offers a new season … and we get over the fact we actually have to lift our heads up and pay attention for a little, but, we are once again shown how beautiful it is to let some shit go.

“Between the end of that strange summer and the approach of winter, my life went on without change. Each day would dawn without incident and end as it had begun. It rained a lot in September. October had several warm, sweaty days. Aside from the weather, there was hardly anything to distinguish one day from the next.”

The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle

I kind of find it nice that Life, in the form of seasons, forces us to think a little bit about who we want to be … who we are … and provides some real life aspects to show us how difficult it is to be who you used to be and who you are going to be at the exact same time.

Look. I am not a huge Fall person. I am more of a spring person. Heck. I have even suggested we move New Year’s Day to the 1^st day of spring  because I think it would make new year’s less depressing and more hopeful.

But I admit that Fall, even more so than Spring, forces us to face our feelings, thoughts, doubts, dreams and fears with a fairly discerning eye. An eye that views ‘what could be’ with a little more sense of urgency.

Sigh.

Falling leaves can do that to you.

Better seems a little bit harder.

Better seems to have more of a deadline.

I think we all seek a great perhaps of “what I know can be”.

I think we all know what a better world really looks like.

I think we all want to see the beauty that can be found in what is better in everyone.

And maybe it is within Fall and the falling leaves I think we all better grasp that failed plans and failed dreams can beget new plans and new dreams.

Maybe it is within Fall that we are able to see that new realities can lead to needed life changes.

Maybe it is Fall that reminds us even in times of ‘things slipping away’ you can still find abundance.

Maybe it is Fall that reminds us that Life is a healthy mix of duality — life & death and the ebb & flow of growth and regress.

Maybe Fall reminds those who have a view that a happy and fulfilling life should consist only of highs <or, maybe better said, a significantly higher % of highs than lows> and that a positive life should consist only of certainty <shelving fear and doubt to be successful> that happiness & fulfillment also embraces the ebbs in seasons as well as the flows of seasons.

Maybe Fall reminds us that no matter how you plan your day, year, or life, it will have times of … the best, the worst, wisdom, foolishness, belief, incredulity, light, darkness, hope, despair, everything and nothing.

Maybe Fall simply reminds us that time goes on, things come & go and we always have an opportunity to begin again … arise anew after the Fall as it were.

In the end.

Maybe Fall exists just to remind us to think a little.

===========

“For our own success to be real, it must contribute to the success of others.”

–

Eleanor Roosevelt

======

“The way to achieve your own success is to be willing to help somebody else get it first.”

Iyanla Vanzant

=========

Business, as businesses should, think about how to improve their business. The good ones balance effectiveness and efficiency, the poor ones triple down on efficiency. But. 95% (I made that # up) of businesses focus on customers, service, process, systems and “best practices” — in their pursuit of efficiency (with head nods to effectiveness). This means 95% typically think of people as interchangeable pieces who can deliver all the service, process and outputs. All the systems are designed to ‘output’ and people simply make the systems ‘go.’

I would argue this is at the root of why organizations begrudgingly train employees. I would argue this is not only a bad ‘grudge’ if you really want to improve your business, but it is also stupid.

I always made a promise to anyone who ever worked for me – “if you ever leave this job I promise you will be well prepared to do well at your next job.” I’m not sure I was particularly good at preparing people for life, but I always said if you had a title/job responsibility with me you would be able to do that title/job responsibility wherever you went.

3 reasons:

• I knew people outgrew jobs & organizations and often organizations sucked at meeting peoples ‘grow’ needs. In other words, there is an incredibly high likelihood a current employee would become an ex-employee. I felt a responsibility to prepare them for their next job believing I/we would benefit for as long as they stayed where they were.
• Word of mouth is the most powerful recruiter. If you give, you get. The more people I sent out to build successful careers of their own, the more people recommended new employees to me or past co-workers sent people to me.
• I didn’t care about training per se, I cared about preparation to do jobs well. That may sound like semantics, but I think its important semantics. I believe businesses get hung up on “training people and receiving benefit.” And they may be right because, if you view training as simply training, you will most likely will not reap any meaningful benefits. On the other hand. If you look at maximizing an individual and enabling someone to do their job well, you will not only build individual strengths & potential, but also receive the direct benefit of them doing the job well. Choose wisely.

Regardless of your own view on this topic, the bottom line is a decision to invest in a person. Not some nebulous, often vapid, “invest in your people”, but rather ‘a person.’

I, honestly, can’t figure out why this is so difficult for businesses to grasp.

Is it lack of trust in people?

Is it a leadership ego thing?

Is it simply a misunderstanding of culture as a ‘we’ thing .. that you can enable & empower individuals and still be a ‘we’ culture?

I don’t know, but I do know any lasting change or effect in a business is not organizational or on systems or even on some broader cultural narrative. People leave, therefore, if your modus operandi is to enforce or impose (this includes ‘best practices’) systems, I can guarantee you that enforcing or imposing is not motivating nor long term effective (nor even optimizing short term effectiveness).

Truly lasting change & organization effect is within people themselves. Effectiveness is emergent. And because it is emergent it is something they not only embody when within the business, but also take with them outside the business (in life, family, community and other jobs). Therefore. To effectively lead people you actually need to view people beyond the limits of the organizational boundaries. This may sound odd, even inefficient. Its not. It doesn’t ignore the job that existing responsibilities demand, but it also enables individual potential to cross and bridge normal divides & barriers. Or, as Peter Drucker said, ‘business is of the community and the community is of the business.” And that is where true benefits reside. We far too often discuss ‘getting out of your comfort zone’ when instead we should suggest there is no zone or even if there is you should just push out on the limits and boundaries and give people the freedom to grow (and the business will grow). When a person is engaged as part of who & what they are they have the ability to engage to their fullest potential.

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

Veronica Roth

Simplistically this is investing in people, not an organization. This leads me to the eternal question in business: “why train employees (people) if all they are going to do is leave? (and someone else will benefit by my investment).”

This is a valid, and important, topic.

At its core is, well, business’s decision to make business better. It’s like believing if you plant healthy seeds they will bloom here, there and everywhere and the entire forest grows.

Believing this demands we view a business in a non traditional way – you don’t ‘push down’ beliefs, behavior, responsibilities, etc. because, honestly, any time anything is ‘pushed down’ the world shudders to a halt as the people who are actually doing the work take the round peg senior leadership has created and try to figure out how to put it in the square hole of reality. In order to do so, most times, instead of convincing leadership they actually need a square peg, the teams design a mish mash version of a round peg that will fit into the square hole.

“In our consumer culture, we are encouraged to assume roles that aren’t truly authentic to who we are. In a way, this culture is its own kind of simulation, one that requires us to make more and more purchases to maintain the integrity of the illusion.”

Stowe Boyd

To be clear. I am not suggesting a ‘bossless’ organization. And while I do believe business has become more complex than in the past, I have always believed maximizing an individual maximizes the business. What was true then is exponentially true as business becomes more complex.

Stowe Boyd said “We’re in a time of rapidly expanding insights about human motivation and connection, but meanwhile our companies continue to be run with a perspective on human psychology and sociology circa 1970.” I slightly disagree. While, as a generalization, it may be true, I would suggest some people have always known this is the best way to maximize an organization — its just that leadership doesn’t trust it to be done that way.

Of course I believe discussing new organizational models is important and, in some cases, a business should have a new business model. But at the core of any organizational discussion it really isn’t about models but rather “how do you think about individuals?”

Because until you answer that question autonomy, empowerment, self management, is all irrelevant. If you do not believe in people, than you do believe in control. Period. Full stop.

If you do believe in people, than you will stop talking about leaders, and what makes great leaders, but instead talk about resource management – how can we get the proper resources into the proper hands at the proper times to maximize each individual and group of individuals.

This expands the business by expanding the individual. Therefore leadership isn’t about direction or control, but rather managing/optimizing expansion. Ponder.

——————–

“You do not rise to the level of your goals. You fall to the level of your systems.”

James Clear

—————

** author’s preface: I originally published this piece in February of this year and given all the online babble about “new normal” chafing against people who want to go back to wherever they deemed ‘normal’ in the past I thought I would reshare. I’d like to note that pandemic or not, impact or not, businesses and society are, at their core, conserving institutions.

===

Scan the web and it is strewn with articles claiming the end of the way things were being done.

Disruption !!!!

Pick your topic and the pandemic has forever changed it.

Well. We are all about to find out how strong the ‘conserving institutions’ are.

What people seem to forget are some things Drucker told us.

“.. specifically, there are no results within the organization. All the results are on the outside. The only business results are produced by a customer who converts the costs and efforts of the business into revenues and profits through the willingness to exchange purchasing power for the products or services of the business. what happens inside any organization is effort and cost. There are no profit centers, there are only effort centers.”

Organizations are only as effective as if, and when, others use what it creates.

Organizations do not create results, all results exist outside the organization.

Organizations view ‘disruption’ not through results, but effort.

Ponder that last line. Debate it if you want. But think about the fact almost every business today, while worrying about results, is assessing the effort variables with incredible scrutiny, i.e., what changes to my situation’s efforts do I need to change, or conserve, for when the pandemic is over?

They typically view things within an arc of a trend, not changes in a trend. Unfortunately, the truly important things to a business are not trends, they are changes in trends. People usually view events as ‘disruption’, or disruptors, not of portends of trends to be evaluated. They see things occurring and they then decide whether to serve those things (apply effort against them) to attain desired results. This is a version of short term business that I call mercenary capitalism or exploiting situational context <not really caring if the context is of the moment or of time>.

All that said.

Conserving institutions seek to simply apply their efforts, maybe in some newish ways, to attain the same results that made then happy in the past (or to feed the progress they feel comfortable with). And therein lies the post-pandemic future – not in ‘disruption’ but in conserving.

That said.

We would be foolish to not believe every industry is a conserving institution. They not only see success in conserving, but survival in conserving <albeit they may couch it in ‘optimizing invested capital’ or ‘maximizing who we are’>. Therefore, we should view the new economy as a battle for progress, not change, against that which seeks to conserve what was perceived as progress already in hand.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that status quo, to a conserving institution, has a couple of characteristics that will make conserving seeming appealing.

Status quo does have movement within it.

No matter how often we bludgeon status quo, it is dynamic. Now. The dynamics may defeat each other to an end in which little progress is made. But. It is dynamic. There is activity within the organization, there are power struggles and resource allocation all working within some process & system. There are a variety of reasons why these things dampen the positive dynamics of the institution, but my point is that while it is conserving, there is a lot of activity happening within that conserving.

Next.

Status quo has a specific dynamic that makes it palatable to a conserving institution – inertia looks an awful lot like speed.

A unique feature of a solid conserving institution, or even an industry, is a strong center of gravity <this can be good – as in a vision or principles – or it can be bad – as in power>. This center of gravity is important because, in its conserving energy, it keeps all the expended energy from flying off into chaos, albeit it also sacrifices the progress, and the institution has all the feeling of speed and achievements and all the while its just one huge hamster wheel.

Now.

Conserving institutions are really good at absorbing ideas to create an illusion of progress, while maintaining the status quo, which makes status quo is a tricky topic. For example. The truth is a conserving institution can purchase a startup with progressive ideas or thinking and, yet, because it is a conserving institution, they can use it to maintain the status quo. To the outside world they are ‘showing progress’, yet, all they are doing is maintaining the status quo. This is the illusion of progress.

In addition. Conserving institutions have an incredible knack for suggesting they are rethinking things while all they are doing is rearranging deck chairs on whatever ship they are on (Titanic or a Celebrity Cruise – my point is you can make a shitload of money not doing anything new).

Look. Conserving has a number of dynamics beginning with the fact that institutions, institutional thinking, is actually grounded in simple (simplistic) beliefs. This happens because over time as the industry settles, people settle. And in their mutual setting there arises simplistic narratives and summaries of what they do, what they get and what is expected. The foundation of the industry, well, settles. The story of stories in business is a story in & of itself. Conserving businesses repeatedly ruin a good idea by deciding to not only standardize it, democratize it, but commoditisize it.

My point? Conserving institutions are good at settling and fight against not settling.

Anyway.

If I scan well respected publications, I can see how working from home may increase the productivity of employees, or not, it is better for the health of employees, or not, and connectivity is better, or not.

What I believe we are seeing is wishful thinking versus reality. Many of us always see the opportunities to fix some of the existing problems or maybe even try and build for the future and then there are a shitload of ‘conserving institutions’ fighting, sometimes with a well-funded balance sheet, to seek the opportunities in ‘getting back to the business of doing business.’

** note: power.

It is important to note an important factor in any conserving institution is power. Unless you understand how and to whom knowledge, and money, flows, you cannot understand the foundations of ‘conserving behavior.’ I would also note that the control of knowledge is often the crux of tomorrow’s worldwide struggle for power within all institutions (as knowledge leads to money). This idea on power bleeds into all institutions – business, education, society, etc. – Toffler suggested in Future Shock “how our lives get invaded in the future”. I would be remiss if I didn’t note that knowledge sharing is actually the impetus for change.

Power, in defending itself, conserves knowledge. Or, maybe more truthfully said, shares grudgingly with the intent to improve and conserve. Business always seeks to improve believing it is the key to profits and survival, but all the while constraining the existing institutions to conserve. Within that paradox resides success & failure.

“In a so-called information society, minds are not only the most important economic asset — companies with minds make money; companies with money and no minds lose the money — it’s the same thing in everything. The networks are not programmed by technology; technological tools are programmed by minds. So, the human consciousness [is the source], because everything now depends on our ability to generate knowledge and process information in every domain and activity. Knowledge and information are cognitive qualities from the human mind. Yes, human minds usually are connected to bodies, which means that you have to take into consideration the overall system of human existence, social services support, etc. But fundamentally, the human mind has always been, but more than ever now, the source of wealth, power, and control over everything.”

Manuel Castells Interview: Conversations with History; Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley

Anyway. Conserving institutions sounds bad. It makes it sound like conserving, generally speaking, is bad. But. Not all process and structure is bad and the trick is always how to pluck the good out of the bad. Unfortunately, most organizational design encourages mediocrity, therefore, the current business structure conserves mediocrity at its best.

Look.

I could be wrong. It could be the pandemic has shaken the institutional context etch-a-sketch enough that many businesses, and industries, will reconfigure into a better way of doing and being in business.

But.

I could also be right in that conserving institutions will fight with ragged claws to conserve what they had <figuring they would grow, show progress, simply through pandemic attrition>.

What I do know is that business, in general, likes to conserve.

Just ponder before making some prediction of the future of work.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness.’

Charles Dickens

** author’s closing note: the unsaid thought is that maybe the most conserving institution is ‘the mind.’ But that is a different piece for a different time.

====

“We must learn to be still in the midst of activity and to be vibrantly alive in repose.”

Indira Gandhi

===

This may be my favorite quote of all time. I use this to explain great leadership.  I use it to living Life. I use it to discuss solving problems. Heck. I just like using it.

But. I will get back to that thought.

One of the neat things about sifting through the job opportunities are the sometimes well crafted, but always interesting, ‘here is what we are seeking’ writings. I still have this in my files:

—

“We have people who do good work when it comes their way, but we do not have a person who has the skill and the temperament insight in the data, clarity in the confusion, and courage in the chaos of a very large retail piece of business.”

—

Well. I love this. I thought it was an incredibly well written interesting way to state what they were seeking AND it also gave some insight into the personality of the company and writer. Plus there is some nice alliteration (or is that assonance, I always get them confused).

Anyway. I have written about the “mutual chemistry check” which I believe is incredibly important in the interview process (particularly at mid to senior level positions). And when you receive the ‘here is what we are seeking’ statement it is a nice way to judge some aspect of chemistry. They could have sent a laundry list bullet pointed list.

They didn’t.

** note: when I speak of chemistry I do not mean some simplistic ‘likeable’ or, worse, some Myers-Briggs personality assessment, I mean comfort with company’s guiding principles, because in the end, when the bombs start dropping and you are stuck in the foxhole with all the other decision-makers you don’t have to like each other but you damn well better be sure that your choicemaking works within a common guardrails mental system. 

I mention this because my write up for “so what is it you do well” took me a long time to figure out, but when I did, it now gets used by HR people and search people all the time as an example of how to write one that isn’t just factoids and ‘puffery’ and a laundry list of “I am good with people” and a “problem solver” and shit like that.

In addition they (HR/search placement people) like it because it reflects some “here is what you are gonna get” from a personality standpoint. Anyway. If you are seeking for an example here you go:

some good things to know about Bruce McTague

creative management

Let’s call my style ‘restless consistency.’ Restless because I like to build in some constant change but consistent because I dislike straying from vision/strategy core. How do I know it works? I have never lost a piece of business within my account responsibilities while in Account Management. Well. Okay one. One piece of business I was just assigned to resigned within one month. I would like to believe that wasn’t cause & effect. But it does make me think if there was cause & effect on why I don’t lose pieces of business (through reviews, contract renegotiations, senior management changes and staff changes). Another way I know that it works? I bet I have 5 strategies I have worked on since the 1980’s that are still the core strategic platform for that brand.
I believe it’s mainly because I believe in restless consistency. The easiest way to describe this is with a metaphor. I look at business as a 5 lane highway. I keep a business out of the ditches but I am comfortable shifting lanes and passing people as well as slow down on occasion to avoid accidents – all somewhere on the five lane highway. Yes. Sometimes I forget to use the blinker. And sometimes I will pass when the signs say don’t pass. So I have received some tickets along the way. But my car typically keeps moving and getting ahead.

managing transitional moments

Let’s stick with the highway metaphor. Changing lanes at any speed on a highway with other vehicles is always tricky. I have always shown the ability to see appropriate times to pass, which lane to use (I am willing to pass on the right) and show an ability to hit the transition moment at the right speed and at the right time. I would imagine it’s partially because I apply past business knowledge to successfully meet Client challenges. I imagine it is partially because I am always thinking and willing to adapt the strategic thinking with new learning. As a driver I have a proven successful track record of assuming responsibilities on businesses with no prior industry experience and transitioning new ideas into the existing programs. So. Put me on a new highway in a different vehicle and I know how to drive. My experience spans across traditional package goods, retail and service businesses and all I have stored away in my memory banks translates into ability to transition businesses through ‘business solving’ moments. This ability works well in new business environment also.

people management

My people tend to be successful in business and life. Cause & effect? I don’t know for sure. All I know is that I have:

–          Created and managed a variety of team formations which have developed successful business results.

–          Team members have moved on to successful careers of their own including CMO’s, CEO of agency, Directors of Strategy, executive management with clients and agencies.

–          Happy family life (good balanced lives)

I would imagine in some way maybe I teach life lessons at the same time I teach business lessons.

tactical variety

I do think it matters what someone has done from a practical experience. I have either worked in or directly managed Direct Marketing, Media, Account Management, Creative process, grassroots, brand planning, strategic planning (business consulting), social media, organizational behavior, etc and familiar with profitability and effective time utilization (labor) models to build and maintain profitable companies.  Taught strategic planning (the JWT model), Account Management techniques, presentation training, among other topics, to people.  All of this clearly places me into a generalist space. This doesn’t mean I know everything. This also doesn’t mean I can’t hang with the specialists in fact many specialists like having me around because then they don’t have to worry about how to translate what they are doing and thinking to others.
 

Anyway. There you go. An example. And an example that a bunch of people seem to like.

But back to the quote – still and alive.

All the skills sets I suggested I offered earlier seem to be grounded in the quote I used upfront.

I will also suggest actually implementing this quote may be one of the hardest things to do in the world.

Being still while things swirl around you takes strength of character and a belief in yourself. Because being still means you are willing to let others “do” and be recognized. And the possibility you may be overlooked in your stillness. On the other side, to infuse action where there is stagnancy or lostness takes such a strength, character and energy, that it can be overwhelming.

I certainly aspire to ‘still & alive’ mostly because I believe it is a personal version of festina lente (make haste slowly) and I believe that is efficacy in business. And if there is anything I am it is a believer in business efficacy – not efficiency, not effectiveness, efficacy.

That said. While still and alive is most likely a skill, it is also a reflection of some aspect of character. And maybe that is my point. Business, however you define it in this case – chemistry, success, effectiveness, collaboration, coherence – demands some character and a business that demands character will do well. Ponder.

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

“They made you into a weapon and told you to find peace”

unfinished poems

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

“Because you believed I was capable of behaving decently, I did.”

Paulo Coelho

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

“America is the country of the Future. It is a country of beginnings, or projects, of vast designs an expectations.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson 1844

==========

So, without intending to, this has become a partner piece to something I wrote back in November 2016 “In this time, at this place, I will be defined.” At that point I felt like we had reached a defining moment. By that I mean a moment in time where people will be demanded to choose what they stand for and make a stand.

I still believe that even in 2020. In fact, I believe we, the people, are still feeling our way through that process in fits & starts even as if it feels like the world around us, the world we knew, is burning.

Part of that process has been driven by Trump and his unflinching grip on lack of decency, divisive rhetoric and leadership style. It has only encouraged fragments to remain fragments, niche opinions to become stronger niche like thinking and, yet, as this dividing increases the majority of people will feel a slightly desperate sense of yearning for a greater need of “one out of many.” This arises out of a natural desire for community and a grander view of “we” rather than just “I” as well as most people will feel an inherent need to regain some solid, well directed <not just hopeful> trust in something & in someone who offers a glimpse of the future and not just victimization within the present.

I will not argue today that this greater need is pervasive yet because I believe many are still in denial — denying some basic things we see with our own eyes because they desire to focus on past driven resentments rather than future driven opportunities. To be fair. Many of these people have gotten used to a system that hasn’t done shit for them, could care less about what they are interested in and think the character of the ‘establishment’ is no better, or worse, than some tweetstorming asshat in the oval office.

What I will argue today is that while Trump has done nothing to create some sense of unity we, as a country, need someone who will because at some point someone has to clearly define the future of the country. Basically, we need someone to rise like a phoenix from the burning ashes of a fragmented country to breathe a new  view of the future into our lives.

This seems like a massive challenge when, in truth, the battle resides in nuance and effective communication.

===========

“Nothing. Nothing. We’re used to living in poverty, we’re used to it. It ain’t never going to change. How many times we got to tell you that? But you don’t listen.”

===========

Almost everyone wants change but almost everyone, regardless of their position, thinks it will never change.

And, therein lies the rub. Trust in the institution. Believing in the institution. For we, the people, believe we (as individuals) can do anything and, yet, we do not believe the government or the grander institution is capable of leading the change.

I say this because if the people are enormously skeptical, even cynical, of anything government promises & actually does it is significantly more difficult for the government to work properly if it doesn’t have the people on its side.

This cynicism comes to life in something I wrote in 2013

—

America is better when ideas are held up for debate, but it is worse when some let their blind partisanship drag the country down in an “I may lose, but by God they won’t win” death spiral.

The world will improve not because of more government or less government … in fact the government & taxes & stimulus is irrelevant … it will be because people’s attitudes will change.

They will just believe it should be better and will set out to make it better … regardless of the system they are asked to operate within.

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

No matter what we may say about personal responsibility, Leaders do matter.

They not only breathe oxygen into hope when we feel suffocated but they also have an ability to remind everyone that things are attainable – they can get us to believe when skepticism suggests we shouldn’t believe. A good leader can make people’s attitudes change.

It’s kind of like offering attainable hope. But even this kind of pragmatic hope needs some help. It has to be visionary and big & expansive and yet needs some grounding in ‘believing’. And, yes, I believe one person, a leader/president/prime minister/whatever, can do this.

It is not about telling us we are great or convincing us we are great, but rather that greatness resides WITHIN us.

Ponder this quote:

===

“The true greatness of a nation is not measured by the vastness of its territory, or by the multitude of its people, or by the profusion of its exports and imports; but by the extent to which it has contributed to the life and thought and progress of the world. A man’s greatness is not estimated by the size of his body or of his purse; not by his family connections or social position, however high these may be. He may bulk large in public estimation today, but tomorrow he will be forgotten like a dream, and his very servants may secure a higher position and a name lasting possibly a little longer.

A man’s greatness is estimated by his influence, not over the votes and empty cheers of a changing and passing crowd, but by his abiding, inspiring influence in their bidden thoughts, upon their ways of thinking, and consequently of acting. That is why the Wycliffes, Shakespeares, Miltons, Newtons, Wesleys, and Gladstones of English history live, and will live, in everlasting memory, while lesser men are remembered only through them, and the crowd of demagogues, pretenders, and self-seekers are named, if ever named, only to “point a moral, or adorn a tale.”

So with nations.

A great nation is not one which, like Russia, has an enormous territory ; or, like China, has an enormous population. It is the nation which gives mankind new modes of thought, new ideals of life, new hopes, new aspirations; which lifts the world out of the rut, and sets it going on a cleaner and brighter road.”

E. Blaze, November 26, 1926

Sri Lankan educationist founder of Kingswood College

======

“New modes of thought, new ideals of life, new hopes, new aspirations; which lifts the world out of the rut, and sets it going on a cleaner and brighter road” is greatness and all of that resides within us, as a collective group acting coherently, and we seek a ‘phoenix’ to show it to us.

Now. I am not suggesting we need a “change agent” as some leader because I believe everyone wants change. What I am suggesting is we need a “believe agent” because people need to believe – that change can occur, that hope does exist and a better future is within our grasp.

This person needs to capture the space in between practical and emotional:

the “hard sell”: The idea that what people want – what they need, and more importantly, what will drive them to act – is the facts, stated with clarity and without cleverness. Give people facts and they will give you their actions.

the “emotional sell”: That which makes the requested actions memorable beyond the merely mechanical. People are simultaneously logical & illogical, predictable & unpredictable, and 100% aspirational. Tell people to land on the moon and they will figure it out. Tell people some greatness is possible and they will do great things.

Believe agents cannot choose one path or another they must gather it all up and show it to us. I do believe this leader, or a group of these leaders to choose from, exist. We may not recognize them as true leaders now, but I envision our next generation of great leaders will arise from all of this turmoil. I have called this new leadership group “the sifters”. They will have the ability to sift through the loud voices, the silent voices and their peer’s voices, decide what is right, decide what is right for everyone’s future, and do it <whether it is ‘popular’ or not>. Basically, we need a ‘phoenix’ who will explain common sense, even if it is some unpopular common sense, tell people the truth, and make people believe the future we want is attainable. They will take a stand and ask us to stand ourselves.

I am suggesting a ‘believe agent’ builds attainable Hope leading with common sense tethered to Hope guiding us toward the horizon of hope and prosperity.

Am I asking too much of just one person? Maybe. Possibly. But is it fair to ask for someone to galvanize all the fragments into a whole? Yes. One person is a blacksmith and one person can forge a nation into one. That I believe.

This does not absolve us of personal responsibility, but sometimes someone needs to light the light in the ‘lighthouse’ optimism to guide us toward who and what we want to be as a group of people <a nation as it were>.

That said. Hope comes in all shapes and sizes and we need leaders who recognize the shape of Hope has changed. In particular there is a practicality that Hope needs today that it didn’t need in the past. Defining moments usually require defining people in order to bridge the moment. Where will we find this phoenix? Am I asking too much of one person? Is it too late? Yes. I offer scary questions but with all that I will offer an answer. Defining moments create defining people. A phoenix will arise because the moment itself will define them. But. Where will we find the phoenix?

——

———————————–

“I feel like I’ve swallowed a cloudy sky.”

=

Haruki Murakami

—-

Ok. I am a principles person. By that I mean I believe, and have found, that most business principles have a timeless quality to them. The majority of the best of the best principles offer solid fundamentals.

That said. I cannot tell you how many times I have sat in a business meeting, often with very smart business people, and someone pulls out <verbally> some marketing, or any business process/idea/way-to-think from over a decade ago as if it represents a principle rather than a process <which is implementation OF a principle>.

As I sit there and listen, well, I feel like I have swallowed a cloudy sky.

<note: it feels a little uncomfortable>

It’s not that the old principle is wrong it has just been improved upon from an implementation aspect.

My whole issue in this situation is a version of unlearning.

Anyway. By a ‘version’ I imagine I am thinking it is maybe more unbundling and shedding some of the outdated features and learning some of the newer features rather than simply unlearning something.

I fully understand that most business people are under constant pressure to learn more and to learn quickly and to mostly focus on the shit that is most important to them. Therefore, they will also tend to absorb one of their ‘non expertise competencies’ in the most simple sensible fashion possible.

But here is the issue in today’s business world.

The future belongs to the people who can unlearn stuff faster than the rest WHILE leaning into the timeless principles.

In other words. The ability to apply principles in new contexts.

I know I didn’t say ‘adapt’ or anything except ‘unlearn shit.’ I did that because it is almost impossible to learn something new until you have created some mental space by letting go of something else.

** note: it is a skill to know what to let go and what to hold on to.

So I am suggesting you cannot do that <adapt> unless you learn how to do this <unlearn>. You either learn to unlearn quicker, on everything that reflects context, not just your core competency or … well … you will either be too slow <because that one part is like dragging algae on the bottom of a sailboat> or you will fail <because even that one part can blow up the entire engine>.

I know.

I know.

What I am suggesting is hard.

REALLY hard.

Because, as I noted earlier, discerning between principles and implementation of principles is often difficult to discern let alone explain in combination with the fact this will sometimes means letting go of something that has worked really well for you for a long time.

Now. To be clear.

I do not think that just because something is an ‘older idea’ that it is not usable. In fact I believe we have shed more good thinking under the guise of some bullshit ‘pop business culture’ soundbite type thinking than is good for us. But there are aspects of old thinking & ideas that can be updated.

I don’t suggest this simply or flippantly. I do so because I see the value of new thinking, but from a more practical aspect – the business world has changed in some dynamics that should make us not simply reapply a slightly tired business thinking ideas.

Once again. This is all hard. Really hard. It gets harder because the business world is demanding us to ‘think new faster.’ Most simply this has created the perception business life has become even more fragile than ever before which increases the stress upon us to do things faster (which encourages is to reapply past ideas & thinking that may have worked).

The perception is buttressed up by some contectual facts. A Yale professor noted the average lifespan of a company listed in the S&P 500 index of leading US companies has decreased by more than 50 years in the last century. <67 years in 1920s to 15 years today>. I’d also not in 2020 around ¾ of the S&P 500 are companies that either did not exist in 2010 or were below the awareness radar.

So how do principles stand the test of time. Well. Relevance is the name of the game. Which means context matters and adaptability addresses the most basic business truth that much of what used to work will not work now and what works today will most likely not work in the near future.

Old business models and old business thinking has been shaken to the core which has two obvisous consequences:

fundamental principles are mistakenly tossed away as outdoated (a mistake)

new (loudly spoken) ideas are confused with real principled thinking (a mistake)

This is not just because of ‘old people.’ This is thinking survival. You store away thoughts in your head and prioritize what you just use, and reuse, and what you unlearn and what you learn anew.

Look. I know I still hear people quote ‘good to great’ tripe <when I wish more people would pull out Covey’s ‘Habits of’ instead> so I know we get confused on what to hold on to and what to let go of.

I know I was just in a meeting where an incredibly smart person discussed the traditional purchase funnel <see image to left> and he was kind enough to chuckle when I pointed out that model type thinking had solid aspects, but there were significantly newer models which reflect the dynamics of today’s word better.

I guess I need to remind myself a couple things:

1. 1. I live, eat & breathe new thinking and new ways of doing things.
   2. Most people do not.

This doesn’t mean I am better than anyone, it is just that I am always seeking the ‘right way to think in a particular situation’ rather than ‘best practice for all.’ And I am involved with such a wide variety of industries and business and business people that ‘one way does not fit all’ and context, or contextually applying principled thinking, can often make a principle look not like a principle, but rather look like a new idea.

Today’s business world is all about living in a non-stagnant world. Business has always been restless … it just seems more restless.

Stay still and get run over.

Something you learned in the past, which is logical & makes sense, seems counterintuitive to ‘unlearn’

Or as John Maynard Keynes said:

“The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping the old ones”

We are all creatures of habit and custom ingrained by decades of repetition.

In addition. Smart people have a tendency to hold on to sensible smart ideas.

Escaping old ideas is hard.

REALLY hard <especially if they were good>. And sometimes seems counterintuitive to let go because “I found something that works and I want to maintain it as long as I can.’

Sounds smart.

Sounds sensible.

Uhm. Now hear the sound of your business getting crushed.

All that said.

What made me start writing this post?

An old friend of mine wrote the following words on his linkedin site and I liked them <albeit I did find a typo … to his chagrin>. It is about branding and advertising … but the concept behind the words ring true thru any business category:

===

I want to encourage our industry to evolve beyond the tired branding principles that haven’t changed since Oglivy made his bones over 30-years ago.

If you find yourself baffled by double-speak and special language that only brand experts seem to understand, trust your instincts and find a firm who is fast and whose counsel makes rational sense.

A client told me about his experience with one of the agencies in his stable:

“… it’s like talking to the Mandarins that keep all commoners from the Forbidden Palace … I don’t speak their language … the process takes too long … and I have other things to do ….”

Getting to the Forbidden Palace of Brand shouldn’t take three months and war chest of fees that would be better off in working media.

This, I know, will upset an industry cobbled together on pre-recession consulting contracts just to come up with a snappy line, color palette, and logo.

If you find yourself sitting in yet another meeting where somebody poses the question: “But who are we really, and who do we want to be when we grow up?”

Run.

You can shape your brand in less than four weeks. You and your company knows who they are and your consumers know who you are. The faster you come to leverage points and missed opportunities, the faster your retail or sales organization can get back to doing what they do best — SELLING.

You need to unleash a burlap sack of caffeinated ferrets into your marketing world to get things done, excite your organization, and make sales happen.

That’s where I come in … head caffeinated ferret at your service.

Mandarins need not apply.

===

Look. I know it is difficult to stay in touch with the newest best thinking. I also know it is difficult to stay in touch with the principles. I even know it is difficult to discern what is good new thinking and what is shitty useless new thinking.

But.

Tired business thinking is tired business thinking.

Sorry.

But it is what it is.

Thinking with fresh legs will pass tired thinking any day.

All I know is that, personally, every time I hear someone speak tired business thinking I feel like I have swallowed a cloudy sky – its pretty but useless. I do believe the business world does need to reenege with some of the timeless principles but at the same time i believe the business world need to reinvigorate those principles within a contextually dynamic world.

Maybe I am also suggesting we need to begin teaching some classes on the differences between principles and ideas. Ponder.

……………… typical Bruce index card ………….

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

“Creatives need constraints like a good architect needs the laws of physics (and in particular, gravity). It’s by working within the constraints that, ultimately, we creatives test our limits and push ourselves to grow.”

SJ_Murray

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

“In all pointed sentences, some degree of accuracy must be sacrificed to conciseness.”

Samuel Johnson

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

One 3×5 paper index card and a writing utensil (my preference is a pencil). I

would say 90% of any of the ideas I have ever had that have been worth a shit have occurred in that constrictive space using that ancient writing tool.

That said. This is about ideas and thinking. I am a scribbler. And a sketcher. And a pencil guy. I carry around a stack of index cards & constantly sketch out thoughts for people. I can confidently say my index cards are strewn around the world. I am sure some are used for dart boards, some for a good laugh & some actually was a seed for some idea.

To me, index cards means I cannot rely on, well, anything. The space demands that I use it however the idea demands. It is an exercise in brevity & clarity and forces some economy to the idea or thought.

When pinned up on some board the idea or thought has no place to hide. Shit. The thinking has no place to hide. If that space can display the core of some value proposition (which, inevitably, that is an idea), thinking has won the day.

Now. In my defense there is an entire book on ‘The back of the Napkin”   (I bought and then donated to some business library) and Jessica Hagy wrote a book called Indexed (which I never actually bought)  and Hugh McLeod wrote Ignore Everybody (a fabulous book) and has built an entire company/business around ideas succinctly communicated – all espouse the value of a constrained ideation method.

All that said.

While I have used index cards for decades the whole idea of constraints & old school simplicity came to mind the other day where I had a great conversation with a young person and at the end of it he said “I envision you live your life free of constraints and the rules that inhibit the majority of people.”

I hesitated <slightly taken aback> and responded “I’m sorry I gave you that impression … I think Life, as well as business, is best lived within a construct and while I believe society and some experts try and establish some silly rules … rules, in general,  are good and boundaries typically enhance creativity.”

Yeah. I believe Construct is good.

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

constraints maximize pragmatism & demands productive imagination to explore possibilities.

“Creatives need constraints like a good architect needs the laws of physics (and in particular, gravity). It’s by working within the constraints that, ultimately, we creatives test our limits and push ourselves to grow.”

@SJ_Murray

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

So let’s talk about the relationship between construct, constraint and constrict. Constructs can either, or both, create constraints or constrict. Typically, that is not a reflection of the construct but rather the constructors (people) or the managers of the construct (people).

constraints maximize pragmatism & demands productive imagination to explore possibilities.

Constructs can be either good or bad because constructs, in general, define some finiteness in a complex infinite world.

Note: I believe construct is incredibly important for the future of business. I believe the key to the future is a business which can think conceptually and implement well against those concepts. It will be a natural way of combining emergent & deterministic strategies against concepts represent the most valuable opportunities.

Think about football fields, rodeo rings, Broadway stages, yes, even index cards, any finite space creates a construct for someone to maximize the space … in a multi-dimensional way. Thinkers take the 2 dimensional traditional constructs and seek to build within any and all dimensions.

Sounds weird, but finiteness offer freedom.

As a corollary … no finiteness encourages aimless unfocused wandering.

Note: ‘no finiteness wandering’ could be construed as freedom by some, but it isn’t really. Freedom in and of itself only has value where it is attached to some purpose or construct or intent. No finiteness freedom sounds good <on occasion>, but inevitably is extremely dissatisfying.

I’m not suggesting unfocused wandering doesn’t have some value, but rather that the great ideas and thinking don’t come from the unfocused, but rather the focused.  I am actually suggesting there is a massive difference between construct, constraint and constrict. When I refer to finiteness and boundaries I have also very clearly stated ‘nonrestrictive.’

Restriction: Too restrictive is most often a reflection of someone or something imposing philosophical and/or ideological control over others. More often than not tight space ‘finite builders’ leaders see people as a single unit, or engine, in which all the people are parts rather than autonomous individuals. They believe that if any part acts outside of the boundaries the entire unit could break. They build their boundaries not seeking to enhance creativity and innovation, but rather to control each individual’s behavior in order to ensure that what you do as an individual does no harm to the whole. It is meant to rein in and not let free and meant to create conformity and unity <albeit it is actually “oneness’>.

It is a faulty premise … and a defensive constrictive premise.

Why is it faulty?

—-

“… provide an extended definition of creativity that embraces potential cross-cultural variations in this construct.

Creativity is defined as a 4-criterion construct, which includes attributes of novelty, utility, aesthetics, and authenticity. Novelty attribute stipulates that a creative work brings something new into being, which presents a new conceptual framework and/or modifies or violates an existing one. Utility attribute stipulates that a creative work is what a producer or a recipient considers creative, what represents an important landmark in spiritual, cultural, social, and/or political environment, and what addresses moral issues. The aesthetics attribute stipulates that a creative work presents the fundamental truth of nature, which is reflected in a perfect order, efficiently presents the essence of the phenomenal reality, and is satisfactorily complex, expressing both tension and intrinsic contradiction. Authenticity attribute stipulates that a creative work expresses an individual’s inner self and relates one’s own values and believes to the world. These attributes establish a comparison matrix, which can be used to evaluate and compare the levels of creativity of works from different areas of human endeavor.”

Anatoliy V. Kharkhurin

———-

Constraint: Creativity of the mind is exactly the same as creativity of innovation. It is multidimensional and needs a balance of constraint and freedom in order to maximize potential.

The best creativity, thinking & ideas, happens within a construct offering constraints. Well established boundaries, ones that supply some constraint without being restrictive, create an environment in which the mind can roam freely within a realm provided some focus for that freedom.

True creative freedom is found within finiteness not without.

As I said in the beginning … “Life, as well as business, is best lived within a construct and while I believe society and some experts try and establish some silly rules … rules, in general, are good and boundaries typically enhance creativity.”

Anyway. While index cards certainly offer constraint (forces you to focus, or simplify, a thought) the real value is in the puzzle piece management, i.e., being able to envision how a thought fits into the grander narrative/scheme of things

Life, business, thinking in general, is a million-piece puzzle of which we gather the pieces one at a time. While our minds naturally store away everything we see and read and experience, an index card permits us to catalogue those pieces, no matter how tiny, onto a small canvas. The index card is a method of processing information, collating it, filing it away for when it is needed.

Let me be clear Life, and business, and thoughts; each is a million-piece puzzle. Period. Full stop.

Some people gather pieces and assess and others just don’t have that ability and use just the pieces that seem the most important.

Neither is good or bad in and of itself.

But I will say what is good is assembling those puzzle pieces in a constrained space. I don’t care if its index cards, notepads, whatever. If you can assemble puzzle pieces and assemble a thought within a space <canvases seem to be the construct du jour although I tend to use x/y axis> you can almost guarantee that people will be able to see the idea and its value.

But let me end this with a contrarian thought to what I just offered: assembling those puzzle pieces in a constrained space.

What if the entire idea of a constrained space is false?

What if all those post it notes and index cards are simply potential pockets of certainty within an infinite, boundless, world of uncertainty mired within complexity?

I thought about this staring at a whiteboard with index cards arranged on it. What if instead of viewing them as possibilities or information on some canvas (which is a construct) we see them as possible certainties in a lack of construct uncertain world? What if I viewed these index cards as finite games to be played within an infinite game? None of this suggests the value of using index cards and having construct to place some smart constraints on thinking & doing is valueless. In fact. It may even suggest that focus and clarity is even MORE important because they may actually represent the only real certainty you can find to place in a constantly changing complexity context. Ponder that.