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

“Don’t tell me how good you make it, tell me how good it makes me when I use it.”

Leo Burnett

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

Even though I don’t get paid to do so, I think about work, its meaning to people, how it may create some meaning for people and how we could make work, and the way we work, better.

“Man is an agent… a center of unfolding impulsive activity “teleological” activity… seeking… some concrete, objective, impersonal end. …he is possessed of a taste for effective work, and a distaste for futile effort. He has a sense of the merit of serviceability or efficiency and of the demerit of futility, waste, or incapacity. This aptitude or propensity may be called the instinct of workmanship.”

Thorstein Veblen 1899

I, personally, believe whatever work we do, especially if we get paid for that work, always means more than just ‘work’ or a paycheck. It is part of our identity. This view is not shared by everyone. There are many people who say “your work is not who you are” or “work should not define you.” I believe that’s absurd.

That doesn’t mean I believe work should be all that defines you, but even if the workplace, itself, treats you as if you are a widget or judges you in some less than human ways, more an ‘output generator’, this does not mean you should ignore the workplace as ‘de-humanizing’ (or wall off because it doesn’t encourage ‘positive human identities’). In fact. I believe its healthier to say “despite the environment, its more than a paycheck” and start thinking about what you do that actually has meaning (things that make things, or people, better). I believe its healthier because work, whether you admit it or not (or like it or not), represents a significant portion of waking hours within which there is a constant feedback mechanism between “what I do” and “what I get.”

What I “get” is sometimes called ‘purpose’, I will not do so. I think it easier if people just acknowledge that everything we do touches people, and by extension, changes people’s lives – in a little, medium or big way. And, yes, I said everything.

Which leads me to the invisible economy.

To be clear, in economic terms the invisible economy is a reference to ‘unmeasured GDP.’ This is not what I am talking about. My invisible economy are the unseen workers, who contribute to not only GDP but just to making sure the daylight working force gets its shit done.

• • • The high school maintenance person at 6:30 in the morning clearing the grounds for students
    • The nurses walking in for their shift at 7 am (and the ones leaving who got there at 10 pm)
    • The trucks rumbling down the streets at 4:30 in the morning carrying supplies & food stuffs for buildings, offices & schools throughout each city
    • The groundskeepers who mow all the public lawns & fields, at 6 am, before everyone arrives to use them
    • The garbage trucks
    • The building cleaning teams working overnight

They aren’t faceless, just invisible doing what they need to do so well we don’t even notice. Yes. When they do their work well we don’t even notice. I bring them up because far too often we look at these invisible workers (when we choose to see them) and think “they must be miserable” or “they must be doing it just for the paycheck.” Well. I certainly know some people who say and think this.

This belief is driven by the insidious ‘some work is more valuable than other work.” That’s utter bullshit. All work is invaluable to a business. All work.

Note: if you doubt me on this please take a look at Zach Mercurio’s study “Its Time to Stop Dehumanizing Frontline Workers”

“I don’t know how to talk to everybody, only to somebody.”

Howard Gossage

Look. I love working. I am probably a borderline workaholic. It kills me a little each day I am not working. I have had two of my closer friends say in different words that my work defines me. I cannot argue. And, frankly, I don’t want to. But that’s not the point <although it will contribute to my points>.

My point has 2 aspects:

The perception that work is a grind. Yes. Sometimes it is. No. You don’t always have to be passionate or find some grander purpose . But. Work is still a valuable part of a life.

At best, work should be fulfilling and your efforts reflect tangible benefits.

At its worst, people drain the meaning out of it and encourage you to believe anyone could do it. That said. Even at its worst the benefit of what you do STILL EXISTS its just that the environment and people are trying to convince you it does not.  If you listen to people telling you your job is mundane and worthless, it becomes easy to believe so. Don’t.

Related to that.

A significant amount of people in my generation are ‘dropping out of the rat race’ and shifting to ‘doing something that matters’ <let’s call it ‘doing something nobler’ for the sake of this post>. They are doing so like it is a light switch moment in Life.

Off with ambition and ‘work.’ On with noble and ‘purpose.’

Watching closely, younger people see what is happening, hear our words, and are questioning whether the work world my generation created isn’t lacking something or that there is something wrong with ‘this rat race they built.’ Therefore, they are coming out of the blocks into the working world looking for careers ‘doing something that matters.’ Seeking to make some grand gesture or higher purpose investment of time & effort.

Well.

With all due respect to my generation <and hopefully young people listen and follow along> I think we are making a mistake. In my pea like brain I think this whole discussion of ‘purpose driven business’ or even ‘business with a conscious’ is kind of wacky. Ok. Maybe not wacky, because it has great intentions, but misguided. It is so, well, grand. I tend to believe we would be better off focusing on the gestures.

Teaching that work can be done with purpose … not TO a purpose.

Teaching that purpose doesn’t have to be grand … but rather working with purpose is noble in and of itself.

Teaching that work, done well, is meaning in and of itself.

Inevitably it seems to me that we would be better served if we simply taught people <and encouraged people> to be the noblest version of themselves regardless of what they did in the working world and who they worked for. It seems like work itself would be better served because then work IS never just a paycheck or some achievement, but rather HOW you did your work.

Note: There is a difference between doing and achievement.

Anyway. Here is a big problem to work: how an individual defines progress.

“Our motivation/focus/attention/behaviour will naturally gravitate to things that provide the richest sense of progress.”

Dr Jason Fox

If the de facto emblem of progress is money or materialistic proof, people will inherently gravitate towards it even if it may not actually be the ‘richest sense.’ This issue gets compounded because at exactly the same time we often value effort more than we value, well, real value. What that means is currently far too many people view progress through a progress toward riches and not rich progress perspective.

Note: I will not invest a lot of time today on progress, but I would highly recommend reading “How to Lead a Quest” by Dr, Jason Fox or for a less intellectual view try my piece The Forward Progress Theory or How Exceptional Doing can Drive Progress.

Without getting too philosophical I would suggest, if you don’t get your definition of progress right, you will never truly find meaning at work and the arc of your career life will bend toward “it is just a paycheck.” And if that happens, I would suggest the problem is not work, or what you do, but rather you and how you think about your work.

Anyway.

This is all food for thought and I imagine my thoughts will be tested in the coming years as technology (AI & automation) seep into work itself.

I, personally, believe discussions of a world in which people do not have jobs, or don’t have a job, is absurd. And, yes, I see a distinction between “work” & “job” and I see work as being ‘creation/doing’ and job being a hollow label for showing up.

Note: listen to Mike Walsh and Calum Chace discuss this..

I do not believe automation or AI or technology will replace human doing jobs, but it will surely change how people work.

I do not believe a job is just a job.

I do not believe people don’t intrinsically enjoy at least some aspect of work & working.

I do believe if you strip away many of the industrial age tropes that barrage people showing up everyday and doing the best they can every day, you will find a core substantive intrinsic interest in productivity.

All that said.

I fully understand increasing self-awareness runs the risk of creating further disengagement with the institution itself even as the institution pursues a different, better, way of judging/assessing human (identity) value in the workplace. On the other hand, we, the workers:

• know there is not only something wrong with business, as an institution
• know there has to be a better way of conducting business
• know most businesses do not maximize our potential
• know (for the most part) we do not get assessed properly.

In other words, we know our work (mostly) matters and we know it is partly a reflection of our identity and we know the institution of business doesn’t engage workers in ways that enhance our identity and meaning in the best, and most effective, ways. In knowing that maybe any short-term disengagement is simply the cost of a longer term better way of doing business.

Let me end by saying:

• 99% of jobs are more than a paycheck
• 99% of jobs that feel just like a paycheck, are actually more than just a paycheck
• 99% of people who say their jobs are just a paycheck, it is actually more than just a paycheck

All of these above are unresearched numbers, but I would bet they reflect some basic truth. Ponder. Because every day you bring home a paycheck it just doesn’t reflect dollars & cents, but also how you did what you do and how it impacted other people. Once again. Ponder.

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

Most things will be okay eventually, but not everything will be.

Sometimes you’ll put up a good fight and lose. Sometimes you’ll hold on really hard and realize there is no choice but to let go.

Acceptance is a small, quiet room.

–

Cheryl Strayed

==

“The whole is simpler than the sum of its parts.”

–

Willard Gibbs

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

While attaining leadership positions is often a difficult weaving and winding path strewn with obstacles, losing your leadership role is pretty easy. It is easy because, well, while the compass to actually being successful leadership has a clear center line <uniting in a common cause> the path has to be wide enough to accommodate all the lanes necessary so that the organization can fit on the path <you cannot leave some behind and you cannot just take the “we few” along for the ride>.

Alignment in business is always a difficult thing.

Shit.

Alignment in any group environment is always a difficult thing.

Alignment is a multi lane highway, not just offering a center line, which needs to be continuously paved with a deepening trust and cooperation. But, suffice it to say, nothing kills trust & cooperation faster than lack of trust in competency. In other words “not knowing your shit.” Words need to meet actions, actions need to meet decisions and decisions need to meet the greater needs & wants of the whole not just the parts.

All leaders, all of us, have made promises as we assumed responsibility. Some were hard promises and some were hopeful promises. As we shifted into leadership maturity we learned, often the hard way, how to shade the promises properly. What I mean by that is while in our minds something was a hopeful promise, in our employee’s ears it was a real promise <albeit … the savvier ones were skeptical>.

Ah,skeptical. I will suggest the ‘skepticals’ are the most important employees in an organization in terms of “mutual progress” and the ultimate success objective. Skepticals are the ‘swing employees’, i.e., the ones who held your organization together or tore it apart.

The skepticals listened to how the hopeful promises were shared. The skepticals discerned whether you … well … “knew your shit.” This is more the attitudinal part.

The skeptical also view with an eye toward  another aspect. What you actually do, or did as things proceed, with your hopeful promise. This is the functional part.

While any business leader worth half a shit only offers ‘hopeful promises’ which contain at least a glimmer of possibility those words then have to shift into “what we are gonna do to attempt to make that glimmer a reality.”

Oh. Yeah. This is the plans, the what we are gonna do, that kind of pragmatic practical shit.

This is where skepticals really own your ass.

They are the careful readers of promises who sit back and ask themselves whether they want to believe such a thing badly enough to overlook its improbability. They are the ones who can actually drive the organization through improbability towards probability.

Yeah. Even more so than the delusional rabid believers. Why? Because the ‘believers’ are far too often blind to the real obstacles and wildly bludgeon their way toward some objective no matter how improbable the objective. Believers have a nasty tendency to create carnage.

It is the Skepticals who create a path which is sustainable.

Skepticals are always, well, skeptical of the ‘new thoughts’ you share with them and relentlessly compare it against not only what they know but also against whatever other information is out there <they are the ones who maddeningly demand “have you done this before and where”>. Skepticals are always, well, skeptical enough they focus on what I believe the Intelligence Community calls ‘expectability.’

Skepticals understand that when promises are made there is a significant difference between ‘it might be true’ versus  ‘you can’t prove it’s not true.’ They are quite good at recognizing when you are misleading versus when you are honestly trying to get the organization somewhere … even if it does seem slightly improbable.

Look. No one can be sure of anything 100%. And an organization is never 100% aligned when a new leader steps up to assume the responsibility. Therefore you, everyone, assigns a rating to information. And an organization with a strong skeptical segment most typically turns to these skepticals, not the believers, for some guidance on how to rate the leaders words & promises. Outside of the rabid few, an organization is usually not willing to run right out of the gate with a new leader <and we who have led know that>.

You assume as you step to the front of the room that the Skepticals look at you with an uneasy sense you are simply playing your role and not really worthy of the role. They seek to get behind what they, skeptically, view as the mask of who you are and what you offer.

You learn quickly that you, and consequently the organization, are doomed out of the gate if they end up frustrated. Frustrated either that they cannot discern what is behind the mask or frustrated that what they can see looks less than what is needed to deliver upon the promises made or frustrated by what they view as “making shit up” versus “knowing your shit.”

I know everyone knows this, but a leader can get fired for any number of reasons. The ones most overlooked are:

• Failure to convert skepticals <attitudinally>
• Failure to convert skepticals <functionally>

Converting Skepticals is always the key to organizationally unity <sorry, no, it is not breeding excitement among the fewer believers nor is it attempting to placate the non-believers>.

I say that to make another point.

Skepticals reside in the promised land for a leader. One foot in hopeful promise and one foot in practical promise. Most good leaders recognize that there is a significant difference between war against the status quo and war against stagnancy. Status quo, most typically, has aspects of shit that keeps the trains running. In other words, not all status quo is bad and throwing out the baby with the bath water is never good.

And, therefore, you learn very very quickly as a leader you just cannot lie and that hyperbole kills you with Skepticals. You realize it is dangerous, to the organizational success and your own success, to embrace any kind of absurd unblinking willingness to look your people in the eye and flat out lie to them. You just cannot do shit like say “things are going great … just the way they planned” when to the skeptical, and possibly the organization as a whole, it sure appears like “there is a lot going wrong.”

This believability gap can very quickly shift from a simple hiccup on the path or crack in the alignment plan to a crevasse of dysfunction. Regardless. None of that suggests alignment or unity. It all undercuts competency and creates concerns with regard to capabilities, planning and implementation … all of which are the foundation on which any leader stands upon <even more so than vision and hope>.

Discrepancies force people to choose between what they hear and what they see and what they actually know in their own experience.

A leader can only create an upside down world for so long before the skepticals decide to make it right again – whether the leader wants it to be that way or not.

In the end?

Ignore the Skepticals at your own peril. Any successful leader will tell you focusing on Believers will not only put your own career in danger … but it puts the organization, as a whole, at risk.

=====

“The only competition worthy of a wise man is with himself.”

—

Washington Allston

====

“By dividing the people we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us except as teachers of the common herd.”

–

The Civil Servants’ Year Book, “The Organizer” January 1934

========

Ok. This is about the fallacy of the “us versus them” narrative. One of the first temptations in business differentiation is the ‘us versus them’ narrative. Not only is it a natural instinct to identify an enemy <them> to compete against it also naturally generates a competitive spirit as well as survival spirit.

It is incredibly tempting, but incredibly wrong.

Frankly, it is what lazy business leaders and strategists do.

And, in their laziness, they create what is more often than not a false narrative <how can they be the enemy if you hire some of them?>, but it also falls apart as you realize that ‘the enemy’ often has the same intentions you do and often has some aspects of business product, organization, thinking … that you actually like.

That is the failing of an ‘us versus them’ narrative.

Well. That is one failing. The ‘us versus them’ narrative is strewn with not only failings, but danger in the larger scheme of things.

Often it is rooted in some ‘conspiracy theme’ within ‘them.’ Them always seem to have a nefarious intent to rule the world, or crush our thinking, or take something away from us or … well … basically undermine all that is good & right about the world “us” sees as what is good & right <and ‘common sense’ to ‘us’>. This theme can tear your business culture apart through paranoia as well as wasted energy constantly defining ‘what is good & right’ <because those damn “thems” keep trying to show us it isn’t good & right>.

Let me suggest several things with regard to the underpinnings of ‘us versus them.’

– Common sense is relative to perspective.

Contrary to popular opinion much of common sense is not universal <therefore less than common>. My main proof point for that is easily the United Nations Human Bill of Rights. One would think there are some common sense beliefs that underline all human behavior, well, at least until you try and gather all the countries in the world and get them to agree to them.

People are no different.

Common sense advocates typically suggest what I call “headline beliefs” of which almost all of us quite easily grasp and nod our head to. It is when we get to the story outlining the hows & whats where everyone starts losing their minds. An ‘us versus them’ narrative in the hands of a charismatic leader can dwell in the headlines. Unfortunately, there is such a thing as ‘day to day behavior’ which needs laws & rules & guidelines in order to establish a relatively fair game in this thing called Life. Businesses are exactly the same.

Here is what I am saying.

In discussing a headline common sense thought 90% of people are all in lock step.

In discussing the details under the headline common sense thought 90% of people are all in slightly different places.

That, alone, is one of the key reasons most reasonable business leaders avoid an ‘us versus them’ narrative.

– Conspiracies may exist but they most typically are within the purview of the few and not the many.

What this means is that there may possibly a small group of people scheming something up, but they remain few because <mainly> the many have no palette for what that few have to offer. In addition the ‘few’ scheming rarely are powerful people.

Yup. Despite what conspiracy theorists posit about cabals of powerful people somehow guiding the globe on its axis, most powerful people who would have an inclination to involve themselves in some nefarious scheming like this would have no desire to collaborate <they are typically of dictator mentality>.

In addition to the non-collaboration aspect the majority of powerful people have less interest in running the world, they are more focused on defending their own empire <and ego>. That is exactly what happens in business.

These people may truly be ‘them’ to ‘us’, but they are not our enemy — they are simply more likely to be indifferent to ‘us.’ It is difficult to invest in an us versus them narrative when ‘them’ doesn’t even care. Most businesses avoid “us versus them” because they have enough trouble maintaining integrity within an organization to have to bring in the whole concept of “thems” manipulating anything.

– Complexity not simplicity.

I could invest page after page outlining how complexity destroys the oversimplified ‘us versus them’ narrative, but I will focus on one aspect – people can rarely be easily bucketed into simplistic character, attitude & behavior descriptions.

Not all accountants are boring or socially inept.

Not all conservatives are against abortions.

Not all liberals are socialists.

Not all religious people are close minded.

Not all French people like wine.

Not all Hawaiians know how to surf.

In business, and sports, you learn this quickly <it seems like politics hasn’t received this memo yet>.

You meet ‘them’ and, uh oh, you not only find you kind of like them, but more often than not <yikes!>, they believe some of the same things you do. The ‘us versus them” narrative can only exist in an environment where oversimplification has a chance to live. Business is anything but simple. So while a crappy, or lazy, leader may find some initial success rallying the organizational troops with an “us versus them” narrative it all falls part pretty quickly.

That is why business people avoid the ‘us versus them’ narrative.

Anyway. I read somewhere that if you truly want to defend liberty, the first thing you should do is defend the liberty of people you like the least. But instead, in today’s world, we seem to be spending more time focused on defending the liberty of “me”, and what “me believes” first. Even businesses struggle with this <under the guise of “building a strong culture”>.

Let’s be clear. Leaders — of companies, of organizations, of countries, of any rather difficult to manage and align group of people — realize that if they intend to make something happen that it just needs to be done <sometimes> acting in the best interest of ALL who they lead and do it without discussion because discussion slows the process down.

Is this a conspiracy? Nope.

This is leading. Sometimes you get it right <and good things happen and you never explain all the decision you made without inviting opinions of others> and sometimes you get it wrong <and bad things happen and you (a) keep your mouth shut and just hope the problem goes away or (b) end up explaining every decision minutiae in extraordinary excruciating public discourse>.

I am not suggesting there are not better ways to communicating and aligning an organization than simply ‘doing & telling later’, nor am I suggesting transparency isn’t important in terms of uniting, but I am suggesting that in business sometimes a leader makes a decision because it has to be made, and it is made with the best intentions for “all” and not with bad intent for “us” and a better intent for “them.”

And maybe this is where businesses have truly learned to avoid the ‘us versus them’ narrative.

If you plant the narrative and constantly water it into a healthy belief system within a business, it can then very very quickly become an unhealthy integral part of an organizational DNA viewpoint. Side to side <department to department> as well as down to up <workers – perceived doers/non intellectuals – to management – perceived non-doers/intellectuals>.

Lastly. Here is what the good business leaders have learned as to the most insidious organizational aspect in an ‘us versus them’ narrative:

… take care of their own <the ‘us’> even to the detriment of the “all”

By the way. Crappy leaders love this because it absolves them of responsibility and they can always point to external ‘them’ as the reason why ‘us’ isn’t getting what they believe they deserve.

Regardless. The narrative permits ‘their own’ to be constant victims of whatever ‘them forces’ that are constantly scheming to impede or crush the ‘us’ personal ambitions.

Part of the appeal of us versus them is it’s simplicity.

In a complex, changing world, it is tempting to reduce multifaceted issues to the us-and-them narrative.

The narrative eliminates any context thru oversimplification. Interestingly, the oversimplification actually creates conspiracies/conspiracy speculation and enhances fears by suggesting the complexity doesn’t exist <and people know in their heads there has to be more and create the ‘more’ all on their own>. This, in turn, permits everyone to skip facts and go immediately to emotion from which point “we the people” <whoever ‘we’ is> resides on one side and “the system” or “some idiot who cannot do the right thing” or “a cabal of dishonest untrustworthy thems” on the other. This narrative is particularly tempting to the weak leader these days because general mistrust of everything is at an all time high.

The charismatic crappy leader suggests that the business <the ‘us’ in the equation> has a plan, a good plan, a plan that really will not work only if the ‘thems’ work their mysterious wiles. Trust therefore resides with ‘us’ and mistrust resides with ‘them.’

The us versus them narrative is seductive. Aspects of it sound great, frankly, to any and all of us. That’s why it is so compelling if you are not careful. But the world, and business, is more complex than ‘us versus them.’ A good leader, a leader who understands you are seeking success in the moment, today, tomorrow and next month/year/decade will weigh the true costs, and effects, of investing in the us versus them narrative beyond simply winning.

Ponder. And listen closely to the charismatic jesters who lean in on “use versus them” rhetoric.

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

“Too many people are only willing to defend rights that are personally important to them. It’s selfish ignorance, and it’s exactly why totalitarian governments are able to get away with trampling on people.

Freedom does not mean freedom just for the things I think I should be able to do.  Freedom is for all of us. If people will not speak up for other people’s rights, there will come a day when they will lose their own.”

Tony Lawrence

=

While I dislike giving interviews I’ll admit this experience with Rob Estreitinho and his newsletter, The Salmon Theory, was kind of fun. Enjoy. More importantly, subscribe to Rob’s newsletter. Its a quirky intellectually philosophical shortish thought-provoking weekly read.

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

Hello!

Welcome to Salmon Theory, a (for now, daily, because of *waves at all the things*) newsletter about philosophy, strategy and hope, now trusted by ~2,400 of you.

One of the greatest joys of this newsletter is the replies I get. And over time, some people become more active and more engaged, to the point where we have actual deep conversations about all things business, life, strategy, philosophy, and so on.

Bruce McTague is one of those people. For 90% of the things I’ve written, he has his own version of that thought on his blog, and I always steal something from his writing because, well, he’s pretty good at stealing from elsewhere too. Gentleman thief.

So I decided that now was a good time to interview Bruce. He’s a business and marketing consultant, has a giant brain for principled thinking, and… look, just read the interview below. I promise it will be worth your time.

I am Rob. You are here. Sit back. Relax. Let’s do this.

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

Bruce, thanks for doing this. How did you get to where you are?

It was a winding road. After getting an MBA, my father had a swanky job lined up at a big bank therefore I, of course, wrangled a job at the first non-NYC advertising agency to win agency of the year in Greenville, SC. It was in media on P&G. I got an indoctrination in spot media (from Benton & Bowles), network media (from Compton), P&G branding, technology (I was one of five people given a computer – mostly to run onerous crosstabs and analyse data for insights and learning) and female leadership (my first boss was an amazing woman, Polly Goodrich-Reese, who could do a reach/frequency by hand faster than we could on a computer, and yet knew technology was the future).

I spent 50%+ of my days in account management offices picking their brains and 50% of my off hours getting my job done. From there it was into account management (Bloom/Publicis Mid-America, Bozell, JWT). I became (they claimed) the youngest VP Bozell/NY ever had (heady stuff for a 29 year old) then proceeded to quit to go to JWT.

JWT is where I honed my brand planning skills (or whatever skills I have there). Unlike England, the US was slow to embrace brand planning, so if you were a savvy account director who embraced brand planning, and had a good research director in your hip pocket, you could have a hybrid brand planning/account management role. So that’s what I did. Even became a corporate “Thompson Way” trainer.

I eventually was a New Business Director at a $350mm shop, but I’ve also been a brand planning director, COO of a small agency (trying a virtual creative department) and now, having embraced the fact I am more a generalist than I am an advertising person, consult with businesses on, well, everything. I have found that, while businesses think they have one problem, in a complex business world it is actually a multi-faceted problem (or opportunity). And a lot of business people like someone who sees complexity as expansive, not a problem.

Anyway.

What I found was I was always chasing more. More knowledge, more experience, more experiences, more responsibility, ways of looking at things, more books, more. Not more things, just an insatiable interest in learning things. Paradoxically, it has given me more than I have ever dreamed while also giving me less of some fairly important things (never married, don’t really have a place I call home – I’m more of a nomad).

I will also admit chasing more included chasing a space in which there was no politics. Agency politics are a sonuvabitch. All I ever chased was doing the right thing and doing good shit and, well, politics isn’t really conducive to that. I was actually pretty good at navigating client politics, able to weave my way through landmines and bludgeon my way through the Peter Principle management, but was never good at agency politics. That particular chasing did not serve me well the farther I got into my advertising career. On reflection, I am not sure if my stubbornness on this made me reject the advertising world, or if the advertising world rejected me because of my stubbornness.

While I love what I do now, I would be lying if I didn’t say that walking into an advertising agency, any one, feels like coming home.

Why do you do what you do?

Thinking is breathing to me. I’d die if I weren’t thinking.

I imagine the corollary to this is that many of the people around me want me to die because it can make me a pain in the ass.

Regardless. I like turning thinking into a specific type of doing. I imagine, if I am honest, I like to fix things. I like to fine tune things. I always believe something can be better than it is. I believe there is nothing that cannot be fixed. That, by the way, is a path fraught with peril (because some things defy fixing).

I do what I do because I don’t know how to do anything else other than what I am doing. Wow. That last sentence sounds pitiful. But it’s not. I love being ‘in the game.’ I love thinking and learning and, well, ‘the agony of defeat and thrill of victory.’

How do you speed your brain up?

I don’t. It always is running. It may not be fast, but it’s always running. It’s always collecting things. I am a collector of ideas, people, experiences, whatever. I don’t care. I have hundreds of notes scribbled on random pieces of paper which, as Dave Snowden point out in a fabulous video, looks chaotic but I know where almost everything can be found. I like my brain to collect things. On a separate note, this makes me a wonderful conversationalist at parties if anyone wants to invite me.

All that said. If I want to force clarity, I don’t speed it up, I actually do something like going for a run, or listening to music. And, all of a sudden, the pieces I have collected rearrange, get pulled off of dusty brain shelves, and fall into place on something I am thinking about.

How do you slow your brain down?

This question made me think. When I was younger, everyone kept on telling me to slow down, take a break, find other things to do. And I tried. I really did try. But I never got it. I couldn’t understand why anyone would ever want to slow their brain down. So I eventually stopped listening to everyone and I actually cram it with things.

What I found was if I keep putting things into it, all of a sudden things fall into place (an intersection of multiple pieces of crap I threw into it). Is that ‘slowing down’? Shit. I don’t know. It may actually be a weird version of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s Flow (a book which I loved) but I imagine a part of ‘slowing it down’ is simply encountering an existing idea, thought or group of words that centre a number of random thoughts that are swirling around in my brain. Maybe I consider ‘slowing down’ as simply clarity.

I will say that I am not sure I recommend this attitude to anyone. It works for me but that may be partially what makes me mad.

Which two fields should talk more to one another? What should they talk about?

I, personally, believe everyone should picture the most opposite of what they do or how they see themselves and then go and spend a week with them. I will make a sweeping ‘talk more’ wish – people should talk more with everyone. The best of the best philosophers have a knack for communicating the abstract in a way that, well, seems tangibly useful. I would note ‘tangibly useful’ is, well, an incredibly useful skill for brand planners, strategists or anyone in the advertising business.

That said. My two fields.

The thinkers should take more to the unseen workers. The janitors, garbage collectors, the landscapers, the maids. They should talk about hopes, dreams and daily fears, wants and needs. They will find they have more in common than in differences. As the new documentary play about West Virginia coal mine country says, “they (people in NYC) think we are stupid, we’re not. We’re just from West Virginia.”

It’s all about perspective. It’s all about context.

I spend a lot of time observing people and always have but it’s a specific type of observing. This may sound odd, but while I always believe everyone has a story (trite I know), more importantly is I believe everyone has a certain gravity. Maybe it’s kind of like carrying a weight. Traditional brand planners may call this ‘a problem to be solved.’ That always seemed to simplify a personal aspect too much to me.

I always felt like if I could identify that weight, that burden, me – as a fixer – could seek to get them unstuck or fixed. The tricky part is many people only give you the superficial weight and it’s up to you to find the gravity.

That may all sound esoteric but, getting back to the question, I believe if the ‘thinkers’, the futurists, the brand planners, the behavioural science wonks, could talk more with the people who truly aren’t unhappy with their life, but are still trying to figure out how to get through each day, maybe we would stop trying to sell people ‘up’ on a way of life, but connect people in ways maybe even they haven’t thought about – and, of course, sell shit as a marketer/advertiser along the way.

On a separate note. That’s why Zach Mercurio’s work with janitors and car wash employees are so interesting to me.

What’s something everyone could do with a bit more of?

Read. Anything. And talk about what they read.

It was Arturo Perez-Revarte, whose first four books are spectacular, who wrote “Everything has to do with everything else. Life is a succession of events that link with each other whether we want them to or not.” If you read a story to your child, there is a moral. If you read someone’s Twitter thread, there is an opinion. If you read Michener, there is perspective. If you read this newsletter, there is intellectual twisting (what I call bending the mind’s perspective). And if you read anything, there are words and combinations of words which always seem to capture your mind’s attention.

I don’t have to agree with everything I read and, yet, love the words that speak to me. So maybe what I am suggesting isn’t really we need a bit more of reading, maybe it’s just we all need to inhale more words. How about that?

In general, I dislike business books and the advertising books are few and far between. Ogilvy, Book of Gossage, a 1915 book How Advertising Pays, Disruption (Dru), loved The Choice Factory, Grant’s Brand Innovation Manifesto and New Marketing Manifesto are essentials, Decoded and my St. Luke’s book is dog eared (but mostly for business consulting thinking) and Hugh McLeod’s How to be Creative/Hughtrain Manifesto are all must reading.

The business books I think advertising folk should read is Tom Peters Thriving on Chaos (his best book by far), Toffler’s books will all make you wonder why we think anything we talk about today as ‘new’, Cluetrain Manifesto and a new book – Mike Walsh’s The Algorithmic Leader. Oh. And Calvin & Hobbes. Perspective.

What’s something everyone could do with a bit less of?

Whining. Complaining seems to be a default these days. This is probably a reflection of the fixer in me. For example, I never understood why an agency said “I don’t want to be measured on sales because I am not responsible for everything that contributes to sales.’ Jesus. What a copout. In for a penny, in for a pound. I would look around the conference room table and say ‘quit making excuses and let’s make some business.’

Complaining, to me, seems to have an unhealthy underbelly – fear of risk, fear of failure, fear of, well, fear. I will never control everything. Shit. Control is an illusion. Get on with getting on and be accountable to what you do. Complaining is wasted energy. Maybe worse, complaining is really fear of doing what is right.

What’s the last thing you changed your mind on?

I chuckled. I bet I just changed my mind as I wrote this. Because I am permanently collecting ideas, words and thoughts, I constantly renovate ideas and my thoughts. I imagine I have some unchanging laws, axioms, postulates (I get them all mixed up) but, in general, the only unchanging belief I have is with regard to gravity, thoughts and attitudes.

I believe most things have a natural arc (a sense of gravity) and while some ideas fight that gravity for a bit, over time things will progress in a better way. I think thoughts and attitudes work the same way. The Cluetrain Manifesto, Herd, Toffler’s 3 books (Future Shock, Third Wave, Powershift) all are about gravity and how to fight gravity (or change its formula) if you want to view trends and societal waves.

I imagine, thinking about this, this could appear like I have no gravity. I do. Integrity, dignity, doing what’s right, optimal risk. My gravity bends my behaviour and thoughts (for good or for bad). Maybe those are my unchanging laws. I tend to believe people should (seriously) think about that shit maybe more than they do.

Everyone’s a bit mad. How are you mad?

I’m perpetually dissatisfied with what I know.

It’s odd. Years ago, I wrote a white paper about early age learning where I pointed that the education system needs to be careful because if they do education properly young people, students, will constantly be frustrated (because the more you learn the more you learn how much you don’t know). My madness possibly resides in my embrace of always being ignorant.

I deal with it in a variety of ways. It’s like Taleb said: “clever people become more clever by being with people cleverer than they are.” I constantly, and have always, sought out the smartest, most skilled/qualified, people and placed myself as close to them as possible. I want to be at the same table as these people.

Oddly, some people have seen this as arrogance that I see myself ‘as smart as they’ or I belong in their sphere worthy of debating/discussing things with them. It’s odd to me because all it ever does is showcase, to me, how ignorant or how ‘lesser than’ I am. I imagine I am slightly mad to always seek to be in situations where you never know the most or constantly feel behind intellectually, but I salve my madness by judging myself on “better today than I was yesterday, better tomorrow than I am today.”

Yeah. I’ll die mad, but happy.

What gives you hope?

Well. People. Mostly the everyday people who have little (the ‘have nots’ if you want to label them). Despite being a privileged white male with two college degrees, I was lucky enough early in my career to, through work, visit rural West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Texas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Minnesota and more. Inner cities in a number of cities. I’ve also visited rural France, Ukraine, and seen and heard the same.

There is no ‘give’ or ‘give up’ in these people. They have the same hopes and dreams for their families and children. They aren’t stupid. They just live in different places doing different things. This is true in any business you work at or with. There is a person working in the shipping department, accounting, cleaning crew, and so on, who know shit I will never know, see things in ways I will never see, and, yet, have similar hopes and dreams as I do.

I owe them listening because sometimes I can make things happen, and they cannot. And sometimes I cannot do things and, yet, they give me hope I can the next time.

Anyway. Personally, I don’t understand the whole ‘people don’t change their minds’ rhetoric. I have only seen people, addressed respectfully with well-articulated thoughts, who listen closely, are curious, and hungry for a better way of not only thinking about things but doing things. These people give me hope.

Just to note. I am a hope guy. I believe taking people’s hope away from them is one of the most heinous crimes one could commit. On the other hand, I also believe hope is one of the most resilient characteristics in existence. It’s like a super Kevlar to a world constantly trying to dent people.

One final thought.

I feel like I was one of the luckiest people in business. I was never the smartest nor the most ambitious, but I was always surrounded by incredibly smart mentors who saw that the more freedom they gave me the better I would be. Throughout my career I found ‘herders’ not dictators. That was lucky.

When people ask me my favourite boss, I cannot answer one. From the account director who laid on his back on the floor under his desk, with a world map taped to it, who said “I just want to see the world differently”, to Polly, a woman in a man’s world, who tirelessly explained why things mattered. I had dozens, all of whom taught me something a little bit different, and I have ended up an accumulation of all of them.

When people ask me about my best job, I cannot answer one. My first agency was a cauldron brimming with Burnett, JWT, Bates, Dancer, BBDO, Benton & Bowles trained talent. Bloom in Dallas (then Publicis Mid America) was a place where talent jostled each other everyday and then played together at night. JWT was, well, JWT and the office I was at spawned numerous independent agencies. Even the agency with a world class brand consulting group intersected me with some of the smartest business consultants I have ever run across.

I have hated leaving almost every place I worked. It’s the people, not the work. I think everyone should remember that.

==========

“Of all the things created and built by humankind, nothing in my mind is better or worthier than bridges.

They belong to all and treat all alike; they are useful, always built for purpose, at a spot where most human needs entwine.”

–

Ivo Andric

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

Well. When I saw this quote I thought “wow, I have the companion piece to my Liminal space post”.

Liminal spaces tend to make people feel uncomfortable as places of transition <neither here nor there>. They are kind of the fascinating, interesting, but oft wretched, spots where you have left what was but have not entered into what will be. It is the intangible that create the niggling discomfort or unease <or anticipation>. You are kind of disconnected from any of your real comfort zones.

Bridges make people feel comfortable. They are tangible. They show the clear path from where you are to where you can go. With a bridge you know you can always be connected with a comfort zone <even if you never go back>.

Regardless.

These two things are companions in crime.

Liminal spaces, voids as it were, tend to serve to refocus and remind people of what is at stake and what is really important.

Bridges offer a place to focus. They offer us … well … some pragmatic hope that you can actually get somewhere <even if where you are is kind of unclear>.

Connecting spaces, which is really what bridges are, are invaluable to us physically and mentally.

Almost everyone’s minds excitedly explore uncertain forays into interesting things and, at exactly the same time, get lost as they get snagged on the edge of unexplored thoughts or even those mischievously evil second guesses that are inevitably associated with the uncertainty in much of our lives, thoughts and growth.

And this can make us feel uncomfortable and our mind wrestles with this discomfort as well as dealing with the uncertainty of, well, this liminal space.

Here is some truth.

Ignorance is boundless.

Knowledge is limited <only in terms of time>.

Learning, and unlearning, often contains more uncertainty than it does certainty.

This means our minds are always grappling with the hollow spaces of our lives, i.e., the empty spaces in which we know we have to cross, but just aren’t sure we can see how to cross.

That, in a nutshell, is why we love bridges.

Look. I am a strategy guy or maybe I could be called a “here to there” thinker guy. I like liminal spaces AND I like bridges. While I like navigating liminal spaces I don’t like going back again and again to the same, therefore, I also like to build a bridge in ever liminal space I visit in business.

Not all strategy type people do that.

Some like (just) the theory – the larger ‘trend.’ They are called futurists. I tend to call them relatively worthless <or maybe just misguided in their self title>.

Some like navigating the liminal space, seeing the web of the trend itself and doing the mental gymnastics to weave your way through, leaving some bread crumbs for others to follow.

Some like the practical step-by-step plan of getting from one place to another <the places are less relevant the bridge is all that matters>. I would argue they weren’t traditional strategists but rather strategy implementers, but, call them what you may they play an incredibly important role in getting people from here to there and what is to what could be.

Me? I am a pragmatic strategy person.

Identifying “what could be” is all about navigating liminal spaces and deciding which door to open and walk through … what path to choose and what rivers to cross. It gets the heart pumping, is not for the faint of heart, and is fraught with peril.

I say that because building a bridge seems to help not only tangibly show the ‘rightness’ in deciding the ‘right what could be’ but it also gives people a path. A path in which they have less uncertainty and can focus on … well … getting from here to there.

To me not building a bridge just seems like leaving something incomplete. Like maybe offering someone a map while I could have shared a map AND built a road.

Let me say I don’t think the world needs more of me <god no>, but I do believe we need to appreciate the pragmatic bridge builders in our midst.

Bridges are not typically built willy nilly in some random place. More often they are placed in useful places constructed with connection of those in one place and those in another.

What was and what will be <as it were>.

I am a business guy. But, I admit, I stop and admire well-built bridges all the time. I admire the bridges with character and wear & tear as trains rumble across them.

I do so because they remind me that a well-built bridge may be one of the worthiest things in the world.

While I wish more business thinkers, and strategy people, would think about this kind of shit more often I will lower my wishes and just say everyone should stop and admire a bridge on occasion.

They may be one of the worthiest, least appreciated, things we encounter.

Plus. In a world that seem increasingly uncertain where the intangibles & unknowns seem to outnumber the tangible & certain, well, bridges can be quite tangible, quite certain … and quite comforting. Great reminders that we humans have always been quite good at figuring out how to connect here to there.

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

They say it all breaks down to keeping your feet on the ground

My sole intention is keeping my head in the clouds

They say that I can’t last a day in the real world

I say you wouldn’t survive one night in mine

—

Asking Alexandria

===

I get businesses unstuck  (90% of the time that simply means helping them get out of their own way). That’s what I do. This discussion most typically revolves around Taleb’s concept of Antifragile. And while I find Nassim Taleb whipsmart trying to explain Antifragile in a pragmatic business sense, and business environment, is semi-impossible (or at least beyond my intellectual capabilities).

Suffice it to say almost every business I have ever interacted with has struggled with balancing, or applying proportionate effort, pragmatism and possibilities – standardized process and agility/vision to meet opportunities. Most businesses see them as binaries where I see them as malleable. Most businesses see them as an organism and I see them as molecular. That said. While I love conceptual discussions (and actually believe the future of business will be owned by the ones who can think conceptually) my job is to frame in the abstract and deliver in the concrete – balancing idealism and realism. I call it ‘’pragmatism and possibilities’ and suggest its all about having your feet in the clouds and head on the ground.

Suffice it to say that 99% of the best businesses have figured out how to successfully keep their feet in the clouds and their head on the ground.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know it looks like I got it twisted around, but I did not. Good businesses are always walking with the future in mind. Always traveling toward possibilities. Always seeking ‘what’s next.’

Good businesses are always closely listening to the drumbeat of the feet of what is happening around them. Ear to the ground insuring everyone in the business is keeping their head in the game today. I have called it mastering pragmatism & possibilities. But, in reality, it is the ability to have your feet in the clouds and head on the ground.

I tend to believe if more people thought about it this way businesses would actually manage their pragmatism better (i.e., maximize existing resources in an agile way), would have more hope (i.e., maximize opportunities that arise better) and achieve more possibilities than they could ever imagine.

You have to admit the current definition – feet on the ground & head in the clouds – just ain’t working that well these days. Businesses seem to be more woefully stagnant <albeit always ‘talking’ change> and have more despair and lack of hope with regard to actionable possibilities than ever.

Why? Well. I am sure I could invest dozens of pages sharing thoughts on why, but instead I will focus on what I would consider the intellectual aspects, i.e., what is going on in with our attitudes that affect our heads, how we think and how we approach these things.

** note: if one were to need a playbook on how to discuss pragmatism & possibilities with a business this is as good a place to start as any – deconstructing each issue.

• Issue one. over-simplification

Suffice it to say we have devolved into a society of sound bites. This is true in business even moreso. In business it seems to be all about simplicity. In everyday Life it is ‘summarize it for me’ or ‘oh, it’s simple <insert some explanation here>.’ In the end I can’t figure out if should be pointing the finger at us or them.

Them <management & leadership> because they think we are not capable of understanding some form of complexity and therefore they only offer up simplified versions of what needs to be communicated.

Or us <the employees> because we either:

<a> demand a sound bite under the guise of ‘we only have time for the headline’

<b> we only latch on to the fragment of the whole which we believe summarizes the whole.

Therefore I will point the finger at all of us and them. Here is a Truth.

Most things are just not that simple, in fact, they are complex. An effect can have multiple causes and a cause can have multiple effects. I say this despite the fact, naturally, we would like all the dominoes to line up one after another and when one falls the next naturally is impacted and falls. Causality is just an easier thing to grasp.

Well. Things don’t really work that way. Especially in a business environment. Maybe in a controlled test environment but, in business, events are typically bombarded from a variety of directions and while not all causes are created equal <some can impact more than others> most things are too complex to be simplified into ‘one thing.’ And, yet, we oversimplify again and again and again.

Over simplifying simply means ignoring complexities.

Over simplifying simply means being consciously ignorant.

Over simplifying … well … just doesn’t work in the long run.

It eases you through the moment only to have to doubly <or exponentially> invest energy later on. Let me put this as simply as I can: over simplification just doesn’t work.

Instead of dumbing things down to some simplistic sound bite we need to raise the level of general understanding & knowledge to the level of complexity of the ideas & systems in which a business works – in other words, unravel the complexity into understandable components. Factually, seconds of involvement <sound bites> versus minutes of involvement <deeper complex discussion> leads to degrees of real knowledge, i.e., seconds leads to shallow knowledge or let’s call it ‘less knowledgeable.’ Over simplification will not demystify uncertainty and cannot help us do what we really need to do — reconcepting & rethinking that which is (which is the portal to unlocking potential).

What I am suggesting is difficult and uncertain work. But certainly more satisfying and inspiring when we solve and recreate and it certainly is a more effective way to keep your feet in the clouds and head on the ground..

I can unequivocally state that the fate of possibilities for a business, any business, lies in balance if we don’t invest in the hard work of ‘non over simplification.’

And worse? We won’t solve any of the problems we face if we do not address this.

This leads me to …

• Issue two. being intellectually insightful is about hard work.

Let me begin by suggesting that good ideas cannot be decided by number of tweet votes in favor of. Business ideas do not compete on American Idol nor, frankly, should they compete in any larger group. We are not all judges <and probably shouldn’t be on American Idol either>.

Why? Good ideas are rarely popular; therefore, I don’t really want a business idea to win some meaningless popularity contest. If we really want to do what needs to be done to maximize both the pragmatism & the possibilities in business we have to hunker down and work hard … work hard in that we need to use what we have to rethink things … use all aspects including economic thought and philosophy and the past … all of which means dealing with ambiguity and contradiction.

And, yes, that is hard work. That is the kind of work that hones the intellectual insightfulness necessary to keep your feet in the clouds and your feet on the ground and, well, make progress. Smart progress.

Instead of dumbing things down we need to be raising the level of general understanding to the level of complexity of the systems in which we are embedded and which are embedded in us. And while you may balk at something like ‘intellectual insightfulness’ as too far reaching or ‘elitist’ … suffice it to say we just need to be smarter … less ignorant … more enlightened <open to additional thoughts> and more involved in the difficult and uncertain work of demystification and reconcepting ideas and systems in which we live in and … well … just plain rethinking shit.

Suffice it to say that there is nothing simple when talking about world-changing ideas … because talking will not simply make the world change.

I read somewhere recently that ‘if you remove this boundary … the only boundary left is our imagination.’

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Imagination is important, but even imagination is complicated and difficult and tends to not offer tidy solutions. Especially if you don’t invest in the hard work.

We need to be doing more of ‘using your imagination within the box of what exists.’ We don’t need to be wandering aimlessly ‘outside the box’ but rather using our imagination insightfully and creatively WITHIN the box and expand the boundaries.

It is all hard work, but hard work will work. And in this case I mean hard thinking work.

Simply ‘doing’ aint gonna cut it. We need to be smarter. And whether you think about thinking this way or not, it ain’t about staring off into space doing nothing <random dreaming>, thinking is a blue collar job. Thinking is all about work. Hmmmmmm … it is quite possible that what I just wrote defines “head on the ground” better than anything I have ever written before.

Anyway. As a corollary to issue number two …

• Issue three. innovation is not <just> technology.

What makes oversimplification even more challenging is that for some reason we seem to be associating innovation with technology … and just technology. We can’t … and shouldn’t.

This type of thinking leads us to possibly believe technology innovations will eventually solve all problems and maximize everyone’s Life as some point. That is a very dangerous idea.

It is dangerous because in reality if we focus just on technology as the solution we are actually preventing the real change we need. It’s a very dangerous idea because it completely removes the human aspect. I cannot tell people how often I need to remind everyone technology augments humans (if you seek potential & possibilities), not humans augmenting technology.

Regardless. Minds need to innovate too. Thinking and attitudes need to evolve and innovate. New thought systems, economic systems and systems in which people live eat and breath all need to evolve and that happens through innovation <whether technology is involved or not>. Technology is simply a path that runs parallel to culture <or society> basically amplifying everything that is happening on the parallel path <the corollary to that is … with nothing to amplify the technology remains silent>.

Technology and culture and people and business are entangled. Everything is connected with everything. Technologies may enable new ways of doing things as well as thinking. This effects culture so culturally we need to innovate to structure how those technologies will be involved in our lives <so that we can dictate a little how they are incorporated> and we need to innovate our thinking and culture so that we can actually impact how technology evolves <so that we can dictate how what technology is innovated in some form or fashion>.

At the moment it seems like we respond to technology rather than proactively drive technology. Yes. Technology has certainly dramatically improved the overall quality of business but, at some point, technology is not a reason for being, but rather simply an enabler for being. The paradox is that the system we have now may make amazing new technology possible, but at same time is creating such cultural conflict that maximizing technology ‘what could be’ seems impossible. We need to innovate the systems in which technology exists.

Economically, culturally and philosophically. All systems need to see innovation.

• Issue four. adaptability does not mean ‘no strategy’.

Businesses inherently like structure. They see structure as replicable (safe, efficient & maintaining whatever level of effectiveness they have currently attained). The problem is emphasizing structure, pragmatism, actually increases the fragility of a business (source: antifragile) and limits the scope/horizon view of pursuing possibilities. With a ‘feet on the ground’ philosophy structure & construct of resources/systems/process dictate the direction, velocity and vision of the business. In other words, pragmatism is the source of possibilities. If you flip the equation, pragmatism becomes the enabler of possibilities. This does not mean a business has no strategy, all it does is maximize flexibility & agility to pragmatically apply resources to possibilities as they arise. Taleb calls this AntiFragile, Toffler called it the polymalleable organization, HBR has called it “Agile”, I call it “feet in the clouds, head on the ground” or “managing pragmatism & possibilities.” Call it whatever you want but it is the issue a business needs to address in order to be successful in the future.

<that’s it for my issues>

Look.

Hope and possibilities grounded with enlightened pragmatism abound in today’s business world if you look hard enough <and have your feet in the clouds an head to the ground>. But none of it comes easy. These types of things are rarely just given, they need to be earned mostly thru hard work.

I don’t believe simplicity is bad.

I don’t believe being optimistic or having a positive attitude is bad.

I don’t believe technology is bad.

I don’t believe hard work, smartly done, is bad.

But we seem trapped in the old paradigm of “head in the clouds & feet on the ground.” This old paradigm kind of separates work & thinking <vision> in a non useful way. And I … well … I admit I sometimes think this paradigm encourages a slightly warped version of some lazy thinking.

And we cannot be lazy moving forward. And we certainly cannot afford to be lazy thinkers. For in this type of laziness lurks ignorance and it is ignorance we should fear. Not any ideological argument or technological innovation which inserts itself into our daily lives but ignorance.

Avoid lazy thinking. Maybe have everyone should hearken to Emerson’s words:

“Consent yourself to be an organ of your highest thought, and lo! suddenly you put all men in your debt, and are the fountain of an energy that goes pulsing on with waves of benefit to the borders of society, to the circumference of things.”

In the end.

Effective business has always been about applying the right resources at the right time against the right opportunity (or challenge). Period.

Efficient business has always been about applying resources in a consistent way all the time to be applied against the opportunities that exist. Period.

Agility resides in the optimization betwixt the two. Either, alone, is fragile. The fragile mixture, proportionate focus, of the two actually makes one Antifragile (stealing from Taleb). That said. A business is most likely able to find the optimal proportion by, well, keep their head to the ground and their feet in the clouds.

Consent yourself to be of your highest thought.

And how do you do that? Keep your feet in the clouds and your head on the ground. Be pragmatic and explore possibilities.

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

Originally published September 2016

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

“Owning my own home symbolizes so much to me. I have been my happiest when I have been in my very own place and I am really looking forward to that.  Stability and routine are vital to us in our day to day life … so moving in is really going to settle us down for a while and i will find a lot of peace of mind in that.”

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

I often believe we confuse stability and consistency, regardless, stability is an interesting topic. Its very personal to each person <and it always surprises me a little when someone assumes what is important to them for ‘stability’ should be, or is, the same for everyone else>. I also believe how you define stability kind of defines you <in a way>.

A good friend just bought a home after struggling through several years and wrote the above quote. Stability, and all the things associated with it, reentered the world for this person. Anyway. It made me think about how important stability is to, well, everyone – at least in some form or fashion. I tend to believe we seem to find stability in our work lives fairly well and fairly easily. Stability in work is rarely what you may think is obvious. For stability is not really a ‘safe’ job <in terms of employment security>, it is actually what we naturally gravitate to in terms of the daily ‘to do’s’ of what we do. Frankly, it is the things that come most easily to us and the things we like to do at work.

Stability in the workplace is found in the form of comfort in a couple of things:

1. knowing what you are doing
2. knowing you are doing it well <or competently>
3. knowing what you do means something to someone

It ain’t money. It ain’t job security. It is about the actual ‘doing’ where the strongest stability is found <because it is actually transferable & movable>. Everyone should note I emphasized ‘doing’ because this is at the heart of ‘work.’ I debate with anyone that people do not have to work to gain some meaning. Work is ‘doing’ <with multiple feedback mechanisms which provide value cues intrinsically & extrinsically>.

Moving on.

Anyway. For some odd reason it seems tougher to find this easy stability in real life. I tend to believe that happens because of ‘over stimulation’ <Life clutters us with responsibilities & worries & a nonstop schedule of ‘possible things to do’>.

Regardless. Whether we recognize it or not we build, or seek to build, some stability into our lives, i.e., something or some things that provides a steadying influence. I am not talking about money. I am talking about something, or somethings, that emotionally settle us so that we can deal with all the other crap that is going on around us.

It is important, and I would suggest, almost vital to have some emotional stability because it is from that which we leverage and make progress <in Life & business>.

All that said. When I heard my friend was buying a house, and what it meant, it made me think of several things:

–          How everyone builds some type of stability onto their lives <or it would be sheer chaos>

–          What is my stability

–          My uncomfortable relationship with permanence <and how I, and not everyone else, has that uncomfortable relationship>

Building stability in Life

Everyone has some stability. And everyone pretty much defines it very personally. Sure. We can be flippant when asked; our house <home>, our family <or parents>, our loved ones is typically the knee jerk response.

And sometimes it is the real truth. It’s easy. It makes sense. But sometimes it is not the obvious. Sure. We thought it was an easy answer, but it is not. Look. I am not telling you what your stability answer is I’m just suggesting it may be deeper than you think.

Regardless. Some of us look at stability in a different way. It isn’t like an unmoving object, but rather a constantly moving object that we try our best to bind to as it moves by.

William Blake said … “I wouldn’t bind myself to a joy, I would kiss the joy as it flew.”

That’s as close to a definition for this version of stability that I could find.

Regardless. We all seek and, I imagine, have ‘some’ stability in our lives. We may create it mentally and always go ‘home’ to it when we need to steady ourselves or it may be something tangible like a home or a person or a thing. Whatever it is that stability actually defines us. Yeah, yeah, yeah … someone will argue with me on this and I will probably get a nasty <but smart> note from a psychologist or behavioral expert reader, but in my simple mind how we define our stability is a reflection of something deep inside us. Either a Maslow thing <self esteem, self actualization, self-whatever> or simply something that given our past experiences <good or bad> that settles us into a ‘good place’ mentally.

This place, or thing, provides comfort, maybe happiness, but most absolutely represents  the calm eye in the hurricane of Life.

Bottom line? We all have something that stabilizes us. Figure it out and you at least know something really really valuable about yourself.

What my stability is.

When I thought about this it was a simple answer – books <and yes this will ultimately lead me to my uncomfortable relationship with permanence>. I find comfort in words and how the words make me think and feel and expand my experiences thru fictional & non fictional lives & stories. I find comfort in sifting thru the real & the unreal to formulate some Life truths, well, at least my Life truths.

I don’t need a home. I don’t need a high falutin’ title. I just need some books. That is my stability.

I could probably live in a studio apartment with bookshelves all around me and I would feel grounded.

For a period of time I thought my dog was my stability … he was a rock of support in Life. Instead I found he simply complimented my Life during the amazing time he was with me. He transitioned me from one point in my life to another and, possibly, in some weird way he tried to remind me of my true stability because throughout his life the only thing he consistently chewed on when I wasn’t around were the corners of books. To this day I have dozens of books with just one corner chewed off.

Maybe he had a comfortable relationship with my stability and found stability in my stability.

I know. Sounds odd, but pets often have a way of showing you things that you don’t really see about yourself <note: point of that little story was you can uncover your stability in a variety of ways>.

Regardless. I am certain this personal insight clearly makes me, well, two things I imagine.

First. A nomad. I’m willing to walk through life anywhere at any time as long as I have a books in hand. My stability is transient able to go wherever I go. In fact, I imagine standing still too long in one place makes me feel uncomfortable & possibly even unstable.

Second. Maybe I’m a sick person. Say what?

“Library is a hospital for the mind.”

Maybe I have a sick mind that always needs assistance to stay healthy rather than have healthy mind that seeks to feed itself with nutrition <because just as I eat some crappy food I certainly read some crappy stuff>.

Interesting thought. But hey … anyone who admits that their stability could possibly fit in their pocket for god’s sake probably has some mental issues don’t they?

My uncomfortable relationship with permanence.

Ok. This is probably most embodied in the fact that I don’t have a tattoo <and most people would guess that I would have one>, but instead I think I will reflect upon my choice for what gives me stability – my books. They are an impermanent permanent feature in my life. They easily travel and I can have hundreds, heck, thousands of which to pick up and put down and read and reread. Stability, to me, in the traditional sense, well, I have always equated with stagnancy.

Is that fair? Probably not, but it is what I have in my pea like brain.

It may be that I have moved so many times in my life, made some friends and met some fabulous amazing people in each place, and have gone back and while the people are still amazing … the place is … well … emptier. Nathaniel Hawthorne said it best:

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

“… they resolved to go back to their own land; because the years have a kind of emptiness when we spend too many of them on a foreign shore. But … if we do return, we find that the native air has lost its invigorating quality, and that life has shifted its reality to the spot where we have deemed ourselves only temporary residents.

Thus, between two countries, we have none at all.”

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

Now. I certainly admit that if I ever stopped moving maybe the spot wouldn’t shift its reality … or maybe I would shift with it and therefore it wouldn’t lose its invigorating quality. But. In my nomad world I have discovered you just cannot go back. You can go back to memories <which are great> but you cannot go back to a place.

All that said my permanence is found in books. Which I imagine suggests that my permanence is lurking somewhere in my mind … traveling with me wherever I go.

I envy people who find stability in a home because it makes them happy, comfortable and fulfilled.

I envy people who find stability in whatever type of permanence they have.

But I don’t envy them enough to give up my sense of stability and permanence.

I have tried their permanence and it has failed for me.

I have no clue what that says about me from a psychological standpoint and I am fairly sure I don’t want to know.

In the end.

I realized how I defined my stability said a lot about me and what is important to me. I don’t recommend a lot of self reflection, but this seems like a valuable use of someone’s time. I believe its valuable because I would assume if you haven’t clearly defined what makes you feel stable you run the risk of not having the platform you need to leverage from to be, and do, the best you can be & do.

I would also guess you run the risk of feeling adrift on occasion and not really knowing why.

Take a moment and think about how you define stability. Go below the obvious and really think about it. It seems important.

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

“Theory is good; but it doesn’t prevent things from existing.”

—-

Jean-Martin Charcot

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

“We must live in the best way this existence that has been given to us, embracing the flow of events. It is up to us to try in every moment of our life to do our best.”

—

The Branches of Time

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

So. A better business world. I imagine everyone feels this is an important objective, but:

• Not everyone would define better the same
• Not all better is created equal
• Not all businesses believe a better world is the way to become better

In fact. On the third point I would suggest this is where ‘business improvers’ (consultants, gurus, futurists, etc) step in and play a role. The majority of business fixers fall into one of 2 camps:

1. The “let’s make your business run more efficiently” people. They’ll discuss process, simplification and digital transformation. Yes. They’ll couch efficiency in some nice fluffy narratives, but in the end they are simply suggesting the machine isn’t running as well as it could and needs to be finetuned or rebuilt. They see behavior as the be all end all.
2. The “people potential” people. They’ll discuss, well, people. How to get people to work better together, how to build an environment in which they are engaged (with caring AND process/tools/digital) and how to foster a healthy culture. They see attitudes as important as behaviors.

That said.

Ask any business leader and they will:

(a) always believe something in the business could be better &

(b) always be seeking to make things better.

Period.

I do not know one leader who is completely satisfied or, on the flip side of the coin, believe a business is maximizing its potential & opportunities.

Here is where different ‘betters’ start coming into play.

Most leaders address a desire to be better transactionally (albeit they may, on occasion, frame it as a ‘structural organizational betterment’). Yet, “better”, when one views it from a ‘world’ perspective, demands addressing structural elements. This includes engagement (which far too often business people think of transactionally).

Ah. Engagement.

Everyone knows the key to maximum productivity and maximizing business potential is engagement. Always has been and always will be. I would note that ‘engagement’ fans always focus on ‘people’ (working together, understanding vision, embracing meaningful work). but engagement, in a business eyes, often expands out to engagement with process, engagement with technology, engagement with machines/production lines, engagement with ‘system tools’ of which people are often the most critical aspect, yet, business will measure engagement “with” something, not “by” someone. That phrase distinction may be one of the most important thoughts I will share today. Ponder it.

But let’s go back to the people/human component … and transactionally. Despite all the discussion around culture (which is when people decide how they want to behave on a coherent fashion) the truth is most businesses try to ‘create engagement’ (which is a problem in & of itself) through transactional methods (which is a problem). Carrots & sticks.  Incentives. “Bribes” (free lunches, ping pong tables, flex times, laptops, etc.). Not only is this not effective (at least in terms of creating long term systemic behavior), but it also shows a lack of understanding in what people truly care about.

All that said.

The business world knows it needs to change. I would suggest younger people feel more strongly about structurally addressing this then older business people who have learned to suffer/live in the business environment & therefore feel more like transactional things are the most pragmatic ways to ‘change it.’

The issue is that the gap between ‘knowing’ and actually ‘doing’ is a real sonuvabitch to cross.

I would suggest the key to crossing this gap is not in the ‘specialists’ or the experts in how things are already being done, the key exists in people who know enough about some specific skill to lay a pragmatic foundation and have the ability to see a new way to build to possibilities. I would suggest there are a number of these people out there who embrace that idea – Daniel Mezick, Perry Timms, Gustavo Razzetti, Neils Pflaeging, Edwin Van der Geest, the Corporate Rebels folks.  While each of them may approach it a little differently, the business world needs more of these type of ideas/people if it truly wants to get better. We need more connectors, aligners, maybe call them the chiropractors of a better way of doing business and a better world.

Look.

Better business needs a structural change. Period.

Better business needs a vision, not transactional changes. Period.

Better business needs an attitudinal adjustment (toward organizational structure, toward how people skills can be maximized, toward how productivity is viewed, toward what businesses role in community/society is). Period.

Now.

I have hesitated to use Purpose because I believe (a) it is used improperly 90% of the time and (b) it is actually better to focus on engagement & contribution and Purpose/results will be an outcome. Purpose is the reason for which something is done or created, the reason for its existence, its use, and its usefulness. Usefulness to others is the mechanism of purpose’s well-documented positive individual and organizational effects. When individuals and organizations think and act with their use to others at the forefront, they’re being purposeful and making their unique contribution (source: Zach Mercurio).

—–

“When purpose is embedded into an organization’s culture, it constantly reorients people to focus on contribution.”

—–

I often translate for all my business leader friends who see “purpose” and panic that it is some nebulous ‘save the world’ bullshit:

“if the people are engaged and focused on contribution they will be more productive, generate more high quality output, be brand ambassadors, be innovative (yes, they will want to contribute ideas to the business itself), be more effective in their behavior (service, customer interactions, vendor relationships, communications) and, you know what? … you’ll be more profitable too.”

source: Zach Mercurio

Or. As Zach shared with me:

It’s actually a basic business principle that’s been dressed up by “thought leaders:” Purpose is contribution, or if you like, “value creation.”  Purposeful organizations and their people focus first on contributing and on creating value. They trust that the effects (results) will follow. As Drucker once said, “Profit is not the purpose of a company. It’s the test of its validity.”  The more valid your contribution, the more results you’ll see.  Every “financial result” is mediated through a human being. Human beings who experience meaningfulness and purpose are far better mediators than those who just “need to get the numbers up!” Frantic leaders (i.e. traditionally-minded business leaders) focus first on producing results, but the problem is you can’t have get an effect without a cause.  You can’t have a result without a contribution.

Anyway.

I will say this entire ‘better business for a better world’ topic is fascinating.

While we credit Millennials for the refinding of our business soul (its partially whatever we call Purpose, but its mostly a simple recognition that something is wrong in the way business is being conducted and there has to be a better way) the truth is that this has nothing to do with age or some generational labels. Mary Parker Follet in early 1900’s. Drucker in the 70’s. Toffler in 1985.

They told us this is the way to do business, but when we chose Friedman (with a good dose of Gordon Gecko) business started down the slippery slope of dollars over contribution & responsibility (not Purpose).

The issue now is, as we all know, getting off a slippery slope is hard (you cannot climb back up off it, you need to jump off and restart or get pulled off by a helping hand) so those on it are, well, on it. i find while we suggest it’s a love of the status quo more often than not most business leaders know they are on a slippery slope and can’t get off it.

I am not a Millennial and i have ached for changes like this for, well, forever. Drucker outlined all of this in New Realities 1990, Ewen in Captains of Consciousness 1976, & the Geckos ignored it and the non Geckos (like me) were not strong enough to fight it.

I will say that now we fight.

In the end.

A better way of doing business for a better world.

This is an incredibly difficult topic to navigate. A business first & foremost needs to be successful to survive and its objective is to do things to survive/thrive. And, yet, the path to do so is actually to NOT think about business, but rather think about people, attitudes & maximizing their potential. There is a delicate balance of two truths – a business needs to be in the business of doing business and people are at their highest engagement when they are doing things not because it is business but meaningful. therein lies the paradox. and within that paradox resides the potential.

But. There has to be a better way and we know there is.

Drucker clearly knew this.

Simplistically, while engagement is the key to productivity, contribution is the key to the future of business – a better way of doing business for a better world.

If people contribute, feel like they are contributing and the business, itself, contributes to the greater world the highest level of value (contribution) has been achieved.

I would argue in doing so the business itself will also attain its highest level of effective productivity, solid efficient productivity and consistent profitability. I am not sure what more a business could desire. I am also not sure how that isn’t better business for a better world.

On November 17, 2009 I began Enlightened Conflict. On that day I shared my thoughts about what I wanted for visitors to the site, “Your Visit here”, my thoughts on Conflict and People and, of course, About Me.

I recently revisited what I wrote that day and, well, wouldn’t change a thing. I am sure there are some lessons in that:

– my North Star remains my North Star

– my beliefs, and principles, remain true

– my understanding of me, well, maybe my understanding of who I am, what I care about and what I want to do (in terms of making an impact) remain unchanged

Your visit here.

I am not a big business or self help book reader. I often find they simply rehash a variety of things, thoughts and ideas that if you have been in the business long enough you pretty much know already. On occasion someone does a great job of articulating a thought and in those cases I take my hat off to them and wish I could have said it as well. With all that said I believe people would be better off reading less of these things and reading & learning more about other things. Anything. To me the most interesting people in the world are the ones who have a variety of interests. That doesn’t mean you should not have a specialty just that maybe your specialty would be even better if you knew more about other things.

 

I do believe: Ideas result from a new combination of specific knowledge about products with general knowledge about life and events.

 

I do believe: Interesting people are extensive browsers in all sorts of fields of information.

I do believe: The more of the elements of the world around us which are stored away in the mind, the more the chances are increased for the production of new and striking combinations, or ideas.

I do believe: There are certain things you just cannot write, or think of, until you have lived through certain experiences and filled your reservoir of knowledge to a point when you can drink freely from it.

I do believe: Knowledge is basic to good creative thinking (and interesting personalities).

I do believe: Conflict done well, enlightened conflict as it were, is healthy, challenges the status quo, sparks thinking and fresh ideas.

 

Interestingly all of those things are also believed by James Webb Young in his 1937 booklet “How to Produce Ideas” (a book on my list of things everyone should read).

So if you want someplace to visit to see a variety of different ideas on some of the most random topics you can think of (although there is business stuff) then I hope you visit here and maybe learn something, maybe chuckle a little, maybe have your curiosity piqued somewhat. There will be some fiction, some fact and always an opinion. I guess my objective is personally reflective (I just want to share some thinking and writing) as well as professionally I have a desire to help broaden someone’s perspective on the world. So, even if one person visits here and starts thinking about something new or in new ways, then I imagine I would have achieved success. Of course, if someone wanted to hire me for a project or something I wouldn’t be opposed to that either.

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

“A boss creates fear, a leader confidence.

A boss fixes blame, a leader corrects mistakes.

 A boss knows all, a leader asks questions.

A boss makes work drudgery, a leader makes it interesting.

A boss is interested in himself or herself, a leader is interested in the group.”

—–

Russell H. Ewing

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

This is not about threatening employees about making mistakes <i.e., ”you are gonna get fired if you fuck this up”>, but rather threatening employees who are exhibiting behavior that isn’t what you want from them. This is also less a thought about managing individuals, but more about managing a culture and groups of individuals – exploring systemic behavior issues.

Now. I have to tell you.

Having managed a shitload of people there has certainly been some point where I wanted to threaten my employees if not just strangle them <and I am sure the feeling was mutual on occasion>. Most of us just take a deep breath. Maybe close the door of their office and throw something. And then calm down enough to realize that most employees’ actions & behaviors are derivative of our own leadership.

As a corollary to that thought, if the actions & behaviors reflect a more systemic issue and not just some random individuals, well, you know it is reflective of your own leadership <or lack of leadership>.

Ah … “most of us.” Well. Not “all of us.”

Management by fear is the go-to tactic of the old generation of business leaders. They were also the ‘benevolent dictators’ <sort of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Men of Hitlers> as well as the dickheads who treated everyone like shit except the ones who did exactly what they were told to do.

Once again, about the only business people who believe in this type of management are:

<1> those who have never run a larger organization which demands cultural alignment for effectiveness,

<2> managers over the age of 55 — mostly white ones,

<3> weak leaders, or

<4> narcissistic arrogant dickheads.

=========== 

“I suppose that leadership at one time meant muscle; but today it means getting along with people.

Indira Gandhi

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

Threatening employees with forced confidentiality agreements, law suits, sweeping statements of firing a shitload of people, and even “you are either with me or against me” type threats is not only stupid but it is less than effective.

That doesn’t encourage the best behavior, which is self-motivated, but rather all this does is create ‘forced behavior.’ Now. I am no behavior expert, but even I know if I am forcing a certain type of behavior and, ultimately, that behavior is never absorbed as ‘self-affirmation of what I believe and like”, well, the first chance an employee gets to ‘unforce themselves’ they are gonna do it.

Here is what most of the good leaders know.

You can never, and I mean never, absolve yourself of the behaviors of your employees. You are either complicit or encouraged or simply an enabler. You are, whether you like it or not, responsible for your employee’s actions.

What does that mean?

If they do things that piss you off you, most likely, have pissed them off.

If they show you little respect, you, most likely, have shown them little respect.

If they show you lack of loyalty, you, most likely, have not earned their loyalty or shown behavior that deserves loyalty.

If you do not recognize anything I just wrote as truth, you, most likely, just threaten your employees every time they do something you don’t like.

Look.

I have absolutely talked to an individual employee about their expense reports.

I have absolutely spoken to an individual employee about their behavior in the office.

I have absolutely sat down with an individual employee about what they should, or should not, be saying to people outside the office.

But, more importantly, I talk with the accounting department, the HR department and department heads to find out about what the organization is systemically doing with their expense reports, behavior in the office and talking outside the office before I speak with any individual.

I don’t think I was a particularly great leader, but even I knew that systemic behavioral issues were my issues — not their issues. I also understand that threatening employees, or even the trite ‘carrot & stick’ thinking, was ineffective if you wanted to build a culture where individual employees didn’t cheat on their expense reports, didn’t do stupid shit in the office and didn’t say the wrong things about the company outside the office.

A leader knows threats are stupid if you have any desire to build a long term culture. You set expectations, provide a vision that people can be proud of and the reward is not anything individual monetarily or even ‘keeping your job’ but rather the employee looks around and sees solidarity – the prize is being part of a team aligned on an objective.

Some leaders don’t see that. All they see is bad behavior and offer threats to seal the cracks in the system. All that does is mask the problem not solve the problem. All that solves systemic organizational bad behavior is good leadership — not threats.

Fear, despite what some may suggest, is not a particularly great motivator in business.