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

“Hey, I’m using Guam as a token in a game of chicken with North Korea and as a result putting thousands of your constituents at risk but, hey, at least you’re famous!”

Donnie Two Scoops

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

Ok.

This whole North Korea and United States thing is dangerously bizarre. The most bizarre thing is the consistency with which Donald J Trump has offered us … from the time he became a candidate until today. He has consistently cared about one thing – how he looks, how he is perceived and how his ‘brand’ is viewed.

He is a self stylized ‘big brained, strong, best whatever’ brand <with, as we would say in the marketing business, dubious functional capabilities, i.e., not really sure it does what it is supposed to do when you buy it>.

Everything he does and says is meant to meet one objective – his brand.

Bizarrely, and justifiably, everyone takes all of his word salad and what we perceive as his thinking and parse it all out with regard to “what does this mean for America and how is this in America’s best interest.”

This is misguided and, worse, it normalizes his behavior & words by suggesting there is something there other than his own brand  building.

Everyone should never forget … and “best.”

Period.

Full stop.

Think about it for one second within this whole bizarre situation.

Guam is a potential target <only because North Korea couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn if asked to> … but the Guam governor will be famous! … and rich! … and applauded for that huuuuuuuge boost in tourism <without having to spend any money>!

That represents the thought process of the United States president – he sees only trees <things that are representative of what he believes make up his brand forest>.

 

“Don’t worry about a thing. They should have had me eight years ago…I have to say, Eddie, you’re going to become extremely famous. All over the world they’re talking about Guam and they’re talking about you.

And your tourism, I can say this, your tourism is going to go up like tenfold with the expenditure of no money, so I congratulate you.

It looks beautiful, you know I’m watching … it’s such a big story in the news.”

————-

call transcript of <President> Donald J Trump to Governor of Guam

 

Well.

I am sometimes stunned by how much we are willing to turn ourselves into pretzels normalizing some incredibly bizarre behavior and words.

It is like we spend hours sifting through the verbal garbage for the one or two items which we can wash off and show that it wasn’t all garbage. And all the while we do that we seem to overlook the person who threw out the garbage … who is most likely standing in the window of their house chuckling “look at all those people paying attention to my garbage.”

Pick your Trump interview, press conference or tweet. He is consistent with creating a brand image using an inconsistent message <garbage>.

This is not only nuts but bizarre.

Yes.

North Korea is a threat … but think of them as a threat like … well … maybe Trump would have been had he gone to a public school and had no money. A little bully wishing to be with the big kids and big money. The only thing this little bully sincerely believes in is himself … not real solutions nor doing the right thing.

The only right thing to do is to build his brand.

And while everyone casts about for ways to explain his ‘unpredictability’ I would argue he has always been predictably consistent in that he will do and say anything that he believes builds his brand.

And, no, no one should confuse this consistency with consistency in policy … because he has no policy nor ideology beyond ‘ideology of self.”

Just think about what I just said as you ponder “I want to ‘de-nuke’ the world <yet I want the largest nuclear capabilities in the world, expanding them, and willing to let Russia upgrade its nuclear power and, of course, Israel can keep its ‘nukes’>.  Or how about … well … repeal Healthcare … oh … no … repeal & replace … oh … no … ‘may be un-Republican to say but we need to take care of everyone’ … oh … no … ‘let Obamacare just die.’

Pick your policy issue. He is consistent with his brand and inconsistent with anything else.

I am not diminishing the North Korea issue but I am suggesting, in this case, the only thing that matters to Trump is that he gets to brandish “my generals” and toy soldiers and ‘nukes’ because he likes to associate his brand with them.

And, all the while real global challenges are being discussed, Donald J. spews a verbal smorgasbord of incoherent vaguery which even the everyday schmuck like me  views as “sounds strong … but what exactly does he mean?”

It sounds an awful lot like grade school playground strutting & bluster.

That said.

I cannot remember a time when China suggested our president was a victim of “emotional venting” but I also cannot remember a time when we had a president who put his brand above … well … reality.

<sigh>

I imagine the difficult in all of his is that Donnie Two Scoops has his own alternative reality in which he has attached his brand to America itself in his own head and, therefore, justifies all of his brand behavior as “representative of the America brand.”

I stated this during the primary phase of his whole sad Trump election story that someone needed to separate Trump from “America” … and no one did.

This is nuts.

Nuts with a dangerous edge.

This all feels like it is one big reality show. I am not suggesting North Korea doesn’t represent a real potential threat <although you don’t see South Korea, China, Japan, etc gearing up for any foreseeable threat beyond their normal status> but this all feels like Donnie is treating this like a great big TV show where he gets great ratings and everyone tunes in every night just to see him.

The problem is that unlike a TV show which has an executive producer who is crafting the entire scenario and scripting it out … the other main person on this show doesn’t have the TV script. Therefore within the reality TV show Trump is producing there is an unknown. Within that unknown resides the unforeseen, the human error in judgement and the misunderstanding.

On a TV show that can create ratings and little downside … and certainly no downside where people can actually physically get hurt.

In the real world this can create ratings but offers a potential huge downside where a lot of people can actually physically get hurt.

Look.

I do not really think nuclear war is likely. The big boy at the table <or ‘the principal at the grade school playground’>, China, has basically taken that off the table by a simple stance … “North Korea, if you attack you are on your own, and USA, if you act preemptively, we will consider that an attack on us.”

That said.

Can anyone really say it’s not a possibility at all?

Nope.

And that is nuts.

And it is on the edge of insanity because it well … walks like a reality TV duck, sounds like a reality TV duck which makes me think this whole Trump TV bluster and posturing is … well … a reality TV duck.

And while Trump supporters will come out of the woodwork crafting semi-logical scenarios in which Donnie Two Scoops words are strategic and smart and necessary is there anybody who really doesn’t believe the rest of the world is looking at America going “WTF.”

Or, as one of the more conservative websites stated this morning:

 Sanity.

Is there anybody who doesn’t believe that world leaders are whispering behind our backs now, discussing “the United States problem,” and wondering if this great experiment of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people has gone off the rails?

This North Korea problem is complex and while we can blame past presidents if we want <which is wasted energy> or want to wave our hands in the air moaning “why do I have to deal with his mess made by someone else” I want a president who doesn’t really care how we got here and why we are in the situation we are in … I want a president to … well … be sane. Be mature. And be better than the everyday schmuck like me.

I want a president less concerned with trees and more concerned with the forest … specifically the USA and global forest and not his own trees.

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

“Developing our abilities to think more clearly, richly, fully — individually and collectively — is absolutely crucial [to solving world problems].”

——–

Adrian West, research director at the Edward de Bono Foundation U.K.

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

So.

I was asked the other day about what I believed the internet, and connectivity’s, greatest impact on business was.

After chuckling that there was no one thing and we didn’t have enough time to talk about all the aspects that have impacted us … I did suggest one thing we don’t talk about which has a larger ripple effect on the future of business – connectivity’s impact on decision making and how we teach decision making.

Simplistically, technological connectivity has killed maybe 90% of the delegation of critical thinking & decision making.

Yeah.

There are a couple of other sociological insidious things seeping into organizational culture – discouragement of risk taking, particularly among younger employees, ‘flat’ organizations which tend to only put the senior decision makers closer to actual tactical decisions and things like that.

But what connectivity has done is make the most experienced decision makers more available 24/7 and younger people more likely to “send them a quick text asking them what to do” or an email with the question at hand … so that the younger person doesn’t have to make the decision. This translates into less decision making experience, less real ‘outcome of decision experience’ as well as all the critical thinking that gets crammed into one’s head when forced to make some decision <which always takes on some extraordinary size & significance when younger and less experienced>.

I believe this is a real issue.

In fact … I believed it was so important I googled it to do some research for this post.

• ‘how connectivity has killed decision making’ … 0 results.

• how the internet has killed decision making’ … 0 results on the topic … most on ‘overthinking’ or ‘Information overload is killing our ability to make decisions’

I even tried ‘how the smartphone has killed decision making’ and got zilch other than some crap about how ‘smartphones are destroying a generation’ and shit like that.

Lets be clear.

This isn’t about ‘distractions’ or ‘short attention span’ this is about circumventing critical decision making skills through easy connectivity to someone who can make the decision <instead of you>.

And I found it extremely odd that there is nothing obvious in terms of the discussion online because society views technology through an extremely critical eye on perceptions of how it forms, or doesn’t form, critical thinking skills. And nowhere is the conflict more apparent than in the business world where in a seemingly non-stop 24/7 world where we deem “speed” as having some absurd value above anything else we force more and more decisions ‘up’ in an organization.

Let me tell you how it worked in a disconnected world.

As an old guy we had no smartphones and computers weren’t chugging out hundreds of emails between employees all the time.

My bosses sat with other bosses in some high falutin’ section of the office space <most often with doors and big desks> and I didn’t have easy access to my bosses because … well … they were not within shouting distance and they had their own shit to do.

I had team members, clients and other departments who always needed answers so they could do shit and make some progress <to meet deadlines that I had inevitably placed on them> and, when they needed a decision, 90+% of the time they didn’t want me hanging up the phone saying “I will get back to you after I speak to ‘x’ person.”

And many times I was out of town in meetings and … well … decisions had to be made.

In this disconnected world 25 year old Bruce had to make some decisions … hopefully some good ones.

This didn’t mean that afterwards I didn’t sit there going … “fuck me, was that the right thing to do?” … because I did.

So in that disconnected world I would have to get up when I had a free minute and track down my boss and walk them through what was going to happen because I had made some decision.

I could go to Pat, who would sometimes be laying on his back under his desk looking at a world map he had taped under his desk thinking <claiming it gave him a different view of the world>, who would 99% of the time asking me why I thought it was the right decision, what other things we could have considered and start tearing apart the decision to better understand it.

I could go to Charlie who would 99% of the time go ‘okay’ … and then in a burst of energy start talking about what we could do now, a kind of “what’s next attitude” now that the decision had been made.

I could go to Beth who would always, always, just listen … and then start talking about how we could follow up with some research, or data, or support so that <in her words> “the decision doesn’t get killed by someone else’s opinions.”

I could go to any number of other bosses throughout my younger years and discuss a decision that I had made after the fact.

In a disconnected world a less experienced person was demanded to assume some responsibility.

The bottom line it was my decision and I had to live with it. I didn’t have a shitload of bosses who tried to kill the decision but rather seemed to accept it, warts & all, and figure out how to move forward from it.

Now.

A shitload of people may argue that in a connected world better decisions are made <slightly> faster <assuming you can reach the decision maker in some timely fashion> therefore business has benefited.

They may be partially right.

But I would argue 3 things:

<1> Most decisions made at a lower more tactical, or less strategically influential, level are not really business killers nor are they even ‘not fixable’,

<2> by delegating responsibility for a decision ‘upwards’ … someone never learns the critical thinking necessary, sometimes under time duress, nor the burden of responsibility,

<3> and ability to bear burden of responsibility is actually an indicator of future leadership skills.

I have gone on ad nausea over the years with regard to our short term paranoia within the business world and how it is killing us … and this ‘delegate decisions upwards because connectivity permits it’ is just one additional example.

Look.

The people who have the most confidence in their decision making skills, unless they are narcissistic asshats, are the ones with most experience in making decisions. And examining decisions made by someone else <which is what a younger person does if a more senior person makes a decision> is not even close to the actual experience of running the mental gauntlet of making the decision yourself … and understanding he burden of responsibility you assume by doing so.

By outsourcing our decisions to more experienced people, or even the false ‘certainty’ in data, we cheat ourselves.

We are left responding rather than thinking creatively, critically and autonomously.

And maybe worse we don’t give ourselves the opportunity to unlearn what we believe we have learned <which truly can only happen through trial & error>.

Gut feelings, and instincts, or even data … are not the best tools for an uncertain world … they only offer the illusion of certainty.  The business world is a complex world with thousands of decisions and a relentless onslaught of uncertainty.

About the only thing to maneuver your way through all of this complexity & uncertainty is by using the skill of critical thinking.

When we deny people the challenge of thinking critically, evaluating situations, making your own decisions and bearing the burden of responsibility we are heading towards a future where future manager will lack the cognitive ability, and critical thinking skills, to effectively think and make good decisions.

While I have several worries with regard to what technology and connectivity is doing to our business world … this is one we do not discuss enough if we are truly interested in the next generation of business people to be better than us.

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

“Are you prattling about an instinct of self-preservation? An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess.

An ‘instinct’ in as unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even man’s desire to live is not automatic: your secret evil today is that that is the desire you do not hold. Your fear of death is not a love of life and will not give you the knowledge needed to keep it.

Man must obtain his knowledge and choose his actions by a process of thinking, which nature will not force him to perform.

Man has the power to act as his own destroyer–and that is the way he has acted through most of history.”

―

Ayn Rand

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

Ok.

Discussing business leadership is … well … interesting.

Its also <slightly> interesting I used an Ayn Rand quote to open a thought on business leadership.

Why?

Almost everything Rand espoused focused on the individual and self-interest … and leadership inherently focuses on the group and ‘making the tide rise higher for all … sometimes at the expense of a higher one.”

In addition … <simplistically> the central thesis of Rand’s philosophy is that unfettered self-interest is good and altruism is destructive.

I am no going invest a lot of time on Rand’s thinking <of which I have mixed feelings about> but because I speak to many business leaders the balance of ‘business democracy, organizational culture, and business autocracy, i.e., someone has to make a decision at some point and organizational consensus is most likely not the most effective way to generate good decisions, I will spend a moment on Rand.

In my eyes, far too often, Americans tie the Rand philosophy of ‘supreme self-reliance devoted to the pursuit of supreme self-interest’ to a simplistic version of core American ideals: individual freedoms & hard work. The whole premise is based on the promise a better world is available if people can simply pursue their own self-interest without regard to the impact of their actions on others. That thought is usually followed by “this works because everyone is simply pursuing their own self-interest as well.”

Unfortunately what this ignores is a successful organization’s ultimate mission: “e pluribus unim” <out of many one>.

Unfortunately what this ignores is successful cultures typically exhibit a ‘twitch muscle’ which automatically makes 95% of people to find greater satisfaction in contributing to ‘the team’ rather than solely finding individual success.

All of this matters when discussing business leadership and leading organizations.

Now.

That said.

I come back to a key line in the opening quote:  an ‘instinct’ in as unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct.

In a world in which we tend to want to oversimplify things far too often “business instincts” get stripped of any context or the rich & royal hues most typically associated with ‘good business instincts.’ We also strip leadership down to its barest and far too often suggest the importance of ‘’good business instincts’ as some superior skill <and instincts are not a skill but an attribute> inherent in good leadership.

I would suggest we would be much better off stripping leadership down to not one thing but rather discussing a backbone which makes leadership stand tall.

Look.

A shitload of people can lead.

An even larger shitload of people think they can lead.

And even smaller shitload of people can actually lead well.

And while there are a shitload of well written and thoughtful piece on business leadership characteristics I would suggest that all business leadership often comes down to your ‘backbone’ of actual skills with regard to three things: developing an effective vision, having a consistent business philosophy <business acumen> & instincts.

Many leaders have some skill in one of these three, some actually are good at two out of the three but the best leaders are good at all three <with some extraordinary skill at either the visionary or instincts>.

I point out the vision and instincts aspects because it is that ‘dance’ which … well … can make a business dance. Some people talk about strategy & tactics but this is a little different. This is kind of a step up from that.

This is kind of like being able to envision the 5 lane highway which leads to a destination you kind of envision and then actually have the instincts which enable you to instinctually shift lanes, shift speeds and avoid everyone else on the highway in the moments that matter.

Suffice it to say … working with someone who understands, and can manage to, vision and someone who has good instincts is fairly rare — and all three even rarer.

By the way, as I have written before … most people who vocally espouse the fact <belief> they have good instincts tend to have shitty instincts. In fact … I could generalize relatively safely by suggesting anyone who verbalizes they have good instincts … most likely, in reality, do not have good instincts <good instinctual leaders & decision makers tend to have the humility to have an innate sense to keep their mouths shut about any instinctual behavior and focus on verbalizing functional abilities to do shit in certain situations>.

Anyway.

Someone can actually be a pretty good leader and not be very good at all these things.

For example … one of my best bosses wasn’t particularly good at the vision aspect but had an incredibly strong sense of ‘right versus wrong’ with regard to business philosophy and excellent instincts which tended to permit a shitload of progress <if not particularly visionary progress>. I would note he was pretty good at hiring some people who were visionary and combined with what he was good at he had a nice ability <albeit sometimes a lite too pragmatic> to tighten some loose vision and … well … get shit done.

For example … one of my best bosses was an incredible visionary with an excellent ability to set everyone’s sights on the ‘horizon’ coupled with a strong business philosophy of “this is the kind of shit we will do and how we will conduct ourselves in doing it” he could get people focused and emotionally connected with what they had to do. However … his instincts were not so hot. I would note he had a nice ability to surround himself with people with good instincts <maybe not enough but some key people> which permitted him to pick out what to do from options resented by good instinctual managers rather than have to depend on his own instincts.

I imagine my point here is twofold <1> leaders who are good at all three of these things are not a dime a dozen and <2> the good leaders who are not good at all three of these things tend to recognize where they are a little weaker and are smart enough, and confident enough, to surround themselves with people who do have those skills.

I imagine the greater leadership philosophical point here is that good business leaders don’t really fight truth.

They see truth. Accept truth. And work within the parameters of truth.

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

 

“Stop opposing the truths.

The truth is truth no matter how you take it. It is not going to be changed for your inconvenience.”

―

Bikash Bhandari

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

I point out truth because, of all things, leadership is reliant on a leader being able to see truth … and not just what they want to see.

I point out truth because, of all things, vision and instincts are driven more by truth, knowledge and ‘learning’, than by any nebulous “I have good instincts.’

I point out truth because, of all things, people actually have a natural inclination to work for the mutual benefit of an organization … they like to cooperate and collaborate … and truth has an incredible ability to bond together the largest most disparate organization as well as offer the initial burst of energy which pushes organizations forward out of trouble and toward something better when a leader actually makes a decision.

Be wary of the verbose ‘I am good at this’ leader because … well … as with anything else in Life & business … leaders have to be ‘good’ at a number of things not just some simplistic self-interest driven accolade.

I have made the case a number of times why healthcare for everyone benefits America from a productivity standpoint. Today I will try to make a case for healthcare for all by pointing out an underlying real issue which creates some disillusionment <which obviously drove some of the Trump support during the election> in middle America.

We often discuss inequality in terms of economics & opportunity … but how about something which cuts to the core being of everyone – life expectancy inequality.

I came across a map created in May of this year showing life expectancy by county.

Well.

Yikes.

Okay.

Double yikes.

The average life expectancy … yes … average … in individual counties can vary by up to 20 … yes … 20 … years.

Yes.

If you live in certain counties the average life expectancy is around 87 years <remember … this is average for an entire county> and in other counties the average life expectancy is around 67 years.

Holy shit.

Average.

20 years difference.

And I am not smart enough to do the cross tab <or invest the energy> but if you look at the life expectancy map and you were to overlay the Trump voter support I would bet <and I am not a betting man> that the counties which have the 20 years less life expectancy … shit … the counties with lower standard deviation life expectancies in general … went overwhelmingly for the Trumpster.

So for all the intellectuals, faux & real, who suggest many of the Trump voters are ignorant, misguided and stupid … you may want to shut up and think about this for a second.

These people have a legitimate gripe.

Yeah.

Life expectancy is pretty legitimate.

I mean if my local community is dying off around me and I look around at other communities who seem not only getting better breaks but are actually living longer … well … I am gonna start thinking I am being overlooked and underappreciated.

………… Life expectancy standard deviation …………….

Combine that with the fact the gap between longer life expectancy counties and lower life expectancy counties is actually growing and, well, I am gonna start truly believing that the elites & establishment do not really care.

“There’s no sign of the gap closing. In fact, it appears to be widening. Between 1980 and 2014, the gap between the highest and lowest life spans increased by about two years.

 

“With every passing year, inequality — however you measure it — has been widening over the last 34 years. And so next year, we can reliably expect it’ll be even more than 20.”

 

“That is probably the most alarming part of the analysis.”

 

———–

Christopher Murray:  Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation

So.

Having attended this rodeo before, I know I can count on getting a number of intellectual sounding emails pointing out the inevitable flaws in my thinking and conclusions. My suggestion to those people is please hit ‘unsend’ and get off your intellectual high horse and think about this.

Flawed logic or not … if I am in a county dying off at early ages I am more likely to be thinking I live in India and not in America. And if I even perceive that, if I even have a sense of that, I am gonna start wishing for what I thought America was again.

Parse out the flawed aspects behind my ‘America was again’ thought if you want but on the surface this is a no brainer thought. Dying can make you wish for a shitload of things that intellectually can seem less than logical but are actually well intended thoughts – because, uhm, this pertains to life & death.

All of this permits me to circle back to healthcare.

Maybe print out the map of life expectancy and put it beside your computer while you read this part.

We talk about putting healthcare in the hands of people.

We talk about subsidies for health insurance companies.

We talk about inordinate bureaucracy for … well … physicians, hospitals and patients.

We talk about high premiums, high deductibles and high falutin’ reasons why healthcare works and doesn’t work.

It’s all talk.

And it’s all bullshit.

Important bullshit in terms of actually getting something done but unimportant bullshit in terms of we are not getting something done.

Just because someone lives somewhere doesn’t mean they should have a lower life expectancy than someone who lives somewhere else … at least if they live in America <other countries deal with their own problems>.

Is health insurance the only reason for this?

Of course not <so keep your snarky emails to yourself>.

But health is certainly a reason for this.

At the core of life expectancy is … well … health. And I don’t really care how much you earn, what kind of education you have had, what kind of job you have, or do not have, but it seems like if you live in county X you should be offered equal health opportunities to those received in county Y.

There is more than enough inequality haunting the United States these days without having health services & insurance inequality.

There is more than enough inequality haunting the United State these days without having life expectancy inequality.

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

“More isn’t always better. Sometimes it’s just more.”

―

Barbara Benedek

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

“Our company? 

We have a change the world attitude. We don’t mind being disruptive as long as it is with the intent to create something new and better.  Smart disruption displaces the conventional and replaces it with an unconventional way to do things that actually meets what people want, need and expect. 

We call what we are doing ‘shaking the category etch a sketch.’ 

Visions should be lofty and grounded.

Simple yet reflective of a complex world.

Pragmatic & practical yet not the status quo.” 

—–

Bruce McTague

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

Ok.

I must get trapped in dozens of discussions & debates over innovative ideas, disruptive ideas and what is “new.” And thanks to Yale and some guy named Loewy  I have a tendency to toss around two phrases a shitload in the conversations — “Most Advanced Yet Acceptable” and optimal newness.

<note: <a> ‘optimal newness’ is a relatively new phrase which i have appropriated to replace some of my less eloquent phrases saying the same thought, <b> I have used ‘most advanced yet acceptable’ as a thought for years as it was offered to us by  ‘the father of industrial design’, Loewy, in the 1950’s but more recently highlighted in an Atlantic article>

I pull these phrases out of my thought bag of tricks because invariably these “let’s talk about new ideas” conversations get squeezed between two extreme bookends and the phrases help to unsqueeze the thinking.

One bookend is the highly caffeinated entrepreneurial ‘disruptors’ who are convinced they have an idea that no one has ever seen or done before and want to present it as “the coolest thing you have never seen before.”

The other bookend is the pragmatic risk averse “change agent” who proudly presents the same widget which was once painted taupe and is now painted flat black as “new, improved and contemporary.”

By the way. These bookends actually have names: neophilia, a curiosity about new things; and neophobia, a fear of anything too new. This conversational tug of war is a reflection of the basic human truth that we love, and actively seek, familiarity <safeness>… uhm … as well as the thrill of discovery <risk>.

We do this with … well … everything.

Therefore we are almost always torn, slightly or a lot, by these two opposing thoughts. This is the thinking that led that guy, Loewy, to articulate his industrial design attitude as “Most Advanced Yet Acceptable.”

He believed to sell something surprising, make it familiar; and to sell something familiar, make it surprising.

This thought is important. It is important because while an idea can, conservatively, die 101 different ways 2 of the most likely ways to die is <a> you have a surprising, possibly truly disruptive idea, and your inclination it is to make it look spectacularly surprisingly different – therefore scaring the shit out of most people and they do not attach themselves to it, and <b> you have a spectacularly unspectacular useful idea and … well … you undersell it because it is difficult to articulate beyond the familiarity – therefore boring everyone into believing it is not worthy of a ‘new’ label. And before you beat the crap out of me on all of this The Atlantic article offers a nice proof point to ponder:

In 2014, a team of researchers from Harvard University and Northeastern University wanted to know exactly what sorts of proposals were most likely to win funding from prestigious institutions such as the National Institutes of Health—safely familiar proposals, or extremely novel ones?

They prepared about 150 research proposals and gave each one a novelty score. Then they recruited 142 world-class scientists to evaluate the projects. The most-novel proposals got the worst ratings. Exceedingly familiar proposals fared a bit better, but they still received low scores. “Everyone dislikes novelty,” Karim Lakhani, a co-author, explained to me, and “experts tend to be overcritical of proposals in their own domain.” The highest evaluation scores went to submissions that were deemed slightly new.

I shared this research to show that even the dullest deserves some surprise & novelty while “new” has some limits when trying to communicate the pragmatic <both of which are important with regard to … well … almost everything>.

That said. I think the real point here is that you need to find the sweet spot … that there is an “optimal newness” for ideas or, well, how about we call it “advanced yet acceptable”.

So why do we always have this struggle? Well … in business the challenge seems to be the business world has put an incredibly high value on <perceived> innovation & disruption and a lesser, if not nonexistent, value on <real> functionality & highly pragmatic thinking & ideas. This out of whack valuation steers some business people to some extremely shallow misguided thinking and hollow ideation.

Nowhere is this found more often than when discussing “disruptive ideas” and innovation which are the two “phases that pay” when we talk about new.

We use these words to imply this idea will change the world <and more often than not it is just a nice idea which will make an impact in its own little universe … assuming it doesn’t die a quick death>, therefore, it becomes the only type of idea we should pay attention to.

In other words … if it’s not disruptive, its crap.

Well.

That’s crap (bullshit). The truth is that many, if not most, of the most foundational ‘innovative’ or new ideas the world has ever seen tend to be the most overlooked, unseen to the naked eye, unobtrusive ‘disruptors’ we have ever interacted with.

The truth is that most effective useful disruptive ideas are almost always leveraging off of something existing. You may turn everything upside down … but you are still using some existing pieces <some existing attitudes & behavior as well a ‘things’> from which your idea will end up tapping into. I say that with two thoughts in mind:

• something from nothing equals the same thing as nothing from nothing … nothing.

• smart, or intelligent, disrupting is always about something from something.

Ponder them <not too much because it will make your head hurt> … but everyone should keep these two thoughts in mind whenever seeking optimal newness – you cannot create something from nothing.

Anyway. In today’s business world “new” and “disruptive” are inextricably linked. This is a shame.

It does not benefit either concept or idea to do this. New is … well … new. No more and no less <although there are certainly degrees of new>.

Disruption actually means ‘to challenge.’ And, despite what many want you to believe, disruption is actually about creating something … not simply to destroy something. I would actually suggest that disruption, at its core, is about changing the way you think – creating new ways to think about something.

Think about it. Conventions train us to do the conventional. I say that because accepted beliefs <conventional thinking>, where everyone is thinking the same, usually means no one is really thinking.

Therefore, constructing new accepted beliefs may not mean destroying the old, the familiar, but rather creating a new way of thinking and creating a new familiar. All this becomes important as you consider what would be “optimal newness.” Because as we wander aimlessly between the hyperbole of disruptive and new … well … many new ideas are simply a fresh derivative of ‘familiarity.’

I say this to make a point.

Optimal newness, 95% of the time, leverages some familiarity … something existing … and it is grounded in some reality that people can grasp.

Therein lies a truth “optimal newness” never loses sight of. The biggest ideas with the biggest end impact on our lives typically have gained some momentum not because they were some huge ‘new, never seen before’ idea but rather because the innovated on some conventional thinking and shifted us into some different way of thinking about something.

Maybe we should think about it this way … if today’s innovators have been successful … have seen farther than others before … it is because they have stood on the shoulders of giants … well … maybe stood on the shoulders of something that already existed.

Regardless. I read somewhere in one of those bullshit pop psychology pieces that confident people are better than most people at seeking out small victories … they don’t necessarily need “big” ideas or maniacally pursue being called a ‘disruptor’ as they pursue success. I tend to believe confidence can reside in comfort within ‘optimal newness’ and the confident business people know that newness doesn’t have to be splashy nor hyperbole driven but rather surprising functionality.

And maybe that is the larger point with regard to ‘optimal newness’ and ‘most advanced yet acceptable.’ In business these days we seem to either believe “go big or go home” and therefore either overplay our hand or completely underplay it <because it isn’t big enough>. Just think about that last thought as you ponder the last dozen good ideas you have seen die before your eyes.

I will end by stating, unequivocally, that this is easier to write about then to put into practice.

Shit.

Finding the ‘optimal’ anything in business is hard. All I know is that every time I have this discussion with a sales group talking about selling, an innovations group talking about articulating an innovation or even a CEO about ‘organizational change management’, I get a lot of cocked heads  as they think about it a little.

That’s got to count for something.

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

A lot can happen in 6 months, but I never expected this.

–

tumblr 22:51 pm

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

“A Nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious.”

–

Marcus Tullius Cicero

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

Well.

I almost called this “day <fill in the blank>of the shitshow” but I didn’t.

Look.

I am no genius but at the Trump 100 day mark I suggested the second 100 days would look a lot like the first 100 days  <inconsistent, ineffective & incompetent> for several very sound, rational reasons. And as we close in on 200 days … well … I look like a genius. And … just to share my conclusion if you want to stop reading now … I envision the next 100 days just as hollow as the last 200 days for almost exactly the same reasons.

Until the main reason is solved <quality people in necessary staff positions> the lean, mean and obscenely incompetent current white house staff will remain incredibly competent at … well … doing nothing truly meaningful <but maintaining an appearance of disruptive thinkers>.

I will ignore the tweets … entertaining but absurd.

I will ignore the unnecessary hyperbole … entertaining and absurd.

I will ignore the rambling nonsensical monologues … not as entertaining and even more absurd.

I will ignore the bizarre foreign policy steps … entertaining to watch but absurdly dangerous in reality.

However … I will pay attention to leadership and results.

I have to assume despite the fact the President claims a finely tuned white house which has done more than any other resident since maybe FDR … this whole adventure has not been exactly how he planned it to go.

For someone who likes winning I am not so sure this kind of ‘winning’ is what he had in mind.

For someone who claims to be ‘the best negotiator’ <or at least better than anyone in government prior to him> I am not so sure this kind of ‘negotiating results’ or even public glimpses into his negotiating skills is what he had in mind.

For someone who claimed “I alone can fix it” I am not so sure this is the kind of ‘fixing’ he had in mind.

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

“Deals are my art form. Other people paint beautifully or write poetry. I like making deals, preferably big deals. That’s how I get my kicks.”

—

Donald Trump

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

What has the administration done?

Well, yes, in the first 6 months some things truly have been done.

First, I will ignore the stock market. As every president prior to this absurd one recognized … the market has a mind of its own and, in general, ignores presidents <so attaching yourself to it and ts results is like pegging my success to some squirrel in my backyard>. But even with its general disregard for a President what the stock market has really learned is that Trump will not do as much as some had hoped for … and others feared. In the stock market’s mind this is called ‘clarity’ or certainty … and markets thrive when uncertainty diminishes <because then it is all about trends and not surprises>. Trump will not like to hear it but the central banks control the fate of stock markets more than he will ever want <so he should actually be cuddling up to central bank more>.

Second, I will ignore the Supreme Court Justice nomination because this was a “gimmee putt” for any Republican who stumbled their way into the oval office.

Just as I wouldn’t have credited Hillary this “win” was owned by whatever party won the white house not the individual in the white house.

Anyway.

The first 200 days.

Yes. Things done. I would call it “tinkering under the hood” stuff. Some executive orders, some cutting back on regulations, maybe taking some, what they would consider, unnecessary  pieces out so the engine can run a little more effectively.

Most things have been ‘destruction’ type actions and not construction type actions.

And none of them are the bigger things which make radical shifts with regard to the country’s well-being.

Here is the problem with the Trump administration just tinkering under the hood. During the campaign and continuing into the first 200 days the administration, and Trump in particular, have claimed I have a Hyundai and I deserve a Ferrari.

Therefore, to date, they are just giving me a better running Hyundai and they still haven’t shown me <a> what my Ferrari is going to look like or <b> when I may expect to see my Ferrari in my driveway or even <c> what they are going to do to actually make it possible to have a Ferrari.

That alone makes for a fairly hollow first 200 days.

But why haven’t we received even those basic, what I would call, “map of things you should expect” stuff?

To date this administration has been defined by … well … a fog of dysfunction driven by a clammy inconsistent breeze called Donald J Trump which leaves us all feeling a little uneasy that something bad awaits us in the fucking clammy fog.

Look.

While I buy he is transactional … he is an inconsistent transactional person. He shows no sign of cohesive thinking, shows poor instincts and a complete lack of impulse control <which derails any necessary momentum every sane business leader knows you need to have to sustain any larger idea> and an extraordinarily immature naïve view of how the world really works <business, government and global> all buried in a pea like brain that does not envision what the end game looks like.

I score the last 200 days as relatively hollow and, once again, I see no signs of changes needed to get us out of hollow in and into substance.

I personally do not see him changing <becoming more engaged, take on more responsibility and try and lead rather than criticize> therefore the administration will live and die by the people who will end up in the administration <assuming they ever do join up>. Trump really has no policy – which is needed to lead without actually having to hold everyone’s hand — therefore he needs to <a> hire people who understand policy and can sell policy and <b> accumulate a group of policy makers who are aligned <not by loyalty but rather by ideology> so that the end puzzle gets built so it looks like a frickin’ puzzle and not just a bunch of random policies which look good in isolation but crappy when viewed together.

There needs to be a team, not a loyal team, but a qualified team for any chance to get out of this hollow hole we seem to get deeper and deeper into.

Yeah yeah yeah. Trumpeteers will come out of the woodwork and suggest “this is not Trump’s fault.”

They would be wrong.

I have been in so many companies that have told me to hire only to have my candidates get mired in the HR administrative mud for so long you are fairly sure they were just humoring you into believing you could actually hire someone that I can certainly feel the pain of hiring and open positions.

But this is not the case.

The congress has been slower in confirming Trump candidates but it is not because of democrats or congress inefficiency it is because Trump nominees are slow to complete paperwork or have to deal with conflict issues <they are often non-traditional appointees>. In addition the president has been even slower to send nominations to Congress.

The Trump administration is not eliminating the positions, Trump is just deciding not filling them <I assume he is not convinced they would actually provide value>.

Sure … there is a legitimate truth that government should be streamlined <positions eliminated> but not nominating needed people to implement your transactional ideology simply means … well … none of your frickin’ transactions get completed <and a business person of any competence whose career has been built off of transactions, and not vision, would know this>.

Anyway.

A couple things that become concerning beyond the staffing challenge as we move on to day 201 and beyond:

• They market problems not solutions

I was foolish enough to subscribe to the White House Daily email. I will admit.

If I read it every day I would most likely slit my wrists. Every single email highlights a problem … disaster, failing, crime, horrible trade deals, being taken advantage of, the list goes on and on and on.

Shit.

In one email they actually suggested one of their own departments, The Congressional Budget Office, yeah … one of their OWN DEPARTMENTS … did not know how to do their job <… dude … they report to you …>.

They peddle problems and diminish people.

So far over 200 days they have invested 198 days <I made that number up> pounding us that we are living in a shithole created by shit-for-brains people … and, yet, they have offered us solutions worth a shit.

That’s not what leaders do … even transactional leaders. Even transactional leaders stand up and show us a list of the transactions we are aiming to get done. Some leaders <most in fact> would think of this as “how you should judge me” information.

This criticism is not about the 330 million citizens of the country <albeit we would benefit from knowing his> this is more about getting shit done in the next 100, 200 and 300 days. The people who have to do the work, do the policy, will be significantly more effective if you hand out a project list of shit I want to get done. if you have smart qualified people they will be like ants on sugar <all over it>.

I am not suggesting we need an administration that is in the “unicorns & rainbow” business but I do know the country would benefit if the administration would peddle solutions rather than problems but the administration itself would also benefit because … well … that is how good organizations actually get their employees to do good shit. It would be nice if they stopped thinking in terms of being in the destruction business and thought more about being in the construction business with regard to ideas & policies.

Without it … expect more empty ‘doom & gloom’ marketing of problems in the 100 days ahead.

Which leads me to …

• Lack of vision

I hire managers to manage tactics … I hire leaders to share a vision. A transactional leader is a tactical leader.

And you can get away with that for a while but at some point the tactics need to fill some vision bucket <or they are simply scattered drops of water destined to dry up in the heat of time>.

Look.

I imagine the number one gripe against Obama was that he was too visionary and not tactical enough <in public>. But no one ever doubted his vision for America and Americans. People may have griped about some of the tactics but we always knew the ‘why’ of the tactical and transaction decisions. We bitched about ‘bad deals’ but understood why the deal was being pursued.

Without vision clarity 300 million plus people sit in their homes and go to work absent of really knowing “why.” Uhm. In the absence of why understanding everything begins to look random and people, in general, do not embrace random as a way of Life.

They need to address those 2 thing. Fast.

Those two things are going to haunt this presidency for 100’s of days unless they are addressed.

Those two things are basic Leadership 101 things.

I say that because while I am as detailed as possible with regard to how to fix the hollow presidency’s arc of behavior I remain concerned that the president, a self proclaimed successful business person, shows little signs he understands basic leadership behavior <and attitudes>. I admit … while I sensed his early on I never expected him to be this inept at basic leadership skills.

Being the president is not the same as the hollow branding crap Trump has built his riches off of. Shit. A real business leader demands more knowledge than that. Leadership requires discipline, hard work, focus, at least a basic understanding of the details they want their organization to move forward with and, as Trump himself said, a willingness to get everybody in a room and hammer out a deal.

That’s leadership.

Through the first 200 days of Trump’s presidency … uhm … he has exhibited none.

That is all on him.

After 200 days the president has managed to showcase a stunning total lack of ability to lead. And I use ‘stunning’ because he actually has a Congress completely under Republican control.

This stunning lack of leadership actually has repercussions beyond how people like I will measure 100 days to come. While we will offer ‘what was done’ report cards ad nausea the ultimate measurement , and battle, will be over character – not tangible wins & losses..

I am fairly sure in the bible <Corinthians ?> it says something like: Do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.”

I state that because over the first 200 days there has been a stunning lack of truth coming from this White House which appears to be a blatant attempt to corrupt the character of good men & women.

I have a thought piece coming up on how the Trump administration is building an alternative universe in a way that I am fairly sure not many of us in a free world have ever seen before <but I am familiar with it having read dozens of books on communist Soviet Union>.

They have subverted Fake News from meaning actually unsourced, completely made-up things like the Enquirer to news they simply do not like.

Transparency means sharing information only when asked and not done in a forthcoming way.

They have attempted to make honesty irrelevant by investing gobs of energy undermining anything & everything everyone else says <if no one is honest than honesty is in the eyes of the beholder>.

They have continued to construct such a stark alternative universe to what actually exists by using scraps of truth, using a language of their own making & using cult-like recruitment tactics so that normal everyday schmucks like you & I are offered such a stark contrast it becomes difficult to bridge between what they say and what we see.

In the end.

I will restate exactly what I said at the end of the 1^st 100 days … suffice it to say that I see some fairly concerning hollowness. What I mean by that is after 100 days one could highlight a variety of empty spots which … well … will dog the administration from day 101 forward.

And while I would like to point out some specifics I think we would all like to let me conclude with the “issue to be resolved in order to eliminate future hollowness.”

I am not sure at 71 if Trump can actually attain what he really needs to be successful over the ensuing 100 day increments as a president – enlightenment.

The mind once enlightened cannot again become dark.

–

Thomas Paine, A Letter Addressed to the Abbe Raynal on the Affairs of North America

 

Beyond all the bizarre tweets, inappropriate speeches and overall adolescent behavior … he is a painful amateur leader. Painful in that even I, who has led but not to this level, cringe almost every day at the amateur mistakes he makes as a leader.

This amateurishness is a disease stalking the hallways of the White House. I say that because while it is clear to everyone but trump why ‘no one listens to him or shows loyalty to him’ it is not clear why some very talented knowledgeable leaders surrounding him aren’t building at least a semblance of a construct from which leadership could grow.

Trump must be a powerful disease to have infected true talent that much.

There are a bunch of things that could turn this bizarre ship around but one, and only one, thing truly matters – will President Trump ever permit his mind to be enlightened. For that is the path out of the darkness that his administration tries to convince us we all live in as well as some of the darker more ignorant & naïve aspects of the current administration’s behavior.

Lastly.

I don’t care if you voted for Trump or not … you have to admit this whole situation is bizarre and he is a seemingly bizarre human being.

You may not agree with me that he is a fool but I cannot find one person who doesn’t think this whole presidency so far is just fucking bizarre.

——————-

“A Nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious.”

——————-

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

Seth Meyers

—–

Yeah, “fair” is a word we talk about. We talk about “fair” when we talk about “even.” I feel as though “even” can sometimes lead to false equivalents, whereas “fair” is, is this how you’d like to be treated if somebody disagreed with you?

We all have bias, we all have a point of view. I think the best you can do is try to be aware of it and try to make sure that the bias doesn’t make you treat someone else unfairly.

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

Ok.

Today, in this world & in this environment, I could be having a discussion on some topic and make a statement and 99% of the time the other person will say <usually indignantly> “where did you hear that?” … and I could say “well, Albert Einstein said it” … and I can almost guarantee I will get the following question … “when did he say that?” … and if I said “well, he said it on <pick your poison … FoxNews, MSNBC, CNN, NYTimes, Washington Post, etc>” … I can almost guarantee I will get a ‘lean-back-in-chair-moment combined with a sage “oh, he is biased.”

Yeah.

Albert Einstein.

Biased because he decided to say something smart but, unfortunately, on … well … some venue.

Suffice it to say that, lately, it seems like anyone you disagree with or anyone who espouses a different view than you is “biased.”

This is crazy.

And it gets crazier because the same people who are quick to brand some mainstream news venue as biased are the same ones to place blind faith on some random internet website espousing something they agree with.

Let’s be clear.

Professional journalists may slant their work toward their own views but non professionals, and opinion people, are biased.

The vast majority of websites and blogs out there are, for all intents and purposes, biased.

Placing those important nuances aside … everyone should assume a fact is a fact and a fact can be delivered in a variety of ways – slanted, biased, fair, straightforward, misused – but it still remains a fact.

Bias:

Prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.

Most people would suggest that any site that only focuses on one side of an issue without giving the same amount of “unbiased” coverage to the other side is biased.

Fox News. Biased.

MSNBC. Biased.

The Nation. Biased.

Federalist. Biased.

Pravda. Biased.

Yep. All of them.

Biased.

I, personally, do not call them biased <at least their news programming/pieces … not their opinion programming/pieces>.

I would call them intellectually slanted toward a specific view but still factual & truthful journalism. For the most part, if it is not an opinion show, you will receive some facts to sift through.

Yeah.

Some of the stories they publish are great, helpful, and insightful.

Yeah.

Some of them are extremely one-sided.

And while this one-sidedness may be well intended all it really does is drive us into deeper separation and make the ‘bias gap’ seem deep & wide.

Here is where the real trouble begins.

If everything is biased … who offers the truth?

Who you view as biased I view as a purveyor of truth … well … where is there any place for truth between us?

We cannot afford to be in an information gathering world where we “take what resonates and leave the rest.” We cannot because what resonates isn’t always what is reality or truthful. It is actually more likely to simply fit your belief system.

Uh oh.

If it fits than what doesn’t fit is biased.

Once again.

This is crazy.

I tend to believe this is a reflection of a number of things all grounded in the inability to know who to trust <because if I accepted an expert as an expert then I would be able to accept an expert speaking truth I could believe as unbiased>. I tend to believe there is a strong strain of “anti-intellectualism” or maybe it is better called “a gut instinct opinion world” in which facts only confuse the issue <therefore shouldn’t be pursued> and rational thinking is actually ‘common sense.’

Sigh.

We live in a wacky world in which we have no experts, we trust no institutions to not have some nefarious intent and truth is in the eyes of the beholder.

We live in a wacky world in which articles by professional journalists, which are fact-based, are confused with op-eds <opinion & editorials> which is … uhm …  an opinion, a column, meaning it does not have to be unbiased, fair, or balanced.

We live in a wacky world in which the internet is like the wild west of information. There are minimal laws, minimal enforcers of laws and a shitload of people who are willing to have a dubious relationship with any law <and truth or proper use of facts>.

We live in a wacky world in which people have more access to an almost unlimited unfettered amount of information and they also have the freedom to contribute to that unfettered amount of information as they see fit.

We live in a wacky world where even the people who are allegedly so concerned with finding the truth circulate a shitload of bullshit.

Yeah.

It is a wacky world.

That being said, it is not wacky enough to simply discard good smart thoughtful factual information <some would call that “Truth”> under some wacky filter we apply to every mouthpiece which makes that mouthpiece conveniently “biased” so we have an excuse to disregard the information.

I believe we can find fair, even and biased wherever we may choose to look. I can find it on FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, BBC and almost every venue with professional journalism employees. It doesn’t mean they will not slant the information. It doesn’t mean they may conveniently leave a fact or two out.

But in this wacky world I cannot afford to discard everything and I, frankly, have no desire to just discard what doesn’t meet my current views.

I believe that each of us needs to take responsibility for detaching ourselves from what we want to be true, and get off our lazy asses to find out what actually is true … and stop using “biased” as a reason to not consider what was shared.

I will end where I began:

We all have bias, we all have a point of view. I think the best you can do is try to be aware of it and try to make sure that the bias doesn’t make you treat someone else unfairly.

  ==============

“Maybe growing up was really nothing more than growing away: from your old life, from your old self, from all those things that kept you tethered to your past.”

—-

Jennifer E. Smith

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

Forever is a long, long time.

And has a way of changing things.

—-

The Fox and the Hound

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

Ok.

Forever.

Forever is about time and it isn’t. What I mean is we associate forever with time and, yet, it is timeless so time … in a slightly absurd twist of truth … is almost irrelevant to ‘forever.’

But.

We always associate Forever with a long, long time.

And time is a funny thing.

It can ebb and flow all within a finite amount of time.

It can increase speed and decrease speed and yet remain an extremely identifiable finite amount of time.

It can take years of asking and creating questions … and a second to answer everything.

Forever is all of that and more.

That said.

While I think we get better with the concept of forever as we get older I am fairly sure we don’t really realize how vast forever is.

And what I mean by that is it seemingly contains everything and, yet, all of a sudden … we realize that we will not last forever and it runs the risk of containing … uh oh … nothing.

Yeah.

Basically, being the type of outcome oriented people we are; we actually try and apply some measurement to forever.

Yeah.

But think about it.

Forever is everything until it is nothing.

Forever is hope until it is emptied of everything … and hope no longer exists.

All that said.

I, personally, wish the word didn’t exist. To me it captures everything bad about false hope and, therefore, provides a nice well wrapped excuse for us to not face what Emerson suggests “God offers to every mind its choice between truth & repose. Take which you please – you can never have both.”

The whole idea of forever far too often tethers us to our past or inertia. Neither of which is very productive.

While I do believe growing up, for those who do actually grow up, is more like growing away … or unlearning shit … I also believe growing up, more often than not, is growing away from the belief in forever.

In other words … we grow away from infiniteness and grow closer to an understanding of finiteness.

I actually don’t think that is a bad thing. It most likely actually helps us live Life a little better and maybe even manage Life choices and behavior a little better.

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

“Let me tell you a truth … no matter what choice you make, it doesn’t define you.

Not forever.

People can make bad choices and change their minds and hearts and do good things later; just as people can make good choices and then turn around and walk a bad path. No choice we make lasts our whole life. If there’s ever a choice you’ve made that you no longer agree with, you can make another choice.”

–

Jonathan Maberry

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

Look.

Life is a mixed bag of contradictory events, outcomes and feelings all of which can careen through your Life with wild abandon like a bunch of bulls in your china shop.

This means in assessing forever it really isn’t like assessing a balance sheet but more like trying to judge a handful of marbles rolling around a tilting table.

The good news on that is, more often than not, bad shit is not indicative of Life Armageddon and good shit is not indicative of future ongoing bliss.

Forever is simply an endless array of moments crashing into each other and away from each other in which present moments look bigger than they truly are and then … well …than we have another moment.

And another.

And, well, another.

Until we don’t have any moments left.

And in the end we most likely look back at all the moments in what we deemed our forever and if we are lucky, and did things the best we could whenever we could, we most likely see that our forever is filled with somethings that don’t look too bad.

I sometimes believe this is a lesson learned of experience.

That said.

Forever is an empty concept.

It can only be filled if you actively fill it with something. you have to choose between truth or repose … you cannot have both.

Anyway.

Here is what I do know about forever.

It doesn’t really exist to an everyday schmuck like me and my Life. It only exists in the minds of astrophysicist and … well … smart intellectual types in some theoretical way.

Time is finite in everyday Life and that reality smacks us in the face each and every day. It is a reality in which we tend to define forever in terms of minutes not eons.

Sure.

Everyday schmucks like me love the idea of forever <on some things>… and hate the idea of forever <on some things> … and constantly misapply the idea of forever to our time and, yet, all the while do our best to fucking kill the concept of forever in tiny scraps of time … choice by choice.

But I would argue until … well … my forever is done … that thinking about anything in terms of forever is a fool’s errand. It is foolish because if you think you have forever you will most likely remain tethered to the past and, well, forever is most likely best explored by growing up by growing away.

But … that’s me.

==========

“What horrifies me most is the idea of being useless: well-educated, brilliantly promising, and fading out into an indifferent middle age.”

―

Sylvia Plath

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

“My life amounts to no more than one drop in a limitless ocean.

Yet what is any ocean, but a multitude of drops?”

–

David Mitchell

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

Being useless.

Whew.

Can you think of anything worse than feeling like you are, or have been, useless?

Well.

Of course.

What is worse is actually being a useless fuck.

Regardless.

99% of us think we are smart <or smart enough>.

99% of us have felt a sense of promise.

99% of us want our Life to amount to something.

So what happens if that 99% actually thinks they may … uhm … be useless?

While I imagine depression or becoming extremely depressed would be the first thing most people would think about … ‘horrified’ may actually be the more appropriate sense.

Maybe it is a general sense of meaninglessness?

Ah shit … I don’t know.

But just thinking about the possibility of thinking I am useless is a fucking depressing thought. And I am not a wildly ambitious person and I think it would be pretty fucking depressing to think that way.

This came to mind after I had a discussion with one of the kindest, nicest, most generous … and smart … people I know.

After scanning Facebook updates and thinking a little bit about Life and ‘what do I have to show for it all’ their mind, quite expectedly from my point of view, started going down the ‘fucking useless Life’ rabbit hole.

<note: I did remind them that Facebook is not typically where you advertise your losses, disappointments and failures but rather is a place where one goes to conflate their wins, supposed happiness and successes>

But the conversation did remind me that assessing usefulness is not an easy task.

Yeah. yeah. yeah.

We talk about integrity, doing things the right way, honesty and kindness as well as the infamous “a flower doesn’t judge itself next to the flower beside it … it just grows” but reality continuously punches us in the face with ‘proof, proof, proof.’

Where is the proof for your Life and usefulness?

And this gets even more difficult when you look around and see people who obviously are not doing things the right way, who have a dubious relationship with integrity, truth is something they store in some closet to pull out for special occasions and, yet, they have a lot of useful stuff to showcase proof that in some way they have been useful.

Usefulness can occur in a variety of ways.

And 99% of us know that but it sure don’t make it any easier to actually not be horrified when looking around and assessing one’s own usefulness.

It doesn’t make it any easier when we realize we may actually be no more than one drop in a limitless ocean. Because I tend to believe 99% of us know that but felt we would be smarter enough, have enough promise and do things the right way just enough to be a little more than just one drop in a limitless ocean.

All that said.

Feeling useless, or feeling like what you have to offer is being wasted, or even feeling that doing it the right way and having integrity hasn’t got you shit compared to others assholes who have no real desire to do things the right way or do not really care much about integrity <unless they feel a need to check that box> … well … sucks.

I feel like I should offer some optimistic and hopeful and positive thought now … but I don’t really have one to offer at the moment.

Why?

Because what horrifies me is the thought that I may end up useless despite not being the dullest knife in the drawer, despite that fact I most likely still have some promise and despite the fact I imagine I would really like to contribute to Life in some positive morally driven thoughtful way.

Because what horrifies me is the thought that I could pass over into an indifferent age in which I would be viewed as useless.

Because what horrifies me is that I do not have any advice or can even offer some semblance of an answer today.

Because what horrifies me is that I had no answer for the person who teetered on the edge of feeling useless … and, well, that kind of made me feel a little useless too.

And THAT horrifies me to no have an answer for someone else … because what happens if it is me at some point?

Here is what I know.

Just thinking about the possibility of thinking I am useless is a fucking depressing thought.

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

“It’s more interesting to ask the question about America itself, not the America of Trump or the America of Obama, but what is today the appetite of the Americans, really, to have an active role in the world affairs?”

———–

French Ambassador Gérard Araud

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

“A person’s a person, no matter how small.”

―

Horton Hears a Who!

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

So.

I almost called this the shrinking of America.

What I mean by that is America is shrinking in the eyes of the world.

That said.

Let me begin by framing this from a business perspective.

Business leaders are responsible for the growth of their business on a number of dimensions not just $’s.

You can only hold on to your position for so long if you are having some economic success but the company brand and image is suffering.

You can also only hold on to your position for so long if you are having some economic success but the board views it as a poor long term strategy.

You can also hold on to your position for so long if you are having some economic success but perceptions of your leadership are not very good.

But that’s business <and we assume anyone who rises to a business leadership position knows this … as they should>.

I say that because a business can grow in a variety of dimensions not just profit & sales … there is also strategy, positioning and leadership. And if people start to doubt your business on any of those dimensions it is kind of like a balloon … they become little pin pricks and your ‘balloon’ starts shrinking.

And that is what is happening to America from a global perspective.

Pinpricks in the American balloon.

The pinpricks are doubts … in leadership, reliability, consistency and … well … civility <note: I could have added intelligence but I will not>.

I am not making this up.

A Pew poll of 37 countries ranging from large to smaller shows attitudes toward the United States have collapsed since Trump took office. At the end of Obama’s presidency, 64% of people in these countries said they were confident in the US president. Today, that has fallen to 22%.

In addition. Opinions of America overall have fallen by 15 points.

This Pew study examined global attitudes toward America since Obama left office and Trump has assumed the leadership role. Suffice it to say … it is really tough reading for any American.

On all attitudes America is shrinking.

The only places in which Trump’s numbers rose versus Obama are … uhm … Russia <which rose a staggering 43 points, 11% to 54% confidence>and Israel.  And, I would note, that despite the common perception Obama was loathed by Israel, Obama’s confidence ratings varied from 49% to 71% during his administration as compared to Trump’s current 58%.

Just to drive a nail into this particular coffin a little deeper … if I were to pull Russia and Israel out of the study … uh oh … confidence in America would drop into the teens <gulp>.

6 months into a Trump presidency and the pace and the depth of the decline driven by Trump’s leadership, or lack thereof, is stunning. Trump’s belligerent style and immature substance is not only affecting his approval scores domestically … but also internationally. He currently wears the mantle of “shrinker in chief.”

Whether one believes in the accuracy of polling or not, and not many sane people doubt PewResearch> the consistency between domestic numbers and international numbers should make anyone and everyone take a moment and pause.

I could even argue the domestic numbers only look better than international numbers because Republicans are stubbornly hanging on to Trump despite having some serious doubts. If I were in the Trump White House I would be eyeing this Pew report and thinking “yikes, this is my floor here in the USA <22% or the teens>.”

We are shrinking.

And it is sad.

Now.

Trump supporters will flippantly suggest they don’t care about what other countries think about Trump & the USA because it just doesn’t matter.

Which leads me to my point <other than expressing some sadness> … a word to the wise <and even a word to the intellectual dwarfs>.

It does matter.

And it really matters if there is a lack of alignment between perception & reality as well as domestic attitudes & perceptions and international attitudes & perceptions.

That matters because alignment is what makes countries, and businesses, effective AND efficient. It eliminates the herky jerky of misunderstanding and the slowing inherent in having to overcome any negative aspects which could be obstacles.

Yes.

Alignment is important.

Any sane business leader knows that sustainable success is not found in some transaction or some event or even being viewed positively by some others <here & there>. They know success inevitably begins and ends in internal alignment.

Instead of promoting American leadership & unity, Trump is leaving a vacuum internally, domestically, by stubbornly gripping onto a minority view with regard to what people want and what is actually best for the country long term.

This gets exacerbated by the fact he is doing so within his own management team as well as within his ‘employees’ <the citizens … all … even the ones who did not vote for him and did not vote>.

In addition.

An “every man for himself” attitude doesn’t really encourage a positive transaction relationship but rather it encourages a sense of chaos … which leaves Trump and the US with fewer friends and less influence.

I have said it before and I will say it again … this is solvable. And it is solvable not through transactions but rather by … well … internal <domestic> alignment. Trump often argues that words don’t matter and behavior is more important.

Oftentimes this is true, however, words can often build the doorway through which skeptics & doubters can walk through to get a little closer to the alignment America needs to progress – economically and mentally.

If Trump were to triple down NOW on building unity domestically, it would go a long way to stopping the shrinking of America <note: but I seriously doubt something like this is within his DNA>.

Finally.

The deal.

Negotiating.

Or the art of the deal as a leader.

It seems his single-minded pursuit of individual challenges or countries does not translate to the complex politics of … well … the EU, China, Russia, the Arab & Muslim world, or anywhere.

As a result, the “best” dealmaker is starting to look like he cannot make a deal.

Sure.

He can complete some transactions <albeit they all seem to be about getting paid to arm the rest of the world with as many weapons as possible> but transactions are not ‘deals.’ NAFTA is a deal. The TPP was a deal. We have trade deals with people. These are not “let’s make a deal for this space” but rather a more complex web of multiple variants in which over time the variants will … well … vary and yet the ultimate outcome overall is positive.

That’s not his kind of deal.

And, frankly, that’s not the kind of ‘deal’ other countries truly desire.

But Trump’s dealing and his character are so intertwined it is almost like a Gordian knot.

That matters as we discuss shrinking.

PewResearch, who makes every attempt to be unemotional and unbiased, said this in their report:

Confidence in President Trump is influenced by reactions to both his policies and his character. With regard to the former, some of his signature policy initiatives are widely opposed around the globe.

Trump’s character is also a factor in how he is viewed abroad. In the eyes of most people surveyed around the world, the White House’s new occupant is arrogant, intolerant and even dangerous. Fewer believe he is charismatic, well-qualified or cares about ordinary people.

Look.

The truth remains that the US economy, just as it was with Obama, has remained mostly healthy and Trump has not to date significantly altered any signs of the health. The end of the Obama economic era and the start of the Trump economic era represent an ongoing good, not great, economy.

This is good.

But as I noted initially … economic success is just one dimension and while a powerful dimension you can only hold on to your position for so long if that is the only ‘positive benefit’ you are offering your organization as a leader.

Trump is a myopic bully and, just as with almost every bully, I worry America will remain large in physical stature but small in everything else.

In the end.

I brought up alignment and shrinking for a reason. Alignment is a double edged sword.

Positive alignment greases progress.

Negative alignment can suffocate and squeeze.

And that is my point on the current shrinking of America.

Poll numbers showcase directional negativity which is difficult to ignore … especially since the numbers reside in both domestic and international framing.

Call it perceptions or call it reality … I don’t care.

As long as it exists America will continue to shrink.

And ignore the most recent PewResearch at your own peril because it sure as shit looks like we are shrinking.