===========

“The world is not as simple as we like to make it out to be. The outlines are often vague and it’s the details that count.

Nothing is really truly black or white and bad can be a disguise for good or beauty … and vice versa without one necessarily excluding the other.

Someone can both love and betray the object of its love … without diminishing the reality of the true feelings and value. 

Life is an uncertain adventure in a diffuse landscape whose borders are constantly shifting where all frontiers are artificial where at any moment everything can either end only to begin again … or finish suddenly forever … like an unexpected blow from an axe.  Where the only absolute, coherent, indisputable and definitive reality … is death. We have such little time when you look at Life … a tiny lightning flash between two eternal nights.

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.”

Arturo Perez Revarte

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

Vague sucks.

And, yet, I would argue the majority of people only really have some vague outline of how the world works, or how effective or ineffective a leader is, or even only have a vague outline of any specific relationship between cause & effect.

This vaguery exists because it takes a lot of work to parse the details, and the appropriate details, and the ‘right’ details to make the outlines less vague and more tangible.

Is this work valuable ? Sure.

Is this work necessary to increase some certainty in Life? Sure.

Do most people do this work? No.

The majority of people have shit to do <other than this type of work>. Generally speaking, that is neither good nor bad; it just is what it is. A lot of pseudo intellectuals and smartish pundits bitch & moan and gnash their teeth over this, but they would lead a significantly less stressful life if they just accepted it.

What this means is that in this ‘vague outline’ people inevitably create a vague/semi solid outline belief. From there they look around on occasion and question that outline. The questions raised either support the vague outline or raise doubts and inevitably some more questions. All the while this is happening more information barrages the vague outline. In this barrage is a confusing mix of real, fake and quasi truths. All these confusing things do in the people’s minds is, contrary to belief, not confuse, but rather make the person more dismissive of the incoming confusion and steadier in whatever vague outline they may have constructed.

Once again.

Generally speaking, this is neither good nor bad; it just is what it is. A lot of pseudo intellectuals and smartish pundits bitch & moan and gnash their teeth over this, but they would lead a significantly less stressful life if they just accepted it.

That said.

I will say that at some point the ‘questions I have about my vague outline’ gain some gravitas. This can happen several ways, but let me point out two:

• 1. The questions themselves coalesce into some easy to understand ‘blob’ from which people who have a vague outline decide “my vague outline is wrong <or sucks>.” Let’s say that this is the point at which the doubts and questions begin to outweigh the beliefs that created the vague outline.

• 2. Someone weaves a narrative using the doubts & questions into a relatively succinct, believable and non-hyperbolic driven framing of an outline which people look at, scratch their heads, go “hmmmmmmmmm …” and decide this new vague outline will replace the one they had in place. Oh. To be clear. This narrative must not only use the doubts & questions to dissolve the current vague outline, but must also offer an alternative vague outline <outlines need to be replaced not simply destroyed>.

The first never happens fast enough to people who just cannot understand how and why some people have decided to live with some vague outline <that just seems ‘not really a smart outline’ to them>.

The second is not as easy as it appears. It isn’t as easy because problems are rarely as clear as we would like them to be and a narrative never lives without the context of all the barrage of real, fake and quasi truths impacting and denting and solidifying a vague outline that already exists. And, to reprise the end of point 2, someone weaves a great narrative to destroy, but forgets to offer an alternative.

Simplistically, this is the story that everything has to do with everything else.

I imagine I have two points today.

First.

We humans have come to accept a certain amount of uncertainty with regard to our lives and our decisions. This uncertainty is also built into the vague outlines we tend to construct for ourselves. What this means is that the construct of our beliefs and thoughts and ideas may be certain to us and, yet, its silhouette accommodates some uncertainty.

I began today by unequivocally stating that vague sucks. And I believe 99% of people would agree that it sucks. But in today’s world the majority of people have enough shit to do that they slot their thinking thoughts time. In one slot they place unequivocal certainty type thoughts. In another slot they place the “I will always be uncertain about this shit and thank God there is someone else at some higher pay grade than I who can be certain about it.” And, lastly, we slot all the shit in which we have formed some vague outline which accommodates a certain degree of uncertainty.

My point here is we tend to make this a binary discussion where the reality lies in a more complex mix of vagueness & clarity, certainty & uncertainty.

Second.

Certainty, in and of itself, has degrees; it is not a simple black or white binary.

People can have vague outlines AND have questions with regard to their outlines and, yet, not want to ditch the outline. “How can you still believe that?” may be one of the most misguided and unenlightened questions that has ever existed.  It completely misses the point in that it assumes ignorance, stupidity or some negative trait in order to hold on to some vague outline regardless of doubts.

A vague outline is a choice.

No more and no less.

We question choices all the time and, yet, remain with the original choice despite some fairly extensive doubts. I say this because, that said, it is silly to point out doubts and questions as a reason to ditch a vague outline. My easiest example is Trump. His followers have a vague outline of what they like and believe about him. We scrutinize them for doubts and questions and when they share them we immediately pounce and suggest “then how can you still believe in your vague outline!?!” <usually said with a slight overall disbelief & wonder>.

Within their lives of doing shit that is important to them they created a vague outline of who and what Trump is, or isn’t, and … well … uncertainty was built into their certainty. The moment they will begin to disbelieve their vague outline is when the uncertainty overpowers the certainty. Until then we should stop acting confused that someone believes what they believe.

Anyway.

I love the quote I opened with even though I hate vague. The truth is that we all live with some vague outlines albeit your vague outline may actually be one of my non-vague outlines, and vice versa. And when they are in conflict then, well, there is conflict.

All that said, while vague sucks there is a reason we do it and this reason is not stupid, nor unenlightened nor ignorant.

It is just damn practical to have some vague outlines.

Life is an uncertain adventure in a diffuse landscape whose borders are constantly shifting.

I am certainly not suggesting a citizenry with ill-informed vague outlines creates a healthy society. But informed versus ill-informed is a topic for another day. For today I am suggesting the majority of people navigate Life and the complexities of the world mostly using vague outlines.

Look. Life is restless. Our vague outlines are necessary to accommodate some of its restlessness. Not recognizing that is either naive or foolish. I would also point out that if you are frustrated by someone’s vague outlines, the onus is upon you to bold the outline on whatever issue you want them to see so that, well, they can clearly see the outline of what really “is.” Just remember. There is a massive difference between vague and vague outlines. Ponder.

=======

“Memory is a crazy woman that hoards colored rags and throws away food.”

Austin O’Malley

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

“You remember too much,”

my mother said to me recently. Why hold onto all that?

And I said,

“Where can I put it down?”

Anne Carson

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

I am not sure what it is about people and the past, but … whew … the past should come up with a new name because it seems to reside in the present more than it does in the past.

Maybe we should stop referring to past regrets, memories, decisions, moments, whatevers, and simply refer to them as eternal things.

Maybe then we could just accept when they happen, in the moment, that they will be our constant companion from that day on.

Maybe then we could stop with the incredibly silly advice of “you need to let that go” or “what’s in the past is done” <as if these trite-isms will magically make the past disappear>.

I say all that because no matter how much anyone tries to convince us and coach us, and no matter how much we, personally, try to convince ourselves and coach ourselves, we cannot leave a memory, in particular, our memory behind.

Sorry. Harsh truth. We cannot really ‘put it down’ and then keep walking.

And, you know what?

That’s okay if you just frickin’ accept it rather than fight it every step of the way <investing energy every step of the way>. In fact. I could argue that if you take on this mindset, you never really leave anything behind, BUT, you actually learn how to set it aside in the appropriate moments. And, in my pea like brain, that is what matters. I honestly like my memories; even the bad ones. They make up who I am today and represent some aspects of who I was yesterday. I attain more each day and rather than discard some I have found that human memory space, unlike a thumb drive, does not have limited space. It all fits in there.

Good, bad, boring and exciting. They all fit in there.

And I like the fact that when I want to, and when it may be good and helpful to do so, I can trawl through my memory banks and think about a memory or two.

But they don’t overwhelm me nor are they constantly whispering in my ear.

I think by me accepting they are eternal they know I am not trying to kill them off so they are comfortable taking naps and long sleeps in the comfort I am not going to grab a pillow and suffocate them in their sleep.

Sure.

Sometimes they wake up and say “pay attention to me” or “well, I am awake, what are you are doing and what have you been doing while I have been sleeping?” and sometimes, just sometimes, I am glad they wake up when they do and make me pay attention to something that maybe I had stored away and forgotten. And, yeah, sometimes they wake up at inopportune moments & times and demand I pay attention to them when I would much rather prefer they would just shut up.

==========

“The past is never where you think you left it.”

Katherine Anne Porter

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

I am fairly sure you really cannot leave a memory, or the past behind. I do know for sure that if you do try and leave it, uhm, it will never stay exactly where you put it.

Huh?

Think “context.”

I may place a memory in some drawer labeled ”sad regret” only to go back at some point and find that drawer empty and open the drawer that says “empowering self-enlightenment” only to find that memory tucked in there now. Yeah. Time, context & experiences can actually move the past into different slots than where you may have left them.  I imagine in some way you are actually reinterpreting the past because of all the experiences since then.

Anyway. Here is the weird thing about ‘the past’ that maybe should make you sit & ponder a bit. The past is not some stone placed somewhere on your Life path. It actually exhibits characteristics more like a loyal pet. It will follow along sometimes slowly, sometimes fast, sometimes behind, and sometimes beside.

Look. I am not a psychologist nor am I some Life coach just an everyday schmuck who has had a shitload of experiences in Life and figured out trying to ‘leave behind’ some past memory & experience truly has a snowball’s chance in hell of working. So I figured I would try just bringing the along for the ride as I accumulate them to see how that went.

And it has worked out pretty well.

Regardless. What I do know is that your past is never where you think you have left it so you may as well bring it along. ponder.

==

“There’s nothing like eavesdropping to show you that the world outside your head is different from the world inside your head.”

Thornton Wilder

————

Well. There are a couple of things to think about with this quote.

–      What we think is not always what everyone thinks

This sounds basic. But, boy oh boy, we forget this – all the frickin’ time. In fact not only do we forget it we actually do so while remembering it.

Huh? What do I mean?

Well, c’mon, how often have you sat there and said ‘no one has been thru what I have been thru and can understand this’ or ‘no one understands how I think’ and, yet, when we look around and assess what people are doing <and thinking> we sit back and go ‘whew, I bet they’re thinking this …’

It’s kind of crazy.

It’s kind of hypocritical.

Suffice it to say whether you think you are normal or think you are abnormal what is happening inside your head is very often different than what is happening in the outside world. In other words … it is very very likely what you think is not what everyone thinks.

Next.

–      We should listen more

In business, in personal life, does not matter; we should just listen <without preconceived filters> more often.

I am fairly sure that it was Henry Miller who said “the street howls with the truth.”

Smart man.

Listen to the howls.

So let me share some observations for business.

I am an avid trend watcher, people watcher and behavior studier. I listen by watching. People give you massive cues <clues?> as to what they are thinking and why they do the things they do. You just have to listen to the music of their Life and find the beat of their individual drum. I say that because far <far> too many business people say “we need to do consumer research and hear what people say.”

Well.

You may.

But you may not have to.

In fact. Even if you do the research, if you are not a good listener, every dollar you spend on that research is wasted.

Regardless. Listening isn’t just with your ears, it is also with your nose and eyes and all your feelings.

People’s lives talk.

You may not understand the language immediately, but if you listen closely … really closely … you will understand.

Why is it so hard? Why do you have to listen so closely?

==

“I do not think I’m easy to define. I have a wandering mind.

And I’m not anything that you think I am. “

Syd Barrett

==

People are not easy to define. Most people are difficult to ‘slot.’

Yup.

Sorry about that.

I feel especially sorry for the people who think they are good at assessing people. The majority of them are, well, not. At best they are simply good judges of their own bias.

Anyway. We desperately WANT to slot and segment and cluster people because it makes it easier for us. But as soon as you do you stop listening. Yeah. That bias filter thing again.

Shit.

All I really know is that we need to listen more. There is nothing better for you than eavesdropping on the world on occasion. Ponder.

“When you say ‘yes’ to others, make sure you aren’t saying ‘no’ to yourself.”

Paulo Coelho

===

This is ‘not about saying ‘Yes” when you really should say ‘No’.

Nor is this about saying ‘No’ when you really mean to say ‘Yes”.

Heck.

This isn’t even about compromising. This is simply about saying ‘Yes” and ‘No’ and the fact it has seemed to have mysteriously disappeared in today’s business <if not in many of Life’s every day conversations>. To be clear. Haven’t you noticed how often a portion of a business discussion is succinctly brought to a close with a nice definitive ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response, yet, somehow that part of the discussion is somehow not concluded?

For some reason even if you do actually deign to take the simplicity high road and answer with a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’, well, the other person just keeps on talking. Or maybe if they want to show they have actually been listening they may say something like “are you sure?” or “wouldn’t you like me to explain?” or some other attempt to continue that particular discussion. And if you are in a group? Oh my. Forget it. You may as well keep the yes or the no in your pocket.

So.

What has happened to ‘yes’ and ‘no’?

Where have they gone in business?

Why have they lost their power to end a discussion?

Look. We tend to overcomplicate things in business. We seem to bundle up yes or no things into some conglomeration of an extended decision tree — all of which we assume must be discussed in its totality.

That said. Life would be much easier if we simply looked at each ‘yes” or ‘no’ decision in a meeting or discussion as preparation for the next opportunity or decision in a continuum of decisions. Treat the moment as mutually exclusive instead of mutually inclusive. What that ultimately suggests is maybe we shouldn’t dwell in the moment and linger upon the righteousness of the particular one syllable statement when someone makes it.

I am not suggesting that it isn’t important to be thoughtful about your decisions, but maybe we could seek to avoid becoming a victim of paralysis by analysis and ongoing discussion, when it really is not necessary, more often.

Oh.

Speaking of the ‘not necessary’ thing. I sense part of the reason yes and no are disappearing is because we believe it is necessary to discuss everything.

That leads me to yes and no and something called ‘fast and frugal decision-making.’

Two guys wrote a book suggesting that asking, at most, three ‘Yes/No’ questions is a fast and frugal strategy for making a decision < “Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart” by Gerd Gigerenzer, Peter Todd and the ABC Research Group>.

And, in fact, they actually call this theory ‘fast and frugal heuristics.’ I will net it down for you <albeit I will probably mangle some of their really smart thinking and logic>:

–          Traditional decision making theory is unrealistic <irrational> for humans <our minds are just not capable of practically applying theory>,

–          We tend to overcomplicate because we have been trained to do so,

–          We tend to overcomplicate for fear of ‘wrong decision’ rather than delight of ‘right decision’,

–          Most decisions can be made within three naturally course correcting ‘yes or no’ decision making answers.

Well. Before I share my own thoughts

About fast & frugal decision making:

It is fast because it does not involve much computation, and it is frugal because it only searches for some of the available information. Its simplicity raises the suspicion that it might be highly inaccurate, compared to standard statistical classification methods that process and combine all available predictors. Yet it is actually more accurate than some rather complex statistical classification methods (Breiman et al., 1993). This suggests that fast and frugal decision making can be as accurate as strategies that use all available information and expensive computation forms. Fast and frugal heuristics for making decisions capture how real minds make decisions under constraints of limited time and knowledge. 

The premise is that much of human reasoning and decision making can be modeled by fast and frugal heuristics that make inferences with limited time and knowledge. These heuristics do not involve much computation, and do not compute probabilities and utilities. They are models of bounded rationality.

By the way. I really like that overall thought — ‘models of bounded rationality.’ Seems like we could use a shitload more of that in today’s workplace.

Ok. They also note <in a very candid and slightly funny way> decision making theory, when applied in practical circumstances, is actually irrational. Irrational in that the human mind actually cannot accommodate the mental gymnastics to meet the theoretical computations necessary to make ‘the most effective decision:’

The fascination with what is optimal in thought and behavior does reflect a certain sense of beauty and morality. Cognitive scientists, economists, and biologists have often chased after the same beautiful dreams by building elaborate models endowing organisms with unlimited abilities to know, memorize, and compute. These heavenly dreams, however, tend to evaporate when they encounter the physical and psychological realities of the waking world. Mere mortal humans cannot hope to live up to these dreams, and instead appear irrational and dysfunctional when measured against their fantastic standards.

In addition. Most decision making theory doesn’t incorporate any time constraints. In other words: ‘this is the theory, apply it, deadlines be damned, it takes the time it needs to apply it correctly.’

Well. That all sounds not very practical <the theory stuff>. And the fast & frugal sounds so simple it almost sounds not very practical.

Yet. I actually sense most of us with any amount of business experience instinctively agrees <mostly> with a fast & frugal decision making process albeit we may apply it in a variety of succinct ‘time frugal’ methods  which are most likely not as tight as the three yes/no idea.

So why the heck don’t we do it anymore if we instinctively think it is right?

Let me try this and I will use myself to explain. Two main reasons:

1.     We have taken theory literally.

Everyone in business these days has been steeped in training over the years to question everything. It doesn’t matter your seniority or experience, if you don’t agree, you question. Heck. Even if you agree you question.

Even worse? We treat every decision equally. I say that to be kind to those who simply cannot discern what may actually be worth discussing <or discerning the important from the unimportant> . Doesn’t matter what the reason is, we seem to discuss … every … single … decision. What that means is that even if you do decide to assess the discussion and say ‘yes’ … and that’s it <in your mind>, someone will question it or simply want to discuss it.

By the way. Collaboration exponentially exacerbates this issue. In a groupthink collaborative scenario there will ALWAYS be at least one person who will disagree, want to discuss, decline to move on <add in whatever ‘d’ word you would like to in this space> and it will all happen in the name of ‘positive collaboration.’ The net result? Negative progress <translation: no forward movement and often backwards movement>.

Look. I won’t argue with all the decision making theory models. Smarter people than I have invested gobs of time and research thinking all that shit through. I will suggest in the business world, i.e., the practical world, we need to become better at not over thinking <or over questioning> and we need to become better at not treating each decision as equal to another <so possibly we need to be better at training how to discern the difference between decisions>.

Oh. That last thought.

That sounds simple and practical but we have actually been trained to do the opposite. This attitude would take a major shift in attitude. In other words — this would be very very hard to do.

2.       Skepticism

For some reason we have become quite skeptical in the work place. And by this I mean there seems to be an overall sense of ‘they aren’t really saying what they mean’ or in the questioning-everything environment maybe it is ‘what do they really mean by that?”

Well. If I was using a shitload of words I could possibly allow some skepticism, but this is about one syllable responses – yes … no. I frankly don’t see a lot of ambiguity or space to misconstrue what is actually being said. However. A respected friend made me think about this more as we discussed the topic.

Therefore rather than be hypothetical I will address this from my point of view on what everyone should know when I say yes or no:

–          I am not being lazy. I am perfectly aware that saying a simple yes or no will most likely be jarring in a discussion environment. Suffice it to say that if I have reached a point where I believe a yes or no is appropriate I fully understand the situation and the thinking behind whatever we are discussing. I have gathered enough information either prior to the discussion, within the discussion to that point or in my head from past experiences and knowledge to assess and decide.  Most likely I have decided that in the scheme of things our time would be better spent discussing another decision rather than this one.

In other words I have been anything but lazy. Oh. And even if I have not been lazy and I have misread the discussion up to this point I imagine everything can be course corrected as we move on or … I have forfeited my right to move it along that path.

–          I mean it. I promise. I mean it. You don’t have to explain anything else or question motives or discuss what has been agreed upon any more.

Accept it.

I mean it.

And let’s move on.

I imagine the few words of explanation I just shared will not resolve a global work place skepticism attitude but, what the heck, ‘one small step possibly begets one giant leap for workplace mankind.’

Anyway. Suffice it to say saying yes or no is good and we should be doing it more often in the work place.

I know that sounds so silly you may be wondering why I typed it, but sometimes the most simple things are overlooked.

Ok. A couple last thoughts.

This yes or no thing. You just have to have a clear sense of  objectives, commitments and priorities.  If you don’t have a handle on all that then a yes or no will not only truly be lazy thinking it may actually be a misguided response. That is what makes this tricky. And it’s often easier for everyone <and I mean everyone> to discuss things <so everyone can discuss, and re-discuss, the objectives, commitments and priorities — until your head explodes>.

Yeah. I know. All that ‘over-discussion’ sounds a little wacky in a semi chaotic time constrained business world, but I imagine discussion leads to being more well-liked <and some perception of ‘team player’ and such>.

But we all need to keep in mind. Each day in the workplace we are forced to examine millions of little decisions that inevitably make up what business is all about while we, ourselves, make something like 30,000 decisions in a day. This constant scrutiny of hundreds of possible outcomes for every decision you make will drive you nuts. And the constant discussion will use up more time than is useful.

In the end <here is what I believe>.

Business needs to be more diligent with regard to the importance of good decision-making.

While business is certainly ultimately the sum of the decisions made … it makes sense to recognize it is often not as difficult as we often make it. Each decision is not business altering nor life threatening. In fact … most are not. In addition … most decisions are just not that complicated or complex.

In fact <simplistically> I would argue all things basically come down to one basic decision between two choices – ‘Yes” or ‘No’. Ponder.

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

“The modern spirit is a hesitant one.  Spontaneity has given way to cautious legalisms, and the age of heroes has been superseded by a cult of specialization.

We have no more giants; only obedient ants.”

Roger Lowenstein

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

Doing the right thing is a basic innate instinct.

We are all born with it.

We all embrace it.

We all actually enjoy doing it.

And, yet, it seems like more and more we are hesitating to do it. Where it once was a spontaneous unthinking everyday behavior, it is now becoming a more conscious decision making process.

Society has created this situation.

This is not an individual behavior driven situation <although the individual can certainly make a choice to go against society>. As I said upfront, left to our own devices most people will do the right thing.

How can I be sure of this?

Well. Attitudes with regard to desire to do the right thing have not changed. The attitude today remains the same as it did yesterday and the day before. In other words the spirit of goodness remains, but something is making the spirit hesitate.

Now.

To be clear. Today I am discussing ‘hesitation.’

This isn’t about not knowing what the right thing to do is nor is it about the choice itself. This is all about the moment before the moment. The moment in which your instinct kicks in, you can almost feel yourself moving or getting ready to speak and, yet, you hesitate.

Why do I think we hesitate <when our instincts tell us otherwise>?

Suffice it to say we have become a maniacally litigious society combined with a relentlessly unforgiving society.

Individual words, a slip of the tongue as it were, can lead to a law suit, being fired or even having your entire character destroyed online. In other words, society is screwing us up.

Shit.

Who wouldn’t hesitate knowing that?

This hesitation costs us, as individuals and as a culture, an exorbitant cost. It diminishes not only the random act of kindness but, in the business workplace, diminishes ethical behavior. And it diminishes in a slightly insidious way.

Insidious?

Yeah.

It’s not that in our hesitation we decide to do the wrong thing, but rather in our silence the ‘less than the right things’ steps in and assumes control.

Oh.

Please note that I purposefully say ‘diminish.’

I am certainly not going to suggest that this societal driven hesitation eliminates doing the right thing. That would be silly.

That would suggest the spirit to do the right thing, to be good, can actually be extinguished. I do not believe that is possible.

Spirit can be dampened, it can be smothered, it can be diminished, but it cannot be expunged from who and what we are as humans.

Now. Maybe even worse than the diminishing effect?

It creates ants … not giants.

Ok.

Maybe worse?

It creates situations in which deserving giants receive undeserved criticism and are cut down in the attempt to make them ant sized so the ants can assume more power than they deserve.

My point today?

We should all be giants.

All of us.

Giants of the spirit of what is right and doing what is right and kindness and generosity and integrity. And we should be giants every day, every hour and every minute. And we should have the right to feel like a giant when doing so.

Society is stealing our opportunity to our rightful place as a giant.

I believe we are in an age of heroes where society encourages less than heroic everyday behavior.

I believe we are in an age of giants where society encourages us to be ants.

I believe the modern spirit is not naturally a hesitant one.

I believe we are in an age where doing the right thing should be demanded … in Life & in business.

I believe we are in an age where we should be seeking to eliminate divisiveness, eliminate restrictions on ‘right behavior’ and eliminate the … well … hesitation of the spirit to do the right things.

Ponder.

=======
“The trick is in what one emphasizes.
We either make ourselves miserable, or we make ourselves happy.
The amount of work is the same.”
Carlos Castaneda
==============

“That’s the thing about pain.  It demands to be felt”
John Green
=============

“Anyway, I wanted to end this on a hopeful, positive note, but, seeing as how my sense of hope and positivity is still shrouded in a thick layer of feeling like hope and positivity are bullshit,
I’ll just say this: Nobody can guarantee that it’s going to be okay, but — and I don’t know if this will be comforting to anyone else — the possibility exists that there’s a piece of corn on a floor somewhere that will make you just as confused about why you are laughing as you have ever been about why you are depressed.
And even if everything still seems like hopeless bullshit, maybe it’s just pointless bullshit or weird bullshit or possibly not even bullshit.
I don’t know.
But when you’re concerned that the miserable, boring wasteland in front of you might stretch all the way into forever, not knowing feels strangely hope-like.”
Allie Brosh
==================

I have written about attention as currency , how time is elastic (but important & finite), social media distractions and even focus. All of them are partially right and partially wrong when it comes to emphasis and its demands on us. I say partially because all make demands on us at the same time. So, parsing them out one by one is an excellent exercise, but also slightly disingenuous to reality.
Suffice it to say that Life, in & of itself, is demanding.

Well. Suffice it to say that whatever we emphasize has a nasty habit of demanding attention.
And, more often than not, in our analyzing of ourselves and what is around us we emphasize the ‘less than’, the ‘imperfections’ and the pain.

They all demand to be felt.

In other words. Many things in life demand to be felt. And maybe it is because of that we numb ourselves to as many things as possible figuring it is the only way to manage our way thru the onslaught of things demanding and demanding and demanding. Pay enough attention, or give them enough emphasis, and the clamor of their cries for attention seems deafening if you listen too closely.

Regardless. I imagine it depends on what one emphasizes.

Now. Here is where I will leave the beaten path in the discussion.

There is gobs of information and advice on how to selectively focus on the right things at the right time. Smart people, Warren Buffett , Shane Parrish, etc. have weighed in on this topic and they offer some great thoughts. But. Here’s the deal. Life for most of us every day schmucks doesn’t work like ‘selective focus.’ Oh sure, we may try. But the truth is life demands to be felt, even the shit you have elected to not focus on.
So therefore, it comes down to emphasis, not choice.

====
“Not in the clamor of the crowded street, not in the shouts and applause of the many, but in ourselves, are triumph and defeat.”

Longfellow
===============

Personally I believe most of the advice ‘expert’ books/articles give people about focus/emphasis is absurd, if not impractically nuts. I’m not opposed to encouraging focus nor do I dispel the notion that one can improve focus, but, for the most part, most advice ignores how Life demands attention. What I mean by that is most advice isolates a decision/choice and suggests you:

A. Tune out the unnecessary/unhelpful, and
B. Tune in on the specific contextual variables which are necessary/helpful.

Conceptually fabulous. Reality-wise absurd.

Here are 3 reasons why it is absurd:

1. Life never stops. If you stop you inevitably have to catch up and, well, the doom loop of onslaught of the demands increases. In other words, what the experts neglect to share with you is that there is a price to pay for selective focus.
Emphasis is a moving target and you must focus on the move.

2. Life never stops demanding attention. Selective focus is risky. The demands Life will put upon you do not cease simply because you have decided to focus on something or decide what you want to emphasize.
Often emphasis is managing some things while focusing on something else. That’s the gig.

3. Life never stops offering demands OUT OF SEQUENCE. Life is not orderly. It may not be totally random, but its rarely consistent other than through its overall consistency of demands.
Life is like a restaurant with odd little waiters bringing things you don’t always like.

—————————
“Fate is like a strange, unpopular restaurant filled with odd little waiters who bring you things you never asked for and don’t always like.”
Lemony Snicket
————————————

None of what I just shared should suggest you shouldn’t seek to emphasize some things versus others. In fact. I tend to believe if you don’t figure out what to emphasize you will, well, just become numb. This is where life is particularly unforgiving. If you do not choose, Life will choose to bludgeon you day in and day out with things demanding your attention … and pain.

That is unsustainable. For anyone.

Make some choices. Choose things to emphasize over others. You may not always get it right, but my own experience suggests even your poor choices, while painful, are survivable. And maybe that’s my point. Life demand to be felt. If you do not choose what to emphasize and Life emphasizes everything, I fear that is not survivable. Ponder.

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

“I don’t think any madman ever said ‘Why, what an ass am I!’ “

BBC discussion on Hamlet

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

Well, fortune favors the brave, sir.”

“I think that last night, fortune was merely inclined to favour the least incompetent.”

Richard Woodman

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

Ok.

Success can be a, well, a deceitful sonuvabitch.

Winning can be a, well, a deceitful sonuvabitch.

Oh. As a result. Madmen who have had some success or wins can be, well, real sonuvabitches <asses>.

Regardless. Success and winning can be deceitful because it makes madmen not recognize what asses they are or how incompetent the incompetent are. Suffice it to say I have worked in businesses for over 25 years and I have never heard one of the random madmen I have come across admit they were an ass and I have rarely ever heard an incompetent ‘winner’ suggest they were simply the least incompetent that day <or any day that matter>.

Success has that effect on people.

But maybe the most dangerous effect is, for many people, once you have had some any loss seems like a threat to, well, survival. Or, as Clausewitz said:

…victory leads easily to overextension, which leads to defeat.

Uh oh. Defeat is not an option <to madmen & incompetents>. Business people in survival mode tend to shed themselves of any ability to rationally adapt as well as any ability to navigate the ‘unknowns’ inherent to any business world. Instead, most shift into a more desperate effort to fling themselves into any possible path to the next victory.

Ok. Survival may sound extreme, but I cannot think of a better word. Suffice it to say that winners think it is a life or death scenario and losing is all about a part of them dying. The ‘part of them’ may partially be confidence but, what the hell, that is a pretty significant part.

Anyway. Success or failure I do know one thing. Madmen will never say what an ass they are and incompetent people will always believe fortune favors the brave. Unfortunately, that suggests they are unchangeable.

Look. That alone isn’t so weird <or damning>. In general none of us are particularly good at changing <particularly in their business style & character & skills within business>. And THAT is important because far too many try to change themselves in order to ‘be a winner.’ I am fairly sure it was Peter Drucker who suggested it is significantly more effective to improve upon the way you perform – how you already do what you do <rather than try to fix the bad things you do>.

Uh oh. This means <gulp> madmen become more asshole-ish and the incompetent double down on their incompetence. If the mad and the incompetent seek some solace, I would note that most people do not really know shit about how they actually get things done.

Shit.

Most of us have no clue how other people do their voodoo <get things done>.

Shit. Most of us don’t really know what we are good at.

Shit. Even worse, most of us misjudge our strengths.

Shit. Even worser <I made that word up>, most of us who have had some success are even worse at misjudging their strengths.

Shit. The truth is more people actually know what they suck at <not good at>. Oh shit. But even then most people don’t get that exactly right. Holy shit. Suffice it to say we suck at judging ourselves. With all that self-assessment suckedness what do we do? Well, particularly in today’s world, you go the easy path — you simplistically judge off of outcomes/results <the successes & wins> avoiding any interest in scrutinizing any of the details of how you achieved the outcome.

In fact the details of our success becomes so unimportant in the scheme of things we create a mosh pit of all positive things which COULD have contributed to how good we were in that success. It is a crazy mix of ethics, values & integrity <inextricably tied to the results rather than the process embraced to gain the results> blended with a good amount of curiosity & perseverance & resilience <against the negative tides pushing against our inevitable deserved success> all sprinkled with the necessary “team player” <‘I thrive when I work closely with others’>.

Unfortunately, most of that self-reasoning is bullshit. The truth is this mosh pit simply cloaks incompetence, mistakes, errors in judgement and whatever ‘not-so-good shit’ <being a madman> by painting a positive coat of ‘something’ over them <”we weren’t as efficient because I wanted the team involved” or “we pursued this idea out of planned curiosity only to judge it was not the best path” … crap like that>.

Oh shit. This gets worse. Winning tends to concentrate one on doing more of what they perceived they had done to succeed rather than invest any energy on cultivating any additional skills, needs or improvements.

======================== 

“it takes far more energy to improve from incompetence to mediocrity than  to improve from first-rate performance to excellence.”

Peter Drucker

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

What makes that even worse is that translates into madmen concentrating more on ass–like things and incompetents focusing more whatever bumbling they had done.

Anyway. I have found <without any research> people fall into two buckets on this topic – those who focus on the win and those who focus on improvement. I would suggest the madmen and oblivious incompetent fall in the former bucket and the truly sane business people, with a chance of actually being good, fall into the latter bucket.

I say that because any pivot points in progress tend to become more obvious in reflection than in the actual ‘living’ within the moment.

Therefore, if all I do is focus on the win I will reflect with little true critiquing and most likely remain a madman and incompetent <this is actually called ‘objective blindness’>.

Therefore, if all I do is be slightly perpetually dissatisfied with my performance and critique, in a healthy way, I will most likely increase my competency and have progress.

The former says “fortune favors the brave.” Always.

The latter says “fortune was merely inclined to favor the least incompetent.” At least on occasion.

Lastly. I would suggest that madmen and the incompetent have one thing in common — lack of meaningful convictions <beyond success at any cost>.

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

“Convictions are not like gloves; one cannot easily change them.” …

General Petr Grigorevich

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

Well. “Convictions are not like gloves.” There is a keeper of a thought. Madmen and incompetents are incredibly good at treating convictions like gloves.

Shit. Their convictions are more like chameleons.

I end there because I wish more of us in the business world would keep all of this in mind. Especially the madmen, who are asses, and the incompetent <who win more often than they would like to admit … despite their incompetence>.

Sometimes you can be an ass and it is <generally> okay if you are aware enough to sit back and say “what an ass am I!”

Sometimes you can be an incompetent and its <generally> okay if you are aware enough to sit back and say “fortune was merely inclined to favour the least incompetent this time.”

Who am I kidding? No madman has ever said “what an ass am I!” and no incompetent has ever said “fortune was merely inclined to favour the least incompetent this time.”

That’s only the kind of things we, the normal business people, do. Ponder.

——

“I had hoped to be disliked by most, not by way of rebellion, but by way of excellence, disdain for the habitual, and the common man’s inability to grasp this.

The act of being scorned?

I saw it as a victory, my irreverent boast against this world which could never fully quench me.”

Coco J. Ginger

——–

Well. I don’t know who Coco is, but this description on her blog is fabulous. And ‘my irreverent boast against this world which could never fully quench me’ may be one of the best thoughts I have read in years.

Regardless. While this is certainly a Life thought, her thought inevitably should resonate with thinkers, writers & bloggers everywhere.

Writers have to live with the words they write.

Once shared they can never be erased.

Thinkers have to live with the ideas they share.

Once shared they can never be replaced.

Why is that so important?

Well.

Couple of thoughts.

First. Most of us play it safe.

It isn’t really political correctness, or fear, it is simply because most of us are … well … common. That’s not any kind of criticism against anyone, it just simply ‘is.’ Most of us are pretty common in our beliefs and shared thoughts. What this means is that if any of us common people have a slightly uncommon thought, idea, or something to write it feels a bit unsafe. And it is (to us). That is not an indictment on any of us nor am I going to suggest the trite ‘step out of your comfort zone’ or any fortune cookie life wisdom. Living with something that can never be replaced should demand some thoughtfulness and if you elect to play it safe, it is your choice and not someone else’s.

Second. The passionate people, and people under stress I imagine, say things now that they regret later.

This happens a lot because we live in the moment and it is a reflection of how you feel in the moment.

And, you know what? … that is okay. Because we change moment to moment, circumstance to circumstance, and having the ability to articulate that moment is a gift. I would note that most of these people don’t say what they say to be rebellious they simply say it because they feel it at that moment. I would also note the great ones say it in a way that spans generations of moments.

Now. All that said.

Words, once inscribed, never change.

Sharing words that showing disdain for the habitual?

Sharing words that show irreverent boast against a world that can never fully quench me?

Personally, I often use “I have a lover’s quarrel with the world.” Compared to “a world that can never fully quench me” it sounds less than. It sounds combative rather than hopeful. I imagine it is a reflection of the fact I see the world as full but imperfect and I seek to change it. A world that cannot fully quench me is one that has no boundaries. She sees a horizon I cannot imagine but could only dream of.

I wish I had written this thought.

It is spectacular.

But I imagine I couldn’t.

For she also wrote this about herself:

—–

“I am torn open, unabridged, hot and a bit crazy inside.

This is the feeling which belongs to me, she has always been mine.”

Coco J. Ginger

—–

I chuckled. She is as Kerouac said “… the ones mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time.”

We need people like this to stretch us all. We may dislike people like this because they make us feel a bit uncomfortable in their desire to remake a world in their vision, but these people have purposefully chosen a path that many of us not only didn’t choose to walk, but we also could not walk it. Yeah. I just said that. Some people have this dna and some do not. And that is okay. Just as I pointed out in ‘play it safe’, you make choices with regard to your own life, someone else does not.

If you would like to visit her blog, it is called Courting Madness.

Her poetry is interesting. Her writing has flashes of brilliance. And, for the most part, she is sparing with words but never sparing on thought. But, most importantly, she is one of those people who know words and ideas shared can never be replaced within a world which can never quench them.

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

I used to tell people we use research to INFORM decisions and not MAKE decisions.

Then.

I told people we use numbers to INFORM decisions and not MAKE decisions.

Then.

I told people we use data to INFORM decisions and not MAKE decisions.

Now.

I tell people we use algorithms to INFORM decisions and not MAKE decisions.

Me

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

“An idea of working based on three pillars: science, insight and faith. Science because I’m a social scientist by training. I believe in data, robustness of information, making sure you’re on the right track. Insight because if you’re not able to draw insights from research, you’re not a strategist, just someone observing the data. And faith because you never know what’s going to work, so you always need a bit of faith to get everyone started.”

Laura Chiavone

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

I believe great companies have one common infrastructure characteristic: culture. Good companies can be grounded in systems, processes, operations, etc, however, the step up to ‘great’ demands a culture (which is always implemented by people) to elevate the ‘infrastructure aspects. To be clear. “Culture” is not some ‘thing’, or values, or some nebulous feeling, it is an emergent consequence of how people interact with each other within a business. It is not what someone does or doesn’t do, it is what happens when people do things with each other. I thought of this because Mike Walsh has a new book, The Algorithm Leader, which suggests that the most successful companies of the future will support/augment/enhance that culture infrastructure – with algorithms. Now. Before anyone defaults into thinking this translates into “empty soul, technology order taker” company, or even holocracy (ponder how polar opposites could be relevant to the algorithm topic), let me share some thoughts on how I believe the thinking suggests structural value creation lift: for business & humans. To me this will occur through a balance of stability (knowledge infrastructure), uncertainty (quests versus missions) & understanding of Antifragility (selective redundancy maximizing untidy opportunities).

Let me pose some thoughts on the relationship between algorithms and antifragility upfront.

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

“It is optionality that makes things work & grow.” AntiFragile

Maybe algorithms shouldn’t provide answers, but options. Maybe, more importantly, we become a little less comfortable with the need for construct and more comfortable with using algorithms as dynamic application of ‘movable construct’ at the right time & place.

“The antifragility of some comes necessarily at the fragility of others. In a system the sacrifice of some units – fragile units or people – are often necessary for the well-being of other units or the whole.” AntiFragile

Maybe algorithms should evaluate tradeoffs, fragility versus antifragility & well-being factors (of units & whole).

“The crux of complex systems , those with interacting parts, is that they convey information to these component parts through stressors.” AntiFragile

Maybe algorithms should not highlight solutions, but rather stressors or what Donella Meadows called ‘leverage points.’.

“There is a category of things that we can call half invented, and taking the half invented into the invented is often the real breakthrough.” AntiFragile

Maybe algorithms shouldn’t seek new innovations but rather ‘half invented’ ideas ripe for innovation maturity.

“Meaningful progress is non-linear.” How To Lead a Quest

Algorithms should enable an organization to identify progress paths to explore and discover rather than simply meet the needs of present identified ‘paths’ of progress or solve present identified issues & vulnerabilities.

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

Full disclosure on my business beliefs. Throughout my career I have always felt comfortable by making the less certain decisions just certain enough that someone would go “well, it seems riskier, but, if you own it, go do it.” I say all that because I believe all Future of Work discussion should be grounded on the relationship between certainty & uncertainty – for the business, the people within the business organization and people’s minds/attitudes.

Algorithm leadership.

Most people want certainty therefore they let research make decisions, use numbers to make decisions, show data to make decisions and, increasingly, will suggest algorithms make decisions.

This is just a different type of efficiency couched in efficient operations. It will be called “efficient decision making.” The problem is this efficiency is just an attempt to strip a decision of uncertainty and, well, the best, most effective; decisions always carry along some burden of uncertainty.

What made me think about this? I just finished rereading AntiFragile (Nassim Taleb) and reread Mike Walsh’s first chapter of his new book The Algorithm Leader.

The former is about figuring out how to maximize from disorder or uncertainty while the latter is not becoming too dependent upon seemingly ‘certainty.’

—

“The future of companies, regardless of size, will be shaped by algorithms.”

Mike Walsh

—

Ultimately, it will be humans who use the shapes created by algorithms to assess options, evaluate antifragile components and navigate asymmetrical uncertainty.

It within this dynamic environment in which we should note business is inherently fragile. HBR once said “business is a quivering mass of vulnerabilities.” I say that because as a pendulum swings one way it will inevitably want to swing the other way. We inherently feel the fragile pendulum swing and start seeking to build ‘un-natural’ antifragile aspects to create a sense of antifragility. Aspects like systems, process, rules, KPIs, data/dashboards and, yes, algorithms. Depending on how fragile we see, or feel, the business to be the more likely we use the created mechanisms to ‘tell us what to do.’ We must fight against those instincts.

Frankly, this is where generations DO become relevant in discussing business. Older workers, 50somethings, can be an impediment by seeing past experience as ‘certainty’ . On the other hand, some 50somethings can actually be a bridge between some certainty-type learnings and younger people who are more comfortable with disorder (but they don’t necessarily have the expertise do discern the best bridges between certainty & uncertainty).

Here is what I do know. Business people inherently abhor risk, business organizations inherently gravitate toward the ‘safest’ and numbers, research, data & algorithms look like life rafts in a risky, safe seeking business world. That said. I also know progress is rarely found without some risk and is often found on ‘not-the-safest’ path. Algorithms create a false sense of ‘right thing to do.’ any leader who leans on algorithms too much isn’t leading. Period.

Uncertainty leadership.

For this I lean in on How to Lead a Quest by Dr. Jason Fox. In times of uncertainty a business does not need business ‘heroes’ but rather people aligned on a quest and leaders who embrace the uncertainty of a complex interconnected multi-dimensional business world.

—-

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

Indira Ghandi

—-

Contrary to popular belief I would suggest a highly successful algorithmic leader is likely a 50something who has navigated research, then data, the ‘dictating’ decisions challenge gauntlet, & who were more likely to see how seemingly unrelated disparate fragments could be coalesced into decisions and futures that the numbers/data didn’t completely support, but also did not completely discount. That was a long winded way to introduce the idea of “data decipherers”. This type of leadership invaluable to an organization more & more steeped in numbers, dashboards, data & algorithms.

Jason Fox calls this “shining a light on the path before us.” Leadership will not use algorithms for ‘squinting into the future but rather to identify the stepping stones in a sea of uncertainty. They will offer people moments of some certainty without promising a certain future nor even promising steady progress organizationally. It will be more about uncovering options, making choices to alleviate stressors, so that teams can breakthrough while others provide the organization with the redundancies to protect an organization from uncertainty vulnerabilities.

Here is what I do know. Psychologically businesses will arc toward a belief algorithms will provide an increased tidiness and symmetry to business. that is a false sense of tidiness. Business will become increasingly untidy, the paths will become increasingly complex, therefore business will become increasingly uncertain with regard to the best, and proper steps, necessary for progress. Pragmatically business will need more, and better, leadership comfortable with uncertainty despite more numbers, data and algorithms.

Antifragile leadership.

Crisis, disaster resolution is rarely about resources available, but rather people* availability.

• * ‘people availability’: this is all of physical energy, skills and mental energy combined.

Here I lean in Taleb’s AntiFragile. We tend to build redundancies incorrectly, don’t assume for disorder well & only enhance fragility in plans. We too often see AntiFragile as a “leadership concept” when in reality it is best absorbed by agile/adaptable teams.

Risk management almost always solely focuses on resources necessary to sustain, and manage, foreseen crisis. As Taleb points out the largest flaw in that is most crisis do not look similar to ones on the past (they will have similarities but still be unique). In addition. Most organizations build in redundancy safety nets as, well, a net.  Because we dislike fragility so much we start building in antifragile everywhere. We tend to think of leadership as “what if” redundancy design. Antifragile leadership should be more ‘aligning resources to meet different scenarios.” Some people would call this ‘agile.’ I would not. I would simply call this pivoting (I am old school) based on the Law of the Situation. Great businesses have always been able to pivot to meet market challenges and opportunities. This is pivoting – no more, no less.

This is where I would view using algorithms a little differently than other people. Algorithms tend to look at opportunities when I believe they could be better used to identify stress points and stressors. Most good leaders are best as problems solvers or maybe better said “removers of obstacles to opportunistic behavior.’ (that doesn’t mean they don’t optimize existing operations/situations just that where good leaders get paid the big bucks is getting moments/situations unstuck). I would also argue identifying stressors permits smarter experimenting and tinkering.

Here is what I do know. Algorithms, used properly, permit people to stop just optimizing for the present and start attempting to optimizing the future. Yes. It may mean being less efficient in the short term (sometimes), but, done well, will create a more effective long term construct.

Conclusion:

I think the smart businesses of the future will be “directed to act” by algorithms, but not managed by. The latter demands acceptance of algorithm as qualified to make us to do something behaviorally, the former demands we accept algorithms as something that ‘informs’ our doing. Somewhere in between is the decision of how much we, people, are accountable for thinking. Algorithms inherently encourage us to believe business is not best when it is random. Yet. The best businesses resist the urge to suppress randomness and permit people to be more accountable for some untidy decisions with some untidy outcomes.

All businesses will exist, in some form or fashion, grounded in algorithms. I am fairly sure that’s a given. The challenge will be to not get consumed by algorithms.

To realize algorithms do not give answers, but outline options.

To realize algorithms don’t define redundancies, but rather where and when to apply redundancy resources (therefore help to define how to create proper redundancies).

To realize algorithms don’t necessarily create innovation opportunities but rather find opportunities to ‘reinvent’ ideas.

And.

To realize algorithms will not replace people, but rather augment minds and skills OF people. Ponder.

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

“The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.”

–

Albert Einstein

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

“We need timeless principles to steer by in running our organizations and building our personal careers. We need high standards — the ethics of excellence.”

 –

Price Pritchett

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

Ethics are our morals in action. Ethical behavior is the system we develop framed within our moral code. Our moral code, or our morals, are a system of beliefs emergent from our values. Values are the foundation of our ‘right/wrong judgement’ which create some belief system. This is personal, an individual decision, not universally accepted.

“values are our measures of importance, whereas ethics represent our judgments about right and wrong”

(Shockley-Zalabak 1999, p. 438)

It may seem like I am parsing thought here, however, in the business world all the words get tossed around flippantly (interchangeably) – particularly when it comes to culture. It is important because culture is emergent, not dictated. Culture is a collection of individuals, with individual values, who act in a coherent behavioral fashion, within an organization (where the systems enable or suffocate the individual behavior). I say this because this is when “principles” comes into play. Principles encourage a specific coherence not by dictating but rather by establishing some common agreement. In other words, despite each person having their own value prioritization, the organization establishes its value prioritization (establishing not what to do, but what not to do).

Look. Here is a truth.

We don’t really like to admit it but Life, in general, more resembles a constant teetering on the edge of a slippery slope than anything else (especially with regard to ethics, i.e., “doing the right thing.”). Life, and business, constantly, relentlessly forces you to make, well, ethical choices. Now. They may not look like ethical choices, but if you look real closely you will see the face of ‘right or wrong’ staring at you wagging its finger. We don’t look that closely because it would force us to admit:

• Right & wrong is often contextual
• Right & wrong is often not a clear black or white
• Right & wrong is often measured, ultimately, in consequences not actions, yet, we are demanded to choose right or wrong and act now

You will most associate this constant teetering (also a recognition of being on the slippery slope of fading ethics) as “just this once” behavior. We don’t really like to admit it because ‘just this once’ tends to be used to explain away some of our more dubious behavior and decisions.

This ‘dubiousness’ gets couched in a variety of ways. Safety. Utility. Benefits (functional and ‘to me’). We find a lot of ways to justify our behavior, decisions and attitudes before we ladder up to ethics. As my friend Faris Yakob (see image) suggests it is almost a Maslow-ian decision model. Its not that we ignore ethics or even not care about ethics its just we prioritize a number of things before we get to ethics. This suggests ethics is not a foundation from which decisions emerge, but rather are a final, fairly wide, box in which a decision has to be checked against.

source: Faris Yakob

If that is true, then ethical fading is commonplace, yet, justified by ‘pragmatism’ criteria. I bring up pragmatism because, whether we admit it or not, unless you actually think about ethics, morals and values (in a non-meta philosophical way) then it becomes a little more difficult to understand how principles can play a fairly important pragmatic guardrail role. The truth is that ethics are constantly challenged, in context, by safety and utility. For example, would we steal to feed our children or lie to keep us safe.

Sound moral judgment is rooted in strong values and acted upon by our ethics. An organizational judgement, a collection of these individuals, is herded in common principles.

Principles, yes, before you despair, principles guard against ethical fading. Principles are the cornerstones of your ethical building. Without principles you have no solid ground to stand on in a world constantly trying to tip you over into a variety of holes, slippery slopes and dead-end tunnels.

‘Principle’ is defined in Nuttall’s Concise Standard Dictionary of the English Language as, “n. the source or origin of anything; a general truth or law comprehending many subordinate ones; tenet or doctrine; a settled law or rule of action; to impress with any tenet; to establish firmly in the mind.”

Principles protect, in a very fragile way, against ethical fading.

They do so in a number of ways

1. They establish a foundation, or a moral filter, for ethical behavior. Maybe call them the ground rules of how you assess what is right versus wrong
2. Unfortunately, the foundation is a framework not a “how to do” manual. Therefore upfront they help define exceptions to the ground rules and, yes, we will always find some exceptions. Some ‘blurring’ of the guardrails as it were.
3. Unfortunately (part 2), this blurring, while not always creating ‘just this once’ behavior, it CAN create just this once behavior which is, well, the slippery slope of ethical fading. In this situation principles can actually be the solid lily pads of ‘no more’ certainty from which one can stop the slide down the slippery slope of ethical fading.
4. Unfortunately (part 3), principles, while resilient, are not immortal. Facing the onslaught of ethical fading they can, well, fade and once they have made their last stand you are screwed. You are on the slope and the only question left to answer is how far down the slope you end up.

So, despite their fragility, let me talk about principles.

“The most important ingredient we put into any relationship is not what we say or what we do, but what we are. And if our words and our actions come from superficial human relations techniques (the Personality Ethic) rather than from our own inner core (the Character Ethic), others will sense that duplicity. We simply won’t be able to create and sustain the foundation necessary for effective interdependence.”

Stephen R. Covey

To me principles revolve around a discussion of soul (selling your soul ). Some people may disagree with me but, to me, soul represents the intersection of I & We. It gives us life energy (call it our subconscious passion). It what joins us together with an external shared common vision – kind of our common value proposition for Life. It creates a connective tissue for, well, acting in a humane fashion with other humans. It is within this intersection in which we seek the common ground between morals, ethics and value and arrive at a coherent principled behavior as a community or business organization.

Let me suggest 4 cornerstone principles (not ranked, just foundational):

• Inviting culture premised on affection for humanity. Lives are to be lived for others (therein lies where we gain meaning), not just for our own success and advancement. We must model lives that matter if we want to nurture into living lives that matter. We believe that we are not islands unto ourselves but social beings who need community to flourish and become our best selves. Believing you are in, and of, community.
• Commitment to character demands involving oneself into multiple traditions and frameworks for what makes up a good life (contextually expanding your view). This means accepting a responsibility to pose questions which introduce one to a variety of cultures and contextual questioning.

Believing that character takes involvement & commitment & work.

• Do good. I imagine I am suggesting that if you do good you will contribute in a meaningful way (some call this a purposeful life). We must simply follow Aristotle’s advice, or Emerson, that “the purpose of our examination is not to know what virtue is, but to become good.” The point is not merely to study the good, in a detached and academic way, but to invite oneself to develop as a person of character.

Believing that a virtuous life is not found in attitude, but behavior & actions.

• Be curious about everyone and everything. Keep your head in a swivel as context changes. Exhibit a dedication, imagination and commitment to context as the fertile ground for intellectual growth, knowledge and ethical resilience. Ethical resilience is NOT rigid ethics, but rather strongly held principles which can accommodate the nuances of cultural context (reflective of cultures surrounding the person and decision). This principle, in particular, does not dictate character, but is intended to provide a compass to help each person find their own path and to grow in their awareness of self (and others).

Believing principles are not steadfast and unmoving but rather depending on adapting to new learning.

I will note that all the Principles are solid in belief but adaptable to time, knowledge and context. This is a recognition that we, humans, are not of self but rather of something bigger – society, community, connectivity.

Yes. This suggests Principles are not simple, but complex.

This leads me to leadership.

Leadership can be of one’s own life or it can be in combination with other people. Regardless, someone must develop some skills for successful leadership – for self or for group.

The first is the mindset that leaders see leadership as a skill that needs to be continually developed and improved (active listening, giving feedback, talking to people).

The second is a recognition that certain things happen under the surface and have a significant impact on the performance of the team, such as interpersonal dynamics, the way individuals work, disputes and tension between people (typically originating from the past). Leaders have to have the skills to bring these things to the surface and resolve them.

** note: this is also true of self and inner conflict

The third is power and inclusion. Power dynamics effect any social structure (you are misguided if you don’t believe this). You have to recognize, and acknowledge, power dynamics in order to be inclusive, empathetic and create complete connections. If you elect to ignore the relationship between power and ethical behavior, i.e., how power stresses individual values prioritization and behavior toward goals, you will ignore the truth that the more power you need, the more likely ethical fading is to occur.

That said. In old structures (hierarchy) power can be directed, but in future organizations power emerges (networks evolve) and leadership is expanding potential from emergent power dynamics. This will demand a different type of character. This type of character navigates the I, we, larger We dynamics of an interconnected life, business & society.

“Character, like oxygen, is most noticeable when it is missing.”

Richard Reeves

The new powerful leadership will not lead with power, but rather principled driven energy and instead of just accumulating wealth/profits/achievements, seek to accumulate outcomes to be proud of.

Look.

These are very strange times. I would not say it’s the worst of times, but it seems to be a world that demands binary, black & white stances despite the fact navigating ambiguity and uncertainty is the path to not only success, but progress. What I can say is that holding onto something in a black and white way in a world of swirling colors, and grays, creates an ongoing sense of uncomfortableness. Maybe worse is attempting to hold onto binaries you will slide down the slippery slope of ethical fading without even noticing until its too late.

And maybe that is where I will end. You would think ethical fading would be associated with gray and the graying of morals and choices, but its not. Ethical fading occurs one black & white step at a time.

In the end.

We often speak of “principled leadership” or desiring leaders to have principles. I would argue each of us, to be successful, need to grapple with our own relationship between values, ethics and principles. Because, in the end, while we may be grounded in our values and measured by our ethical behavior what will matter will be the principles which make all of these decisions coherent to our Life – what we will, or will not, do. Yes. Refusal of “ethical fading” suggests “we are what we refuse to do” or, as Paul Chippendale stated, “we are what we refuse to adapt to.”