====

“Once you create a self-justifying storyline, your emotional entrapment within it quadruples.”

Pema Chödrön

====

This is about Change and its relationship to what we believe, or, the stories we have and tell.

I was reminded of this topic (again) because of 2 things:

• Another fine Leda Glyptis article “tell it cos it’s a good story”
• Another fine Mike Walsh podcast on Six Pixels of Separation (where he discusses his surprise on how quickly change is occurring)

To me, they are interrelated – individual stories within larger industry stories, i.e., things we believe and have emotional investment in, and how that relates to change.

Let me tell you how (and why maybe we should be paying attention).

It becomes incredibly easy to discuss change with ‘digital transformation’ or ‘disruption’ or any variety of business industry buzzwords. Mike says something that has also creeped into my way of thinking “the longer this <pandemic> goes on the more embedded some change will be.” He is correct, but not in a simplistic monolithic way as many futurist procrastinators suggest. I would suggest this is more like Neils Pflaeging’s beta codex model (“change is more like adding milk to coffee” view) at scale for 7 billion people, 200 millionish businesses and 125 millionish micro/small/midsized businesses. Pick your derivative, but if you ever want to discuss one-to-one change, this is it.

It becomes incredibly easy to discuss change in individual behavioral terms, but it is quite possible we need to speak of change in terms of narratives within narratives <individuals within a larger system> within which there are tweaks of behaviors & attitudes. This would mean it isn’t really systemic change, but rather individual change creating a systemic change. As Venkatesh Rao pointed out this whole pandemic shitstorm has collapsed the grander narrative from which, I would argue, an emphasis on individual narrative, micro business narratives and individual business narratives in general, increase in importance (when the whole falls apart the pieces seek to strengthen themselves).

The Narrative Collapse:

In this case all we learned was the fragility of life – in totality. This creates an overarching impact (a structural aspect to 100% of people) that we are now living within which could be described as a Narrative Collapse. We have conceptually lost the plot.

That said.

Why do individual stories matter?

I truly believe Change really isn’t as difficult as we make it out to be. We do it all the frickin’ time. I do believe the way we go about change – how we discuss it in monolithic terms and how we ‘implement’ it and what we ask people to do/think – is, in general, absurd. Maybe if we think about it a little differently, we would become more receptive to the unevenness of change which would possibly stop us from trying to implement change (a deterministic approach) and instead make change emergent.

Any time ‘emergent’ comes up people get a little uneasy and begin applying labels, constraints and, in general, restrictions (which are inherently reductive). Think about the fact Change is, inevitably, narratives within narratives and stories within stories. Our largest issue isn’t with change itself, but rather the arc of the storytelling, particularly in business, bends toward simplistic labels and titles. It’s often like we are stuck in an executive summary world when the world would benefit from reading the entire story to be told.

It seems like we would be better off, and happier, if the stories within the stories were told, and heard, yet they need to be tied to the grander narrative (if not explicitly collapse the larger narrative label). Simultaneously, those who control/communicate the larger narrative need to link it to the stories within the stories. The sum of all the parts or maybe the ‘e pluribus unim’ of story telling.

It is a collection of stories within, and of, a larger narrative.

It is a collection of individual stories within, and of, a larger narrative.

Note: this is NOT personal branding. Brands are not people and people are not brands.

So how the hell could something like this be applicable to an organization?

Well. When all the stories and narratives are woven together, collective meaning is created and individuals and organizations thrive. People feel valued, create value and the organization offers value. More importantly, people, who want to be the person who they aspire to being, get closer to that aspiration by fulfilling more of their potential. Regardless of your industry & business, we need to always remind ourselves that the organization is made up of humans, not machines, even if they actually use machines to produce things or augment themselves so they produce more. This becomes even more important as we speak of value & value creation.

This grander narrative aligns everyone to the value (not the values). The values are outlined not through some document, but by respect for other’s story and a desire to meet the larger narrative. We feel good by doing good things to enrich collective and individual. Because I own my story, I have a sense of control. In other words. Because I contribute to the larger narrative, I also feel control. And yet because my story resides within many other stories, I also feel comfortable delegation so that other’s stories can also thrive.

All of this creates:

Energy.

Optimism.

Self interest.

Greater good.

Productivity.

Meaning.

This collection of stories creates a positive bond between people, and organization, based on both rational and emotional. Our doing feels good and it feels good to be doing. Without going into psychology and neuroscience all of this also reduces stress, fear, worry, loneliness and increases attention, engagement happiness.

In the good ole days this may have been called ‘esprit de corps.’  In today’s world this would be an organization which is constantly changing or, well, emergent. And just so this doesn’t sound like chaos I will remind everyone that individual narratives contain some deterministic aspects – rituals, process, systems, etc. Think of these things as default bias (and not all bias is bad) or heuristic decision-making. If you think of that sort of things as ripples from individuals, teams, meetings, organizations and industry you will get a sense that an organization will naturally evolve in deterministic AND emergent ways. Why? Because business is inherently human, inherently a collection of individuals with stories (and all the things that come with it) dealing with other individuals with their own stories constantly glancing at the larger narrative checking to make sure they weren’t falling off the grid.

Note: this is a prelude to my thinking on a Conceptual Age Organizational model tied to what I believe we are moving into businesswise – The Conceptual Age

All that said.

I could argue that the entire pandemic, in collapsing the larger narrative, has done more for personal story development than any webinar ever given by GaryV. It has forced billions of people to rethink their own narrative and their story, and their story’s meaning, within larger narratives – the business they are in as well as the world. In other words. Change is being facilitated one by one. Like milk in coffee.

Stories within stories. I will end with noting that there is no control within this concept other than at the individual level. Organizationally that means power resides within the individual story and change occurs when. Collectively, individual stories align in a coherent fashion within a larger narrative. Ponder that.

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

“Show not what has been done, but what can be. How beautiful the world would be if there were a procedure for moving through labyrinths.”
―

Umberto Eco

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

“You are not going nowhere just because you haven’t gotten where you want to go yet.”

—-

Taylor Swift

====

So. Direction is one of the most stressful discussion in Life & in business. Where are you going? How are you planning on getting there? And, of course, are you sure that is the right direction?

Well.

I never thought I would ever use a Taylor Swift quote let alone use it to make a point. Her quote made me think that “not getting to where you want to be” and “nowhere” can look awfully similar.

But it is not.

Not even close.

The idea of “getting somewhere”, whether in your career, in Life, in personal change, in a relationship, in anything, sometimes seems to dominate our Life. This destination, this ‘thing’ we have envisioned in our mind, becomes sort of a measurement with regard to how we are effectively, or ineffectively, living our life. And in doing so if we are somewhere other than ‘there’ <which may mean we simply just haven’t got there yet>, a lot of people will suggest that means you are nowhere.

That is wrong. Very very <very> wrong.

We spends gobs of time and money trying to answer these questions. If you think about it while it may not sound completely absurd (defining direction insures you are at least not going somewhere completely useless) it can actually look like an incredibly poor investment with a dubious ROI <or what I often call “ROC”: return on choice>.

It can be a stress on your everyday life.

It can be a burden.

It can create an absurdly long list of plans and things to do.

It can also translate into a lot of wasted time (because often where you decide to go isn’t exactly where you end up simply because Life’s terrain dictated a slightly better destination).

I sometimes think this is a reflection of what is wrong in today’s society – this belief if you haven’t achieved something you have achieved nothing.

Most of Life is a reflection of a shitload of journeys and paths and, well, a lot of walking, running, tripping and crawling. Because of that a shitload of people would suggest that most of your life you have been running in place <which sounds silly as I type it> or ‘wandering aimlessly <which also sounds silly as I type it because most times most people are wanting to get to where they want to be> and basically they are suggesting that, uhm, you have expended energy — and got nowhere.

99% of the time those people are just assholes.

Assholes who focus on destinations and not journeys. They only take satisfaction in highlighting specific milestones, objectives and outcomes achieved. They struggle to see the satisfaction in exploration, wandering and the journeys taken to the outcomes.

Look. I am not going to suggest achieving something, specifically, getting to where you want to be is not an admirable and useful objective. Because it is. Getting to where you want to be is aspirational and it implies you want to be better than what you are today. Being better and becoming better is something all of us should embrace.

But I will suggest that simply because you have not got there yet that you have gone nowhere.

In fact, I could argue that simply deciding where you want to be is somewhere.

Yeah. Sometimes just knowing what you want has value in & of itself.

Yeah. In fact, doing something, even something small, is better than nothing and is something other than nowhere.

Anyway. You know what? it’s all exploration even if you don’t care about where you want to go. Why?  You end up somewhere.

Here is the bottom line.

I would guess 90% of us are somewhere other than where we want to be. We may see glimpses of it and we may actually have touched it briefly, but most of us are still in the midst of getting there.

<to complete that equation I envision 5% don’t even try having given up and 5% believe they are there>

90% of us are certainly not ‘nowhere.’ We are simply works in progress trying to get somewhere better than who and what we are today. That means suggesting just because you haven’t got to where you wanted to be is ‘nowhere’ would mean that 90% of us are milling about in some wretched space of nothingness … and that is silly. Most of us are pretty happy and fairly content and typically thinking about being better.

There is a lesson here.

While I imagine Ms. Swift doesn’t philosophize on this thought like Umberto Eco, she has certainly embraced her responsibility & empowerment to communicate the right things to hordes of young people. And for that I applaud her. I do so not only because she is impacting young people’s minds in a good smart way, but because there are a boatload of older people who have been gobsmacked into believing if you haven’t got to where you want to be that you are nowhere <and they do not hesitate to tell a shitload of people that>.

Embracing an ‘outcome is the most important’ Life philosophy is a slippery slope.

I would much rather we embrace a “just because you have not got to where you want to be does not necessarily mean you are nowhere” Life philosophy. You can embrace both but if you begin with the latter you are more likely to not only encourage the right behavior in people you will most likely encourage a more positive view of your own Life.

Lastly.

Okay. All this may sound rudderless. But 99% of the time while this discussion sounds, well, directionless, void of objective & absent of any ‘milestones’, it is none of those things. 99% of the time we have a sense of some destination, we just can’t really articulate it. Now. In a world that has an unhealthy relationship with measurement, achievement & “if it is intangible, can you make it tangible”, that ‘not able to articulate’ is a sonuvabitch to try and embrace.

I sometimes think at end of the end of this type of ‘going somewhere, just not sure where’ journey the people who didn’t try to cram all the plans into the time and simply kept walking knowing they would get somewhere will absolutely find themselves some place better than where they started from and most likely end up somewhere good.

I will say Life can truly be a ‘wonderland’ if you don’t over think it. Sometimes the journey is an exploration and as long as you keep exploring the “somewhere” you get to is richer and, in the case of a business or an individual, maybe a stronger place. Maybe Life, and even business to some extent, is a time to wander.

To explore. To just see what you will see. And see what you will find.

Maybe this is time to remember Calvin & Hobbes: “Any road followed precisely to its end leads precisely nowhere.”

Maybe Alice in Wonderland, Umberto Eco & Taylor Swift and Calvin & Hobbes have the right idea. Nowhere may be a good destination objective.

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

just-shower-thoughts:

    One of my greatest fears is that someone has written my favorite song, but they’re not famous enough for me to hear it.

====

“As I make a final right-hand turn onto our street, my GPS informs me that I’ve ‘reached my destination.’

‘My destination,’ I laugh aloud to myself.  My GPS doesn’t know squat.”

Colleen Hoover

=====

“I’m so scared of dying without ever being really seen. Can you understand? “

David Foster Wallace

===========

“I did something and it was never seen.”

Someone’s grave stone

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

Pondering my legacy, legacies in general, and 1000’s of posts written on EnlightenedConflict.

10 and 1/2 years.

126 months.

548 weeks.

3833 days.

91,980 hours.

5,519,000 minutes.

Almost 3000 posts.

A little over 4 posts a week for over 10+ years.

3,000,000+ words <a conservative estimate>.

While not every minute, hour, even day, has been spent writing for my site I certainly have thought, and been thinking, over a significant amount of that time – and the fruits of that thinking time has been borne out in piece after piece on this site. My words and thoughts over all that time have remained consistent. On November 18^th 2009 I wrote my first Enlightened Conflict post and 6 days later I offered my second post and wrote this:

… it is in my DNA to be “constantly preoccupied with possibilities of new combinations.” Now. That can make me a pain in the ass to work with. One time a mentor, and a manager I loved working for, once said to me, “sometimes you are a pain in the ass, but I am glad you are my pain in the ass.”

And if you visit my LinkedIn site you will see a past client says:

……… Me ………….

If you don’t want to be “nudged” into new ideas and creative solutions – don’t ever call Bruce McTague. If, however, you want to look at things through a different telescope and find 3-dimensional ideas you’ve never considered, call Bruce now. Not tomorrow. He’ll make you uncomfortable, but I firmly believe that if the idea doesn’t make you uneasy, it’s not a big idea. Easy to work with, but always stretching your mind, Bruce is a true business Partner. You’ll grow working with Bruce.

I am still a contrarian, still snarky, still writing about the possibility of new combinations and still a pain in the ass. But with almost everything I write I try and offer pain in the ass type thinking … not fluff. On November 30^th 2009 I wrote this: communicating meaningful information so people can make meaningful choices.

I am still not a nudger and I am absolutely unflinchingly focused on communicating meaningful information, thoughts & ideas so people can make meaningful choices and think meaningful thoughts.

Well. All that said. Anyone who has invested this amount of energy into something would make one have a tendency to sit back and wonder what happens if I actually did something in my Life and nobody notices it when I am gone?

And before you think this topic is bullshit or “that’s not something I worry/think about” take a second and think about this.

Why do so many people buy symbolic bricks with names on it on a wall somewhere?

Why do we put stars in the ground with people’s names on it?

Why do we have gravestones and epitaphs?

We do these things because we want people to remember at least something about us. It doesn’t have to be big, but … well … something for god’s sake.

All of that leads me to legacies. Everyone leaves something behind — some footprint.

With me … my largest footprint <at the moment> would be everything I have written. Which makes me slightly wonder what happens to everything on Enlightened Conflict. Does somebody stumble across them and publish some or do they fade way into the nothingness of ‘something done but never seen’? Will someone own my words & thoughts when I am gone?

Anyway. I once wrote that I own my words and thoughts, therefore, in some way I assume they must have some value <at least to me> – maybe just pennies but of some value.

It would be nice to think some of these thoughts get passed around from person to person like pennies – everyone has some, they are often overlooked until needed to complete a transaction and are annoying when you realize you left some in a pocket when you do the laundry. But most importantly I see these pennies being used to create a transaction. In my mind, in this case the transaction is thinking and maybe a purchase against what I see as the true corruption of our age – ignorance.

Montaigne:

The corruption of the age is made up by the particular contribution of every individual man; some contribute treachery, others injustice, irreligion, tyranny, avarice, cruelty, according to their power; the weaker sort contribute folly, vanity, and idleness; of these I am one. It seems as if it were the season for vain things, when the hurtful oppress us; in a time when doing ill is common, to do but what signifies nothing is a kind of commendation.

I admit that I believe these types of pennies I offer are becoming more and more valuable. I believe that because I worry that time is currently painting a portrait of disappearing thought in which all who see this portrait are corrupted by what they can no longer see and walk away thinking ignorance is beautiful.

Yeah.

That corruption breeds a sense of everything changing, but in an invisible way. We only see the change in a low level slightly nagging unease & unhappiness. In a way our moral & character health deteriorates despite our relentless pursuit of feeling better through pills, supplements & absurd self improvement plans. Mentally our focus shifts toward what is visible and away from the invisible <that which creates the unease> and we fixate on what we think we know rather than unlearning/revising what we know.

We stop engaging with thought and even engaging with the thoughtful people <the intellectuals — real & faux> because it is just easier.

The sad truth is that we are largely doing all of this corruption to ourselves. Why? Mostly because conflict is necessary to make the invisible visible, but conflict, and making the invisible visible, is hard & sometimes hurtful.

What does this have to do with a legacy?

I could argue that if your thinking is invisible in some way, you run the risk of becoming so invisible that when you leave there remains no footprint to mark your steps in Life.

Ponder that.

Ponder it a little more because I imagine leaving Life as an invisible person has little appeal to anyone. Not that you desire to be the most visible person in the world just that you would prefer knowing that when you were gone who you were just became completely invisible.

Please note that I am not tying visible to any success, but rather tying it to thinking or some thought/idea <although I imagine it could be tied to ‘doing something that may truly matter’ in terms of impact on other’s thinking/actions>.

And, while I am talking about the legacy I personally want to leave behind, I would imagine this thought bleeds into almost everyone’s Life. Yeah, in this case, I don’t think I am different than most people. We all would prefer to not be corrupted by ignorance and we would prefer to want to ‘do something’ and, preferably, something dynamic beyond our own purposes.

=====

“[My ultimate goal is] to leave this world a better person, and for me to not be the only one who knows it.”

Gavin DeGraw

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

Ah. But the idea of being dynamic beyond your own purposes is fraught with peril.

It means dreaming big. Okay. It means thinking big <and, yes, I do believe far too often we aim too small and too low>.

As for me and my thinking big? I want to attack ignorance as if it is the enemy and, looking back, the majority of my writing have relentlessly unflinchingly, never nudging, attacked ignorance. I have done so using the idea of Enlightened Conflict as a North Star.

I believe conflict of thoughts is healthy and believe vocalizing the conflict is necessary for progress. I believe Conflict is natural and will always exist – between countries, religious beliefs, ideologies, the haves and the have nots, etc. I believe with my writing I have a unique opportunity to insure conflict of thinking can be managed to some extent by encouraging positive conflict or enabling conflict with rules.

I debate with people, I write about thinking, I defend our youth, I rant about the old way of thinking, and while I like to avoid “us versus them” narratives as lazy, in recent history, I have found a muse in Donald J Trump <in fact … my 2101st post was a Trump business lesson>.

Trump has offered me the opportunity to have a living breathing example of almost everything I detest in business leadership, business acumen and how a business shouldn’t be run. I do not detest him as a person <I don’t know him> I just detest how he conducts himself as a leader and a business person. He has reminded me that passion can inspire thinking and writing and reminds me that business sometimes needs to stop nudging and be more demanding of what is right & good.

Regardless.

In the end all I want is some enlightened thinking and new ways of looking at things and sometimes it is useful to use someone or something as a foil to make a comparative. This style and way of thinking has proven to be a good timeless way of approaching things because should you view a post in my first 100 you would find it is still relevant and will still contain thoughts you may find scattered in my last 100 posts.

Anyway. One last thought on legacies — compromising. I still worry about compromising.

I know I have some fear that compromising has left far too many people numb to life or maybe just numb to their dreams. Or maybe more specifically numb to ‘doing something that matters’ and, certainly, numb to thinking and new thoughts.

I still worry about me compromising. And maybe I fear that numbness if I end up compromising. I kind of think this is a legitimate fear.

I, as everyone else, certainly want to be happy. Live. And love. And be loved. Read. Travel. See things. Meet people. Meet more people. And learn. And unlearn. And learn some more. Nowhere in there do I see compromise I only see doing shit. And, in my eyes, nor do I see any ‘nudging’, but rather unflinching doing. Yes. Doing something unflinchingly.

Because doing something unflinchingly that can leave the world a better place? Whew.

I gotta tell ya, if you even have a glimmer of hope of getting to do something big — something really big … something that matters in a big way, something that someone would recognize someday  as a legacy idea — well, I don’t know. It kind of seems like you have to go for it – uncompromisingly and unflinchingly.

I have to think that if am going to lose, I want to know I lost doing something and not losing because I compromised in some way.

That said. I don’t want to be known for writing 3000 posts, or however many I end up writing, I would like to have a legacy suggesting I did something that mattered <and someone could point to what that something was>.

In the end.

I have done lots of thinking and done lots of writing and I very rarely have duplicated a thought, I have never run out of new quotes to share and I have never had “writer’s block” or not had something to write and, yet, I have consistently pounded on stupid & senseless business acumen and the misguided tripe & fortune cookie wisdom people are fed with regard to Life.

That sounds big and, yet, small at the same time. I have to imagine whether someone has written as much as I or not most people will find that they have done something that sounds big but may look small in the harsh light of reality. The only way I know to build a meaningful legacy <making what may appear small big> is to do what I do – do a lot and not nudge and be absolutely unflinchingly focused on communicating meaningful information, thoughts & ideas so people can make meaningful choices and think meaningful thoughts. And, yet, sure … I still do wonder what will happen to everything I have written because at the moment they are my legacy. I imagine I am not alone in thinking that “I did something and it was never seen” on my headstone isn’t really what anyone wants.

For now all I can do is insure that I do something meaningful in a ‘non-nudging way’ and hope it gets noticed.

——————————–

About the author:

Bruce McTague is probably considered a sometimes irascible pragmatic contrarian. At the same time he is most likely considered a naïve believer in the inherent good in people and believer in the value of Hope as an engine for real progress.

He has been called cynical and optimistic.

And because of all of that he believes Life, just as people, are a complex bundle of contradictions therefore simplicity is often a refuge of fools.

He believes there is no problem or conflict that cannot be solved if people are willing to listen, face harsh truths and make the hard decisions. He also believes that the world would be a much better place if everyone would spend just a little more time unlearning what they have learned, think a little bit more and that we would all benefit if we became better at articulating our thoughts.    

Lastly, in the end, he believes that everyone everywhere deserves to have hope.

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

“I don’t want to be remembered.

 Memories age and you might remember words I whispered in your car but you’ll forget how my voice made your name sound safe. You will faintly remember that there was once warmth in my touch but the skin on your chest where my hands made a home is cold now.

Time will steal all the sharp edges that made it seem real. Years will rob you blind and you’ll simply be living with my blurry ghost.

That’s worse than being forgotten, so confuse me with another girl in a coffee shop and change my name in future stories. Walk down memory lane and unlock the exit.

Ignore the ghost that packs up the memories and leaves and do me one last favor; shut the door behind me. “

write-from-the-start

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

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

“All cruelty springs from weakness.”

―

Seneca

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

“All the animals, the plants, the minerals, even other kinds of men, are being broken and reassembled every day, to preserve an elite few, who are the loudest to theorize on freedom, but the least free of all.”

Thomas Pynchon

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

“Normalizing your boss.”

I would say 95% of us who have had the opportunity to weave our way through corporate America to reach a senior level position have been forced to normalize the behavior of at least one of our bosses.

Some more than others, but in some ways you become a normalizer, or a translator or maybe sometimes you simply sweep up the mess they left behind. That’s just what you do … uhm … assuming that boss actually has some redeeming value. As you get closer and closer to the most senior positions it becomes more and more obvious that gaining responsibility doesn’t always smooth out the edges of someone, but rather more often makes that person lean harder on/into the specific aspects of themselves which they can use to meet the growing responsibilities. Yeah. Many leaders don’t “round out their skills & character” <and become a well-rounded leader>, but rather hone the pointed skills that provide value or increase their power <sacrificing some other skills & attributes along the way>.

Ah. But then you run up against the ‘bull shitter in chief.’

Maybe they got their position through some family contact. Maybe they were a psychopathic ‘kill or be killed’ employee who successfully killed off any competent competitors for the position. Maybe out of sheer organizational incompetence they rose to a position in which they are completely unqualified for.

All they have in their hip pocket is bullshit.

But they are your boss.

Whew. Defending selectively incompetent behavior is one thing. Defending ongoing bull shit is another. Why? The former can actually enhance your reputation <and improve your own skills as you provide solutions in real time> while the latter only diminishes your reputation.

Yeah. I am sure some people will debate what I just wrote, but I would suggest they will only end up quibbling over my phrasing and not the truth behind the thought.

Reputation is not a simple concept. Your reputation is made up of a variety of things which means you can fuck up in one place, but offering a strength in another situation simply builds your reputation unevenly <which can be managed if you are self-aware>. The problem with normalizing a bull shitter’s incompetent behavior is that you aren’t shoring up selective incompetence/deficiencies you are actually forced to normalize their behavior by offering an alternative truth to whatever bullshit truth they advocated on all fronts – not selective.

I imagine the majority of us have never really faced this either <a> as a full onslaught from an incompetent boss — because most organizations weed out this problem fairly efficiently or <b> for long <most bull shitters get exposed by ambitious less senior competent no-nonsense fairly quickly>.

But, yet, I tend to believe in our nightmare scenarios in our minds we worry about what we would do if faced with an ongoing incompetent bull shitter boss scenario.

Personally <and anyone who knows me will probably nod their head and go ‘yeah’> I wouldn’t be able to do it. I would actually call bullshit <and get fired or ‘eased into a different responsibility’>. But, even that said, having been in a quasi-position like this you have a tendency to take on each bullshit situation as discrete from another and avoid any real pattern of behavior until forced to actually face a pattern of behavior. That is how we deal with it … and that is also the personal risk we run as we ignore the larger situation rationalizing it in our own minds as ‘discrete scraps of irresponsible incompetent boss behavior.’

All this come to mind as I think about Donald J Trump.

Let me use his first self-proclaimed “big foreign trip” <which fostered the image of Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure … or Pee Wee’s Big adventure  or even Pooh’s Grand Adventure – pick your poison> back several years ago <simply because there are so many to choose from but this was possibly the first which encapsulated the challenges people around him would face> .

Beyond the fact the trip was bookended with a self-proclaimed “big foreign trip” and a self-proclaimed self-reported “home run”, in between there were a number of cringe-able moments in which people were demanded to stand up and become responsible for defending or explaining some tone-deaf remark, some historically ignorant comment or some insensitive gaffe that the president did over the entire big adventure.

Was it the bullying body language he demonstrated at the NATO summit, shoving aside the Prime Minister of Montenegro? <a small country that I am fairly sure the president has no clue where it is>

Was it his apparent unawareness of where Israel is located, an ignorance displayed when he informed an audience of Israelis that he’d “just got back from the Middle East”?

Was it his seeming indifference to the difference between “Islamist” and “Islamic” in front of an Islam audience <a mistake he blamed on exhaustion on the 2^nd day of a trip … “does he have the stamina?”>

Was it his belief that after stating for months that NATO was obsolete that it was unnecessary to verbally state USA unequivocally stood with its NATO partners?

Was it his constant misstatements with regard to how NATO actually works?

Was it after a less than 30 minute visit to Yad Vashem, Israel’s Holocaust memorial, which <or any Holocaust museum> has a nasty habit of bringing people to tears or, at minimum, some deep reflection with regard to humanity and the sometimes startling cruelty humans can inflict upon one another … he left an absurdly out of touch positive note in the memorial’s Book of Remembrance – “It is a great honor to be here with all my friends – so amazing and will never forget!”

Was it his odd alternative universe in which he suggests he has “righted people’s views of where America stands with friends & enemies after a misguided 8 Obama years” where Saudi Arabia is a good friend <let’s avoid they have none of the freedoms America typically support> and where Germany is described as “bad” <albeit only their trade deals … uhm … and their views on immigration … uhm … and their views on globalism>.

Was it his unflinching ability to lie to the face of the world’s newest democratic leader Macron by unequivocally falsely, in a sincere voice, stating “I was for you.”

Or, finally, was it the overarching sadness <to most Americans> in watching the seeming shift to ‘pragmatic relationships policy” <ones in which money exchange defines who we like and who we do not like> in which we find ourselves watching our leaders partying with disciplined non democratic autocrats and constantly showing uneasiness and sincere lack of warmth in interactions with the world’s finest democratic leaders.

Sigh.

Here is what I know <about not only Trump, but normalizing a boss’s behavior>.

If I were working for Trump I would find it hard to read any news, but, particularly European newspapers, without cringing and certainly being embarrassed. But if Trump were my boss where I would be most concerned is that he would be using me to lend some legitimacy as he behaved in some less-than-legitimate behavior.

And that is where one needs to step back and worry about their reputation.

Because lending credibility for a boss who has selective competency is different than lending credibility for a … well … “bull shitter in chief” boss.

As one article put it well … “seasoned people simply lend an air of occasional competence to an otherwise shambolic White House. By appearing before the cameras, looking serious and speaking rationally, they add a veneer of normality to this administration.”

And maybe that is where this whole thing ends up.

It is not about us, the people and media, accepting Donald J Trump’s behavior or getting numbed into believing it is normal … it will be about experienced competent people deciding how much they want to normalize his behavior. This whole situation is not really about a decision on what is best for America <although they will certainly be forced into thinking about that>, but rather their own reputation.

Good competent people will be standing there knowing they can contribute to <a> doing what is right and <b> herding an incompetent boss … both of which America in a larger context benefits … and, yet, they stand there watching their own reputations slowly slip away … drip by drip … word by word.

Good competent people can normalize selective incompetence, but they will struggle to normalize a ‘bull shitter’ whose only competence is ongoing ignorance. At some point people will begin questioning your own competence as you continuously articulate some semblance of nonsensical normalcy and they will definitely start questioning … well … your integrity or character.

And then what do you do? Because, in the end, that is what you are left with – just you & your character.

Why?

Because, frankly, no matter how skilled you are a shitload of people in this world are just as experienced as you are and a lot of people are skilled and competent just like you therefore you get judged, ultimately, on what you did when faced with a situation — did you speak up?

Did you defend the wrong and indefensible? Did you do what was right?

I am not suggesting this is easy.

In fact a good bull shitter can offer such an elegant smoke screen it can offer the competent some cover so they can offer up some truth and competence in a way that … well … is true & competent.

However, in the end, the difficulty resides in the smoke itself.

Because at some point every competent person associated with a bull shitter is asked to explain the smoke … and … well … how do I explain the smoke?

You can’t. And, worse? You cannot put out the fire.

Good people, no matter how good, will choke on the smoke eventually.

….. choice when working for a bullshitter in chief ……

And, let’s be clear, no one wants to see good people die.

It is painful to watch.

It is painful to watch good competent people being broken and reassembled every day, to preserve someone, who are the loudest to theorize on freedom, but the least free of all.”

That is the personal choice one makes when normalizing a boss … how much smoke is there and will I choke from the smoke they make?

I cannot offer a well-defined “here is how you know and what you should do” today because this is a personal choice. But, no matter who you are and where you are, watching good competent people standing in the smoke being demanded to define a smoke, not of their own making, is painful. And sad.

=======

“The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men / Gang aft agley.”

(The best laid schemes of mice and men / Often go awry.)

“The poem denotes the narrator of the poem is plowing his field when he cuts through a mouse nest. The poet shows regret and apologizes to the mouse before he goes on a tangent which reveals the deeper meaning of the poem. The connotation is that even when you mean no harm and have pure intentions, you can destroy somebody else’s well laid plans.”

Robert Burns’ poem “To a Mouse”

========

“You’re little but you’re big.”

Pretty Little Liars

===========

Ok. We are mice <hence the phrase ‘rat race’>. We may like to think of ourselves as the ones plowing the field but, alas, we are simply mice in the field.

What do I mean by that?

More often than not, most of us usually have no, or very little, control over our lot in Life.

More often than not, most of us are little people doing little things in the big scheme of everything that is happening.

More often than not, most big things that go awry were little things when viewing in the rear view mirror. In other words. We do little things all the frickin’ time that ultimately have a bigger impact than we could ever imagine assuming we were even paying attention to the little thing we did.

And, yet, despite  all of that  we are planning creatures.

We plan our weekends, vacations, and lives. We plan little, medium and big things.

Some of us plan every detail and polish each detail to perfection. Some of us decide on a plan that involves not having any plan. At either end of that spectrum we are planning our time so that we can get the most out of it.

On weekends we plan our time that we might do what we want to do and get done what must get done.

On vacation we plan to see new things and we actually plan relaxation <which seems kind of crazy>.

On life we plan where we will be in five years what our career path should be and what we plan our personal live to look like.

Shit. We even plan our spontaneity.

Suffice it to say.

What you are planning to do with your life may be one of the biggest things in your life. Okay. Maybe not but it is certainly one of the most discussed things in your life.

And for young people?

Yikes.

Everyone really wants to know what your plan is. What do you want to do with your life <and all the steps in your plan leading up to whatever that ‘do’ is>? These are all big questions and it sounds quite nice to have big answers and a nice big neat plan.

Well. The unfortunate Life truth is that for all of our planning nothing is more certain than the fact that something will go wrong and ‘the plan’ is no longer a viable plan.

Even worse? More often than not some little unplanned thing occurs and whole big plan goes awry.

The main issue in big plans and big planning is the fact that little things are ever changing. And, worse, they are changing all the while oblivious to the neat orderly plan you had in place.

Now. Even with all this change I imagine you have a choice — plow through the change with an unchanging plan or let your neat plan take on some less neat fluidity.

Which begs the question, if big plans cannot be solid because of all the little things changing … then what use is a plan?

Well. Plans and planning do matter.

And big plans, done well, do matter.

And “done well” can be defined as things change so does the plan <that is if you do your big planning right>.
In fact as things change, well, other plans are formed. To be a good planner I guess you have to pay attention to how things are changing and then adapt the plan to fit the situation.

Boy. That sure does sound like a lot of work making a plan only to change it to another plan.

======

Murphy’s laws

• If anything can go wrong, it will

• If there is a possibility of several things going wrong, the one that will cause the most damage will be the one to go wrong

• If anything just cannot go wrong, it will anyway

=====

Anyway. This is not an indictment against big plans and big planning.

In fact I would suggest that you know you are a big planner <as in one effective at creating Big plans> if all the little things that go wrong do not make your big plan go awry they simply make you adapt while maintaining progress toward the ultimate objectives.

In the end. Remember. Little things can make big plans go awry. Shit. Little things can make anything go awry. Unfortunately for most of us schmucks more often than not what we think is little is actually big and what we see as big is usually little. And maybe, just maybe, that is why 99% of plans go awry. Ponder that.

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

“Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions, since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation; but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.”

Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy

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

So. Every once in a while you get asked a question that makes you think about yourself and reflect on how you have changed. I was asked one the other day <a seemingly harmless question>.

What was your favorite class in college?

My answer was easy. Philosophy.

Now. I would like to think I have become more of a philosopher late in age. Okay. Maybe just more philosophical.  I imagine mostly because I would like to think I finally have the knowledge and mind adeptness to grasp such intangible concepts … things I just couldn’t do in youth.

But as I type that I am reminded of a quote from Game of Thrones:

Tyrion to Cersei:

“There’s nothing worse than a late blooming philosopher.”

Oops. I have become what Tyrion hates — a late blooming philosopher.

Anyway.

Another piece of information about my favorite class Philosophy.

Despite being my favorite class — I got a D.

But I loved the class.

I didn’t know it at the time but it began my love affair with ambiguity. In general, academically, I was a relatively indifferent student but I worked my ass off for that class. And, yeah, still got a D.

Oh. Once again. I loved that class.

I loved it all despite the fact that philosophy is all about logical thinking, yet, ending with sometimes illogical ambiguity. In hindsight at that age I was too linear a thinker and while I loved the thinking I ultimately scorned the ambiguity. Or. Maybe it scorned me.

As a moth to flame I was drawn to it and got roasted as I got too near the flame. But. It was definitely the beginning of my true love affair with ambiguity. All that class reading and studying hovered in the back of my head for years. Never really moving to the forefront, but always lurking.

Ah. And then my next memorable date with ambiguity. It was in business school where I entered b-school lore.

“I am indifferent.”

During a case study discussion the professor says “so Mr. McTague, what solution do you believe is the proper option here?” Me…“I am indifferent.”  <I may have even said “I don’t care.”>

The poor choice of words aside <which stayed written on the board at the front for the remainder of the semester> I was beginning to grasp the fact there is rarely one best solution — just several better, or worse, solutions any of which will get you to where you want to go. Philosophically this was a HUGE business lesson. It is really practical useful learning assuming you can actually implement it in the workplace. Philosophy continued to lurk sometimes moving to the forefront in the form of philosophical quotes or random thoughts I gathered in the development of speeches I gave.

Interestingly this love of ambiguity has served me well in business.

Inevitably it meant that I never really got hung up making decisions. I kind of figured out making a decision somewhere in the spectrum of “the better decisions” was better than dicking around seeking the ever elusive so-called ‘best’ decision.

But, in thinking about the what is your favorite class question, I started thinking about if I had always had this philosophical muscle or did it develop over time.

So I pulled out my high school year book and looked at some things teachers wrote in it:

–          My Spanish teacher … “muy perezoso “<very lazy> … but I got an A in her class.

–          My wacky English teacher wrote something in Latin <and the extent of my Latin knowledge revolved around ‘cogito ergo sum’> pulchra manu. pulchra cogitandi. I thought she was a wackjob and never bothered translating it until maybe 15 years later: “beautiful handwriting. beautiful thinker.”

–          My history teacher: Most interesting student I have ever had.

–          My physics/chemistry teacher: Pursue physics. Physics will never be the same if you do.

–          My guidance counselor <who, in hindsight, I probably caused him more gray hair than anything or anyone he ran into in his entire life>: I hope you find what you are looking for. <note: because he, nor I, had a clue what I was looking for>

** note: I highly recommend pulling out your high school yearbooks and read what your teachers wrote about you. It is humbling, terrifying and satisfying (all at the same time)

Well. I imagine I was a very frustrating kid to my teachers and parents. I know I was a very confused kid. In hindsight I was just as frustrated as them, but I wasn’t mature enough to be actually frustrated just confused.

Now. Some adults handled me better than others. Some in their frustration tried to force me into some decision or tighten the boundaries. Others simply tried to widen the boundaries to show me how far I could go.

Regardless. I am sure I frustrated both and all.

In comparison, in some ways I envy my sister. I am relatively sure she was, and is, intellectually sharper <and smarter> than I. In addition I sense she figured out how to focus her brain <and intellectualness> much earlier than I did. Ah. That focus thing. She could have been a world class engineer (if that is what she elected to be) or lawyer, shit, I believe she could have been a world class anything if she elected to pursue it. She could focus, and still can, her brain power. That is a talent. She has it <I do not>. Oh. Separate note. Instead of engineering or law she selected almost an opposite direction and has done quite well.

Her strength? Focus.

My strength? Ambiguity.

** note: but I believe we both have a strong low tolerance for bullshit … which philosophy can sometimes hover around

Anyway. I am sure any specific strength, with its correlating weaknesses, is frustrating to adults which makes us <as kids> frustrated with adults.

But I imagine that is how it is with adults and children. Each disappoints the other in ways that neither recognizes nor intends and it takes time to overcome the disappointment. In the end a child doesn’t always understand the complexities of adult choices and an adult rarely understands the complexities of what a child is going through and the choices they make or don’t make.

A child’s best hope in life is that parents, and all adults, try to do the best for the child. That doesn’t mean that making those decisions on ‘what is best’ is easy and, in fact, it is a difficult process and the choices made for you imprint you … maybe mark you, in some way, that is, if you permit it to. If you deal with it, you move on and progress and it may even mark you positively.

We end up growing up the best we can under the circumstances given us.

I would suggest it does us little good to second guess ourselves years later. To me it seems a better option to simply try to understand why we are as we are, who we are, and then try and better ourselves by learning from that.

Anyway. My path was, and is, certainly winding. I imagine it is winding not because of capability, or the lack thereof, but rather because of my inherent love of ambiguity. I do know that as I have grown older not only have I become a ‘late blooming philosopher’ but also recognize I seek opportunities wherein lies ambiguity.

I philosophically, and tangibly, like finding solutions within the ambiguity <in business and in Life>.

All that said.

“A musician must make music, a painter must paint, a poet must write if he is to be ultimately at peace with himself. What one can be, one must be.”

Abraham Maslow

Maslow was a smart guy. I do not believe I am a deep thinker nor am I a philosopher. And I am absolutely sure that I don’t have it all figured out — that includes myself, Life and business. Even today, of later age, I am a work in progress. I imagine that means I live a Life somewhat constantly in ambiguity.

I imagine in a broad sense that being philosophical is something I do as I seek to understand fundamental truths about myself, the world we live in <and the wacky people residing in this world> and, interestingly, business itself.

In the end I would still bet that I would get a poor grade in philosophy. I am too pragmatic to be a philosopher. I like, far too much, actually finding an answer <or at least the best answer available> within the ambiguity. That doesn’t mean I cannot be philosophical, just not a philosopher.

Well. No ambiguity there, huh?

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

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

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

Acceptance is a small, quiet room.

–

Cheryl Strayed

==

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

–

Willard Gibbs

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

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

Alignment in business is always a difficult thing.

Shit.

Alignment in any group environment is always a difficult thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is where skepticals really own your ass.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I say that to make another point.

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

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

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

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

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

In the end?

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

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

“Things which matter most must never be at the mercy of things which matter least.”

Goethe

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

What is the most important thing?

What is the one thing I should know about you?

What is the one idea (or word) that captures your brand?

If you could tell me one thing about your business/company, what would it be?

<fill in your own here>

I reject all of those questions.

Yes.

This is my rejection of the one thing.

Nothing truly interesting is made up of one thing, but worse, once things get reduced to one aspect it becomes not ruthless simplicity, but rather a terrifying simplicity.

One thing degrades life by its very simplicity by making all activity subservient solely on the motives of the one thing.

One thing encourages a fanaticism about the means employed to reach a simplistic objective of uncertain wisdom to attaining a larger objective whether it be profitability or some greater good.

One thing devolves thinking rather than evolving it. Thinking, in the absence of freedom, will inevitably arc toward whatever fulfills the one thing at the expense of many of other things that could not only add value, but be OF value.

It is intellectual weakness.

Institutionalizing ‘one thing’ means institutionalizing lack of thought or non-responsibility. The one thing becomes the default for any, and every, decision. Creativity and freedom of thought is suffocated by the majority of non-risk taker, CYA people lurking in every hallway. People have no responsibility to anything but things in service of the one thing.

This institutionalizing reduces reality to one thing and one thing only. Everyone knows what to do – whatever produces that one thing; and you know what to avoid – whatever reduces the one thing. There is no confusion on the issue in any discussion of whether a particular action maybe conducive to a greater well being or moral aesthetic or cultural enrichment.

Having said that, one thing certainly fits perfectly within a ‘quantification world’, But it does so at the expense of appreciation of qualitative differences (and value). Measurable but of limiting, reductive, value.

This is a primitive world this ‘one thing.’ It is a reduction of reality under the guise of ‘quality’ while it is actually a tool of ‘consistent quantity.’ One thing is the industrialization of thought.

Yes. Sure. A number of people will stamp their feet indignantly and say “oh no, we do a lot more than that one thing (to a grander benefit than that one thing).” Familiar claims I know. Some justified, some not. Ok. Mostly not. Those ‘things’ (outside of the one thing) can be seen, if you look closely, to be bolted on to the ‘one-thing’ organization as exceptions, not the rule.

** note: while I may be a little harsh on well-intended activity I would note that bolts rust and the first things jettisoned are not the one thing but the things used to soften the one thing.

Regardless.

At its best, it is inefficient precision.

At its ‘not-worst, but bad’’ it creates a fragility to the business.

At its absolute worst it harms society in its pursuit of the one thing at the expense of other meaningful objectives (note: profit is the easiest business example of this).

The strength of one thing is its terrifying simplicity.

It suggests the totality of a brand, a business, a life, can be reduced to one aspect. And while the brand, business, life may be interested in other aspects – perhaps goodness, integrity, greater good, or even truth – as business people you concern yourself only with the one thing. You have no choice but to do so. Not being concerned with the one thing makes you, and your work/thinking/energy have a dubious ROI in the eyes of, well, the people in power and the “one-thingers.”

I reject one thing. We are an abundance of things and the highest value is achieved when not only embracing that multitude but articulating it well.

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

author’s note:

Of course there are exceptions, but, they are exceptions. Choosing one thing as a filter, not a destination, can have value if you seek coherence instead of consistency. I would point to Dr. Jason Fox’s “Choose One Word/Ritual of Becoming” programme or John Grant’s view on brand molecules/New marketing Manifesto as examples.

=====

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

—

Washington Allston

====

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

–

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

========

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

It is incredibly tempting, but incredibly wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Common sense is relative to perspective.

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

People are no different.

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

Here is what I am saying.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Complexity not simplicity.

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

Not all accountants are boring or socially inept.

Not all conservatives are against abortions.

Not all liberals are socialists.

Not all religious people are close minded.

Not all French people like wine.

Not all Hawaiians know how to surf.

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

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

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

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

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

Is this a conspiracy? Nope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tony Lawrence

=

===========

“One can resist the invasion of an army but one cannot resist the invasion of ideas.”

—

Victor Hugo

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

“Our ideas, like orange-plants, spread out in proportion to the size of the box which imprisons the roots.”

—

Edward Bulwer Lytton

==========

Well. Whether we like it or not, whether we admit it or not, we are all ignorant. Now. Our ignorance can come in a bunch of different sizes – supersized, snack sized and everything in between – and sometimes even selective (know a lot about something and little about other things). That said. We are all ignorant.

Look. It is impossible for us to know everything about everything (let alone even a specific topic), therefore, we have ignorance boxes <different topics> in our heads just sitting around collecting dust waiting to be pulled off the shelf.

Now.

Those ignorance boxes are interesting boxes.

They come in different sizes and shapes and depths.

In addition. Ideas are an interesting seed to plant in the ignorance box.

Why? The roots of ideas will inevitably end up in conflict with the box they have been planted in.

That is the inevitability of the invasion of ideas … conflict.

That is the inevitability of the invasion of curiosity … conflict.

One territory, let’s call it ‘the country of what you do not know’, is always being invaded by an army of ideas and thoughts <some true and some untrue>.

Yeah. I focus on invasion because there are winners and losers in this whole ignorance, knowledge, curiosity & ideas battle of which you, yourself, can be victor or vanquished <that is, basically, the battle between ignorance – which suprisingly has a lot of ammunition – and something seeking to kill that particular ignorance>. The only thing you can be sure of is you will always be in conflict and always be at war.

That is one of Life’s biggest truths.

Curiosity comes with a price … and a reward.

I wrote once:

‘far too often we place curiosity in some unequivocal good or bad space … “curiosity is the wick in the candle of learning” or “curiosity killed the cat” … but, truthfully, curiosity embodies both good and bad. And I say that as one who is unequivocally in the camp of “knowing more of anything is good.’

The constant invasion of ideas seems to revolve around two things near and dear to my heart:

• Positive friction.
• Enlightened conflict.

The first is based on curiosity plus friction equals better ideas and thinking. This means the friction has a net positive effect. I could even argue that even bad thoughts that are well thought out and well articulated is positive friction. Ok. I imagine  could argue any thinking is better than no thinking.

Anyway.

The second is that  any conflict of thought & ideas will enlighten in some form or fashion. I tend to believe the arc of conflict leads to true knowledge. But “arc” is the key word. I think we get a little hasty with regard to people and thinking and this constant war. We forget it is a battle by battle thing and not a ‘battle which embodies the outcome of the war.’ We look at someone who we deem as ‘ignorant’ rather than viewing them in the midst of battle and somewhere on the arc of true knowledge.

I can honestly say there are few people I will not debate with, discuss with or have a discourse with. I will discuss anything with anyone and listen and respond. Yes. I will “go to war” in other words. Yeah. Other than purposeful ignorance I tend to view ignorance as simply the opening gambit in the battle of the day.

Regardless.

I am definitely a curiosity guy.

And, well, I guess I am definitely a conflict guy <when it comes to ideas and thoughts and issues>.

And I love the thought that I am not actually seeking ideas or ‘working hard to learn’, but rather ideas and thoughts are constantly seeking to make battle with us … constantly invading our space, our ignorance, and … well … we go to this war because it is a war worth fighting. It is a war for knowledge.

Look.

I have heard many people say “I want to know everything there is to know on this topic.” I often wonder if they are up for the battle that will need to take place to make that happen. And I am relative;y sure they haven’t really thought through what it would actually take to ‘know everything.’

I know someone can know a lot.

As a corollary.

I absolutely know that you can know enough to be dangerous.

That said. I am 100% unequivocally clear that knowledge is a never ending battle. Even on one topic you probably don’t have enough hours in a lifetime to know everything there is. I guess that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try, but suggesting you know everything is not only silly but may actually be a reflection you do not understand the extent of the conflict at hand.

My site is called Enlightened Conflict.

My motto is ‘seek truth.’

And I do feel as if I am constantly fighting a war and fighting on the side of Truth.

Do I believe I know truth let alone all the truth? Absolutely not.

But. As any warrior would tell you, I get closer to be the best I can be as a warrior every time I fight. It is the conflict which fights ignorance and seeks to enlighten in victory or maybe just survival of the battle of the day.

Maybe that is why the two quotes I opened with interested me.

The conflict of ideas does not have to reside in any open debate. You don’t even need another person. Ideas invade in any number of ways. They plant themselves in boxes you have forgotten you even had. They grow to a point where you cannot ignore them anymore and begin to battle existing ideas you have to get out of the box they were planted in. It becomes a war between what you knew and what you now know.

I would point out that in winning a battle you have destroyed a box and enlightenment occurs. Uhm. but then begins the building of a new box. See. It is a never ending war between what you know and the constant invasion of ideas. It is a worthy war.

==========

“Enlighten the people, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day.”

Thomas Jefferson

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