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

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.

===

“Who belonged to no one, who belonged to everyone.
Who had nothing, who wanted everything.”
Lana Del Rey

===

Business has always struggled to navigate self-interest versus collective interest. They create these sweeping uplifting visions and now even discuss a grander purpose with the intent to create collective interest in a common objective. Yet at the same time they design a long menu of incentives, bonuses, pay raises and in general every tool available to encourage every individual, every self, to do what is right for themselves. This conflict is a tug of war between self and the collective ultimately makes an organization less productive. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that this conflict, which is incredibly important to every individual because this is how they earn their living, bleeds into society kitchen table by kitchen table.

But then there is this an added feature. And that would be group level selfishness. Humans aren’t stupid. Employees clearly understand what it takes to get ahead and to get more money and they understand they more than likely need other people to get what they individually want. Therefore, small groups form to not only fight within the system, but often to fend off the other groups from getting what they believe is a zero-sum pot of gold. It’s obvious this group level selfishness makes it hard for groups to get along. Like minded groups tend to amplify one key self-interest feature and that would be the different ideas of the appropriate terms of cooperation about what people should and should not expect from one another. Every individual has a point of view on this. Within a business, groups tend to coalesce around the common belief of their view on this. Obviously, what this means is that business has several different groups with number of different definitions of what they expect when they are asked to collaborate and cooperate with each other often of which are not in alignment.

Which leads me to shared ambition.

Look. I am all for communities, informal networks, distributed decision making and a variety of other ideas with regard to alternative thinking to command-and-control, but I think a business is a microcosm of society – a social construct grounded in some social contracts. Social constructs are inherently, and naturally, territorial therefore it would seem like the only way to share in a desired outcome is to tap into ambitions (which is inevitably a type of social contract). Based on that I think we need to spend more time on the social contracts aspect, as in “shared ambitions.”

Shared is important. Shared is not about efficiency, it is actually a “benefit multiplier.” An individual is additive and collective effort is a multiplier. I don’t need a case study to prove that, its common sense logic. Think about it in these terms: “if you say ‘I know I can generate these results, but I cannot generate these (something else) withouthout them.” that is tapping into potential through collective effort and collective interests. It is a combination of ‘me to you’ (what you get from me) and ‘we to you’ (how others expand individual effort). But this sharing demands a bit of a mindset agreement (not just in ambitions but in coexisting). What I mean by that is part of the uneasy social contract society has is its dealings with ‘helping others.’ Most people are perfectly happy to give money to their churches and other local institutions that serve other people. but when the government uses ‘their money’ (taxes) they think it goes not to hardworking people who just need a helping hand, but to welfare queens. Within this uneasy social contract, it means help goes to ‘them,’ not ‘us.’ This is group level selfishness and is fairly common – consciously or subconsciously. The tragedy of commons is a tragedy of selfishness, a failure of individuals to put us ahead of me which actually inhibits shared anything let alone ambitions. It gets a little trickier. The weird thing is that while moral thinking enables cooperation within groups it can simultaneously undermine cooperation between groups. This happens because each group has their own ‘codes’ and ‘moral ideas’ which remain slightly misaligned from either the collective interests or other groups. The outcome is the same however you view it – inefficiency and less-than-optimal effectiveness. In business terms, not maximized productivity. We need something that enables groups with conflicting moralities/codes to work together and thrive and a mindset that can resolve disagreements that create obstacles to progress. This is where shared ambition steps in. Complex social structures are about ‘us versus them,’ our interest versus theirs, our values versus theirs, disparate feelings and beliefs that make it difficult to cooperate and coordinate. I am not going to suggest every group thinks the same way, some will be more collective interest driven and some will be more individualistic driven, but if there are shared ambitions it creates a social contract which shifts the social construct. The automatic construct settings of each group, and individual, gets shifted just a bit to accommodate the shared ambitions. To be clear. What I am suggesting is that even group level self-interest has some vague outlines, rather than hard and fast boundaries, within which cooperation and effective collaboration can occur.

Which leads me back to self interest.

De Tocqueville said in 1845: “Desires still remain extremely enlarged while the means of satisfying them are diminished day by day. On every side we trace the ravages of an inordinate and unsuccessful ambition kindled in hearts which is which it consumes in secret and in vain.” He also said after taking a long hard look at America: “among democratic nations ambition is ardent and continual, but it’s aim is not habitually lofty and life is generally spent in eagerly coveting small objects that are within reach.” He was speaking of goals, but you can see the underlying seeds of self-interest and consumption within the thought. And then we should remember Faustus and his demon, Mephistopheles, wherein the insatiable thirst for individual knowledge leads him to make a pact with the devil –  a message about human ambition and stretching the limits. Everyone, every individual, has ambition in some shape and size. But the reality is any one ambition has limits and constraints which can only be expanded upon by interacting with others. Yeah. When we share ambitions, the tide does lift everyone; maybe not always equally, but all get lifted. It is a little dangerous even if you balance it all fairly well.  Clearly this is a tricky idea because to be as good as you can be you gotta give a little of yourself up to feed your talent and ambition to grow it beyond the normal levels. Someone is going to want to throw ‘trust’ into the ring here, but I will not. I tend to believe conflicting self interested groups will never really trust other groups, but they may trust in a more intangible, non human, thing like a shared ambition. In other words, we have the same ambition so despite their means, despite the fact they are ‘them’ and not us, they aren’t go to screw me/’us’. The good news with share ambition is that success at each level can be so addictive or pleasurable you have a tendency to want to feed it a little more. And maybe that’s the real prize with shared ambitions. Ponder.

First. Because I am involved in business I am constantly inundated with the buzzwords associated with the “new and unique” and all the pontificators (jesters) who spout them and how people are constantly suggesting the world is changing – like it has never changed before.

Second. Because of the age I am at I am constantly inundated with how people of my generation suggest <state> how today is more difficult for people than ever before.

I admit.

I kind of chuckle when I hear all this.

I often seem to create a maelstrom of conversational misery when I state things like “change is the constant companion of every generation” … or say something like “it isn’t any more difficult for this generation it is just different.”

Frankly.

Most people my age think I am nuts when I say it.

Shit.

Most people any age.

Or think I am out of touch with what is happening around us.

Ok.

If I were sensitive, I would care. Or more likely I would care if I didn’t find quotes like this.

“… my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age in which we live. No nation can now shut itself from the surrounding world and trot around the same old path of its fathers. A change has come over the affairs of mankind.  … intelligence is penetrating the darkest corners of the globe.”

This sure sounds like something you may have heard on CNN or BBC from someone talking about what is happening in the Middle East or Russia.

Or maybe on CSPAN talking about the shifting global economy.

But.

Think 1850 (or abouts).

Think Frederick Douglas in a speech in NYC.

Think about the fact that each generation has faced some radical change and thought process and attitude.

Yup. The more things change the more they stay the same.

What also stays the same? Each generation gets “left behind” as another races toward what will be.

This creates friction between generations.  It is friction created because the generation always being left behind is the older one.

The one that is supposed to be smarter.

The one that is supposed to know the best.

Well.

Is this a generalization? Sure. But the truth? Mostly.

Pieces or parts smarter and know the best?  Yes. Sure.

On the whole?  Nope.

To be fair.  A minority of those being left behind actually enjoy the ride. They empower the youth. Fuel it. Guide it. Not restrict it. Those few get to enjoy a longer thrill ride.

But they are few.

On the whole the majority of an older generation holds on for dear life <a stranglehold in fact> to what they know and makes them comfortable. And it would possibly be okay if they did that and remained silent, but instead they complain about what is lost within the following generations and try and slow change.

It is too bad.

For by focusing on what is lost they neglect to have the amazing opportunity to see what is gained.

Regardless.

In the end.

Change comes upon us whether we want it or not.  As Frederick Douglas said in 1850: ‘you cannot ignore the intellect of the world.’

True in 1850.

True in 2022.

True in 2172.

Which leads me to business.

The business aspect of this thought is older generations holding on to older thoughts, or worse, older processes.

This is the craziest aspect.

Big business is always (ALWAYS) slow to change. It is part of their personal survival-thinking DNA.

But its actually death-thinking DNA.

It is death thinking because it is stratifying thinking and stratified businesses lose value in a daily basis.

Creative Destruction is all about the small (entrepreneurs) disrupting and destroying the status quo and that of ‘the big’ and through the destruction they begin recreating what is right and good for the economy.

So. After reading that you may think “old” entrepreneurs would be part of the minority “happy few change agents” (the few who recognize that the more things change the more they stay the same).

Well.

Nope.

Most typically they are actually the worst ‘non-change’ offenders.

Yes. All generations exhibit more conservative less risky behavior as they age. But. Successful entrepreneurs, turned successful independent business owners, seem to most often exhibit this conservative (on steroids) behavior. My guess it is driven mostly by fear of losing what they gained (by the way, thinking this way isn’t exactly a stupendous growth strategy nor a healthy business environment if you want to have younger people as employees). But I also believe there is an aspect of refusal to let go of things that brought them that success.

It is slightly strange, but that which made them successful they now disregard, and have discarded, under the guise of “maturity” or ‘mature businesses need to be managed differently than growth businesses’.

Oh.

And it is all compounded by their belief that past failed attempts should be avoided (even if someone has a thought on how that “failed” scenario could be viewed differently and therefore maybe the learning from that experience may have been flawed).

Now. I am not suggesting all past experience should be ignored. Or that successful entrepreneurs need to completely relive their aggressive risk (but smart) behavior that carved out their success. But older business owners need to let go of some ‘beliefs.’  Not because they are wrong, but rather because they are wrong ‘now.’ (note: yes, context matters, even with beliefs)

In addition sometimes new people provide new perspective on their growth (success & failures) experience.  The new people possibly have just seen “from the other side” and discern different learnings. They see what Taleb called “half invented ideas” and know how to fully invent them.

It is fresh perspective.

And most independent business people lose perspective as time goes on because they have cocooned themselves within their “successful behavior” <and their successes>.

Regardless.  Let me end with several overarching thoughts.

Each generation faces radical adversity.

Each generation facilitates extraordinary change (beneficial as a whole).

Each older generation is extraordinarily reluctant to release that which is comfortable to them (and what they “know” … or believe to know).

And, lastly.

We older folk, manager types, should reflect upon this.

Why?

Because we are managers. And we are managers of those who will beget what will be better than what we have done or created.  We are mangers of the future. That doesn’t diminish what we have done. And we should embrace the fact we have created an environment for others to go farther than we were able to go.

We wonder why managing young people is so difficult?

Well.

It is not because of some pop psychology generational differences.

It is because we are holding them back (in general). It’s like trying to tame mustangs in the Wild West. Except we, unlike the savvy old cowboys, don’t reflect on the beauty of the wildness of the mustang as we try and tame them. We simply see the wild untamedness and believe it is a shame they are so wild.

Older managers, to be successful, need to admire the beauty of the untamed.  And not seek to break the mustangs but rather guide their energy to enable them to take the herd to the heights it deserves.

A poetic metaphor (bad one)? Maybe.

But certainly something worth pondering.

All I really know is if you look close enough, pay attention to what really matters, the more things change the more they stay the same.

Earlier today I reshared my thoughts on the lack of civility in political rhetoric and how that fosters an environment of violence – either unacted upon violent thoughts or actual violent actions. I even wrote ‘the politics of resentment’. Which leads me to Trump. Violence has always bubbled below the surface in America, but where I lay a large burden of the blame on Trump is for using it as a tool of “America Greatness”, i.e., the violence is done by patriots passionate about their great America. It really was not that long ago that in 2015 and 2016 the Trump cult was being shaped with violence.

It seemed like just another day and another violent Trump rally. The incidents kept piling up.

Chicago protest fights. A Black Lives Matters protester was sucker-punched by a white bystander at a rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina. A young black woman was surrounded and shoved aggressively by a number of individuals at a rally in Louisville, Kentucky. A black protester was tackled, then punched and kicked by a group of men as he curled up on the ground in Birmingham, Alabama. Immigration activists were shoved and stripped of their signs by a crowd in Richmond, Virginia. A Latino protester was knocked down and kicked by a Trump supporter in Miami.

At that time I said this version of America is not the America I know, the America I want nor is it America anywhere near great. While I remain steadfast on the latter two, on the first I was wrong. I now know the Trump America and it is violent.

It makes me angry.

It disturbs me.

Just to remind everyone, one of the most disturbing moments, one which truly made me angry, was angry as I watched a protest in Chicago devolve into what could only look like a riot to the entire world.

Another reminder. A Republican, at that time, said: “Tonight the seeds of division that Donald Trump has been sowing this whole campaign finally bore fruit, and it was ugly.”

I am angry because Mr. Trump knew what he is doing. He was playing with fire. Playing it as close to the fire as he could without getting burned <or burning down the house> because in his own pea like mind he has decided that this warped version of passion will energize change and ‘winning.’

Just as he has shown a complete disdain for a ‘good win’ versus a ‘bad win’ he also shows no signs that he understands the difference between ‘bad passion’ and ‘good passion.’

That is the sign of an incompetent ignorant lazy leader.

I am angry.

I am not angry at America or its people or even most of Trump’s followers; I am angry at a person who wants to be the emperor who has no clothes. He offers only platitudes of ‘deals & wins’ as solutions to any issue he is asked about and, worse, simplistically twists the “us versus them” narrative into “we good people & they bad/evil people” platitudes.

He skates on the slippery superficial surface of emotion and an enhanced feeling of irrelevance <or being marginalized> from a minority of the populace who has now found a voice.

I remain angry even to this day.

And I get even angrier because Trump, to this day, assumes no, none, nada, whatever version of “zero” you want to apply here … responsibility for anything.

It is never his problem. It is never his issue. It is never anything but ‘the bad people’ <media, people who do not agree, Muslims/Islam, Mexicans, immigrants, stupid elite, etc.>. It is never him.

This despite the fact he is the common denominator.

And this also means, to Mr. Tump, he is never responsible for his words.

We are all responsible for the words we say. Everyone.

That said.

It most likely took me far too long to understand this, but while freedom of speech is an equal freedom for all & everyone, the responsibility tied to that freedom is not equal. Responsibility increases upwards. The larger the forum, the more impact as a leader I have, the larger the actual managerial/actionable responsibility the leader has AND the larger the responsibility to the speech portion of my freedom I have.

Trump acts, and has always acted, like he has no more responsibility with regard to what he says than the guy sitting at the end of the bar after a 10 hour day drinking his 5th draft beer with his buddies bitching about the world.

======== Trump supporter ==========

A leader has a responsibility to listen to his/her people but any good leader knows you don’t incite latent negative emotion within an organization … you show you listen, unite and give specifics on how the organization will progress from that point on.

Lastly.

I am angry because I have run across these faux business leaders in business and they are the worst of the worst. They are hollow of anything. And blanket their hollowness with superficiality or faux emotion. And, most importantly, they make nothing great.

Trump is particularly skilled at manipulating his version of the public to his own ends. And, in that, he doesn’t even recognize his divisiveness <which is frightening for someone who was leader of the free world>. I believe he doesn’t recognize the divisiveness because he lives in an alternative universe in which everyone else is wrong and the problem and protestors never have a valid reason and anyone not in ‘his crowd’ must be unpatriotic.

Mr. Trump, assuming he actually desired to be a president, never understood all citizens are his crowd. You either decide to try and unite by listening and convincing them of your path to ‘greatness’ or I imagine you just let them rot somewhere as you, and your followers, shun them. And, well, that’s what he did. And by shunning them, while fostering a violent attitude, he gave implicit permission to be violent as long as it was targeted to those he shunned.

I cannot remember in my 60something lifetime anything like this.

And, yeah, I am still angry.

And, if I am honest, a little nervous certainly unsettled and, well, maybe a little scared.

This feeling did not come easily.

And I know exactly when it happened. It was a March morning in 2016 when I discussed my anger at Trump’s lack of assuming responsibility after the Chicago rally incident and it happened as I said “I have never seen this before in my lifetime.”

Because I do know where I have seen it before. This is the divisiveness of dictators and autocrats. I hesitated to use examples from the past, but the names came very very close to crossing my lips. It was an uncomfortable feeling to be that close to comparing Trump to some of the worst of the worst leaders from past history. And what got me that close to uttering the examples is that instead of making a call for discussion and debate he insists on calling for silence and authoritarianism <absurdly under the guise of ‘freedom of speech’>. To be clear, I no longer hesitate to draw these comparisons. To be clear, as he harkens back to the ‘good ole days’ he even seems to encourages violence <under the guise of “we are so weak and need to be strong again”>.

This is bully logic.

Trump disavows violence and yet encourages it. He encourages a consistent ‘strong message’ <however you, the followers, would like to deliver that message to ‘them’> of silencing dissent, silencing debate, silencing real solutions, silencing critics and silencing competitors. And he fills their silent space with bombastic platitudes of deals & wins and divisive rhetoric.

While he’s narcissistic, self-absorbed, power hungry/crazy and driven by either greed or ‘winning by any measure” I almost think we are seeing a public case study example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

This is a cognitive bias in which a relatively unskilled person suffers illusory superiority. This translates into mistakenly assessing their ability and believing their skills, and themselves, to be significantly better than what it actually is. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their own ineptitude and evaluate their own ability accurately. When Trump looks in the mirror he sees only something superior to everyone else … maybe even superior to America itself.

Anyway.

I am not a huge follower of politics but it seems to me that consistent violence at the scale of 2016 was rare in American politics, but now it has almost become the norm.

And I am still angry at Mr. Trump.

Angry at his overall lack or personal responsibility. Angry at his disdain for the power of words. Angry at his lack of understanding of freedom of speech as it pertains to leadership. Angry at his lack of desire to try and convert dissenters, but rather silence or eject/reject dissenters.

Angry at his hollowness <because I want a leader who is full of a robust vision beyond deals & wins>.

And, mostly, I am angry at what he has done to America.

He never had any interest in making America great, he simply encouraged us to hate.

And hate is the foundation for violence. Ponder because this is important.

==========

“I’ve been injected with false hope so many fucking times I’ve lost count”

via concealthefeeling

===========

“We all suffer from dreams.”

Bernard Cornwell

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

Well. I am unequivocally a hope guy.

I believe leaders should be dealers of hope.

I believe hope is stronger than … well … pretty much anything.

I believe no one should be empty of hope.

I believe everyone deserves someone to give them hope when hopelessness seems the only thing available.

That said.

While, technically, false hope is a simple definition, realistically, there are a couple kinds of false hope.

Ok. Actually a shitload of derivatives of false hope.

In my words there would be, on one end of the spectrum, the more heinous version of ‘offering a fantasy unrealistic thought’ all the way over to the other bookend of ‘grasping for some glimmer of a semi-impossible reality.”

And then everything in between.

Hope, in even a false way, has many dimensions. And within any and all dimensions I would suggest even a sliver of hope has an exponential value beyond its mere size. It is quite possible that is where false hope becomes a little dangerous – that exponential value beyond its actual size.

Even with a glimmer, hope can shine so bright it can blind you to the relentless onslaught of truths and realities. The truths which are more likely to showcase the horizon you are not only gonna be stuck looking at, but visiting at some point <which is not the horizon you had actually hoped for>. But false hope is maybe even slightly more dangerous than that <if anything could be more dangerous than be blinded by reality>.

It actually is more likely to blind you on the important little shit than the meaningless bigger shit. False hope inevitably drives someone to focus on the bigger more audacious, and less likely, objective. This translates into the fact that same someone is more likely to overlook the smaller more important shit that would actually have increased the odds of attaining the hopeful objective.

How does that most often happen?

You are more likely to make some smaller, more impactful, poor choices and decisions hanging on to the sliver of false hope like it is a security blanket from the dangers of the reality you know must be out there.

By the way. That is the main difference between real hope and false hope – in the nuts & bolts aspects.

Real hope. Real hope, which truly has aspects of reality embedded within, actually permits you to navigate reality’s obstacles as you pursue the real hope of something. The real truth is that real hope does not blind, it actually opens your eyes. That said. Contrary to belief the most dangerous false hope is not the one which is complete fantasy it is the type that actually has some reality embedded.

Yeah. False hope is not always some fantasy.

Yeah. False hope is not always something with “no knowable chance of coming to fruition.”

Yeah. As I stated in the beginning someone who purposefully propagates a true fantasy, something so unrealistic, well, that really isn’t false hope that is propagating a lie. And exploiting a lie is a heinous act <but that is NOT false hope>.

So, to be clear, false hope can be propagated not as some false promise or lie, but rather in a weird ‘well intended way.’ Say, for example, someone has been elevated to a position who is unqualified and untested … but has some tested competency. They sit down at their new desk with all the intentions to succeed and all the words to suggest everyone should believe they will figure it out and succeed.

Well. Let’s say they have strong well intended hope that they will do the job and deliver what they promise.

That is a trickier version of false hope. It is propagated from someone who quite possibly has some false beliefs with regard to their own capabilities, but true belief in a good objective.

Uhm. But what if they do figure it out?

Well. They have delivered on hopes therefore, in some weird equation of Life, a false hope has becomes a real hope delivered.

Look. My point is hope is hope.

And unless someone is lying just to get everyone’s unrealistic hopes up, any hope is better than no hope. You can either not have hope, or have false hope, or real hope <albeit ‘real’ and ‘hope’ is a tenuous relationship>.

To be clear … all actions should be determined by reason, logic and practicality within a construct of strategic hope. That is the main Hope equation.

But hope is, well, hope. And it is hope for a reason. You want something better and at exactly the same time you are not omniscient nor a future prognosticator therefore any and all hoe is fraught with some potential falseness an some potential truth.

Hope, in and of itself, is and has always been an abstract concept.

Fortune, luck, hard work & preparation can guide someone toward hope or away from hope.  Hope is never, and I mean NEVER, representative of certainty. Therefore to accept any hope, false of true, you have to accept the existence of possibilities – good and bad.

To me, in my pea like brain, all false hope implies is that the odds are against you and success is slim, yet, people believe they can overcome any and all obstacles. And, in that point, is where I could argue that false hope is as good as any hope out there.

For in that statement if that is what makes someone get out of bed in the morning and go out and try to do something good or even just try, well, that’s not false that is real.

Having led people I do not use hope flippantly even though I believe in hope as a leadership responsibility.

I do believe people want truth.

I do believe people want to feel safe.

I do believe people want someone to accept some of the burden of the bigger more visionary aspects of Life.

I do believe people want to contribute, personally, within progress toward a specific hope for something better.

I do believe Hope, false or true, is hope.

And we all deserve hope.

===========

“People aren’t interested in the truth.

They’re interested in what keeps them safe.

They’re interested in being looked after. They’re interested in a tale being spun… Mighty men have moments of great despair that common people do not want to know about.”

Melina Marchetta

=====

originally published December 2016

=========

“To be in a state of self-control, a person must know: what he/she is supposed to do, what he [or she] is actually doing, what choices he/she has to improve results wherever necessary. If any of these three conditions are not met, a person cannot be held responsible.”

JM Juran

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

“As automation and artificial intelligence increasingly replace algorithmic and analytical tasks, the economy of The Conceptual Age will favour workers adept in areas that favour creativity, empathy and meaning (‘human’ concepts that are otherwise difficult to replicate by machine).”

Dr Jason Fox

=========

There is a lot of bullshit being written about “The 4^th Industrial Revolution” tying it to technology, renewed business moral awareness, inequality, automation, whatever. I wrote this, and that last sentence, in 2018 and still believe it. I hate labels and I hate trying to attach change to anything specific when it is more likely a confluence of factors.  I will say whatever is happening feels like a seismic shift in business ideology. That said. Whenever I scribble something about the Future of Business I keep coming back to Dr Jason Fox’s Conceptual Age idea he discussed with Mike Walsh in a podcast.

It seems to be the axis mundi for, well, everything we talk about. Purpose, distributed leadership organizational models, data/digital, thinking, innovation, etc.

Well crafted conceptual thinking.

In about 2010 I first wrote about something called “deconstruction thinking” wherein I suggested the future business model will reflect more of a “do, deconstruct & re-do” mentality. At the core of a successful deconstruction thinking model is the ability to think conceptually or in terms of concepts not rigid constructs. It was kind of a bastardized  mosh pit of scenario planning, ‘teal’, Toffler ‘polymalleable organizations’ and a desire to see effectiveness emphasized over efficiency.

I believe at the core of any future success is the coalescing of prioritized fragments into a conceptual whole in a timely fashion. This will demand not only critical thinking, but also the ability to envision how that thinking can exist in a future state.

Simplistically, concepts are about networked value creation which can occur structurally or transactionally.

Structural conceptual thinking, implemented as networked value creation, is not that difficult and has been done for decades.

Transactional conceptual thinking, combined with the actual networked value creation, is hard – very difficult. It’s about envisioning opportunities/issues, envisioning resources/ideas/abilities and envisioning how to put it into action. In other words, its difficult.

I continue to believe the future of business (in any industry) will lie in the hands of people who can not only envision THE work (present & future) as concepts in combination with the ability to articulate it in ways that make it tangible enough to be understood and acted upon (this, generally, is an idea Dr. Jason Fox has discussed).

This will demand one to embrace paradox & contradictions and dismiss either/or choices as too simplistic in a more complex conceptual world of thinking. No one should confuse this with speed or ‘faster world.’ It’s not. It is simply about moving parts of which some move fast, some tectonically slow and the majority somewhere in between.

It will take a combination of accessing ‘black box’ output (which demands some level of trust & learning) and judgement and embracing a conceptual framework of synthesizing paradoxical tensions.

The new decision making Concept world, one enabled by technology and the ‘black boxes’ of knowledge computers offer in terms of knowledge, is ultimately a deconstructive thinking world. A world in which it is understood that a stimulus can create desired, and sometimes undesired, responses, and consequences, and success is often more based on reacting & adapting to an initial stimulus than perfecting the initial stimulus. This demands conceptual thinking both to construct a plan of action as well as being able to ‘deconstruct’ and adapt as plans get implemented.

I would argue that over time the black box thinking <the intangible and vague ‘knowing’> becomes more tangible as well as we gain more faith in certain black box thinking applications. Given that belief I would also argue that Concepts, which outlines are vaguer in the beginning, gain substance & tangibleness over time.

I would also point out there is an inherent ‘human’ aspect to this idea.

Even with all the technology noise there is a persistently human future of work looming over the entire conversation. Computers are just not capable of empathy, curiosity & imagination which are the cornerstones to effectiveness. If I were to label the next age I would steal Jason Fox’s “Conceptual Age” more than just Human, or Technology, or IOT or even digital.

Oddly, the biggest challenge to thinking conceptually is NOT ability, but rather efficiency.

What do i mean by that?

The paradox is that business has a need for quality information more than ever, yet, quality information, in the form of data or minds, is readily available if we can sift through what is available. Therefore, theoretically, concepts exist they simply need to be crafted. Which leads me to what Dr. Jason Fox said:  “I worry about the curse of efficiency.” Once again, paradoxically, the conceptual age is all about the effective use of time. That may sound very similar to efficiency and therein lies the greatest enemy of the Conceptual Age.

How people view time. Efficient time or effective time or a greater “efficacy of time.”

The world has, does and will revolve around ideas. Technology will simply distribute, analyze and amplify ideas. In this case, concepts. This may paradoxically seem both time efficient and time inefficient. In other words, we will get the pieces of the concept faster and faster and, yet, coalescing the appropriate pieces into a meaningful concept will take longer & longer.

Will we be patient enough for the Conceptual Age? Regardless. I continue to believe there is a bigger idea found in just the idea of The Conceptual Age. One which captures the nexus of technology & humans & meaning.

What may help us in our Time war is that, conceptually, concept thinking is motivating. Its action in thinking. Instead of linear problem solving it is more like gathering disparate puzzle pieces and arranging them into a cohesive, or coherent, shape. We may be motivated to concept (think) slower.

The challenge to the Conceptual Age (beyond time).

Concepts, at their core, embrace tension or a paradox (not a dilemma). While a dilemma forces an either/or a paradox, and a concept, synergizes all components of tension into an idea/action/product/plan.

The trouble is when organizations are faced with these competing demands, they often tend to choose one or the other, compromise between them, or attempt to reconcile them. This happens for many reasons, but I would suggest the overriding reason is that business people constantly attempt to simplify a complex reality. Most of us embrace it because, well, people have a general tendency to see the world in black and white terms, which is a false dichotomy (Scandinavian Journal of Management).

Even trickier (worse) when you consider what John Dewey said: “there is no such thing as a final settlement because every settlement introduces the conditions of some degree of a new unsettling.” Concepts are never settled. They are always evolving.

————–

“Sureness will always elude you. The detective will always circle around what he wants, never seeing it whole.  We do not go on despite this. We go on because of it.”

Sara Gran

—————

The Conceptual Age.

The best way I can visualize the Conceptual Age is by leveraging the Swiss Cheese Model , but for concepts and not crisis/accidents.

The Swiss Cheese model highlights accidents occur when hazards align. In my mind, conversely, the optimal concepts can be found when an alignment of ‘organizational depth moving pieces ‘(aspects of business are constantly in motion but at different speeds – fast, medium fast, medium slow, slow & unmoving) is recognized , articulated and acted upon.

Conceptual thinking comes in all sizes (venti, tall, grande), but I will suggest the largest value segments:

Structural

Or

Transactional

———————

Pillars

Or

Opportunistic

The ability to discern these concepts in a timely, actionable framework AND be able to articulate in a way to assemble resources to take advantage may turn out to be the most valuable human resource a business may have. I call it ‘resource’ because it is quite possible in the future this is a human/technology combination. Technology assessing, sifting thru, “information cues” (this does not have to just be data) and highlighting probabilities as they arise with human judgment/assessment of organizational capabilities (mustering resources is accessing mental resources as well as tangible resources). In other words, articulating the varying concepts, defining the definitions, affect the way competing demands are described and how the resulting tensions are dealt with.

Lastly.

The effect on ‘knowledge workers’ and managers. Whenever we speak of ‘thinking conceptually’ there is a belief this is for the ‘intellectual elite’ (the eggheads). It is not. It will affect everyone and it should, if properly embraced, affect everyone in a business.

1. I disagree with many future of work experts. I don’t believe managers will become obsolete in world of automation/AI. Managers are the connective tissue in organizations. In fact. I see managers as integral to any transformation from efficiency to effectiveness. I actually see them as the cornerstone of the Conceptual Age.
2. All jobs will be reshaped by technology and all jobs will play a role in the Conceptual Age (Mike Walsh: design work).
   

In the end.

The Conceptual Age has emerged from not only the emergence of technology in business, but also the challenges to conventional wisdom from science, philosophy and knowledge. I would suggest people, mindful of the of the overarching issues with business (lack of moral leadership, hierarchy control limitations, diminished meaning and engagement in tasks and work) and aided by the easy movement of ideas created by technology, in a larger narrative, the Conceptual Age is seeking a new understanding of a human-centric world. The Conceptual Age will be a cornucopia of ideas, some of them contradictory, but will be defined by reason, conceptual thinking and, inevitably, how those concepts inspire progress.

I do believe The Conceptual Age is going to be an equal opportunity employer. And I think Concepts are the products with the highest value in the future. To me, this is the future of business. Ponder.

===

originally written Fall of 2018

===

“And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.”

<Beyond Good and Evil> Friedrich Nietzsche

===

Well. This is mostly about being different.

Well. Actually. Maybe this is just about being yourself.

I say this because everyone is different. Sometimes discernible to the naked eye and sometimes not, but different nonetheless.

Now, unfortunately, discernible or not, sometimes being different seems to put you in some hole where you appear to live where no one else lives.

Oddly enough if you can actually get out of the hole you would simply see that almost everyone has their own hole that Life makes you climb in and out of on occasion.

But inevitably, at some point, Life puts you in your hole and leaves you there … alone … with your thoughts, These are thoughts of how different you are or how different you think or simply how different your life is from every one else … and Life doesn’t help you get out of the hole. Because it is yours. And it is yours to figure out how to get out of.

Stay in the hole long enough and, yes, it begins to look like an abyss. A never ending abyss leading to some sort of personal hell.

Which leads me to being yourself is extremely different in your tween & teen years than in your adult years.

In other words, not all holes and abysses are created equal.

We may like to think so but they aren’t.

An adult abyss is significantly different than a teen abyss.

I am certainly not suggesting that at any age you can find your way into a variety of different holes just that the experience of being in a hole is different.

In fact this hole thing, or the abyss if you get stuck in the hole, or when this abyss looks back at you it means that when you begin to know something that is fundamentally different from yourself and you take a piece of it with you and it changes you and vice versa well, all that I just said ? Yeah. That much is pretty much the same at any age.

But that assumes you get out of the frickin’ abyss.

And the truth is that ability can only come from Life experience.

Young people just don’t know how to get out of the hole. They just don’t have the experience.

And even as we know some adults need help getting out of the hole, young people DEFINITELY need help getting out of the hole.

The adult example?

I will use a wonderful West Wing tv show episode, Noël, scene where Leo tells Josh the following story:

“This guy’s walking down the street when he falls in a hole. The walls are so steep he can’t get out.

“A doctor passes by and the guy shouts up, ‘Hey you. Can you help me out?’ The doctor writes a prescription, throws it down in the hole and moves on.

    “Then a priest comes along and the guy shouts up, ‘Father, I’m down in this hole can you help me out?’ The priest writes out a prayer, throws it down in the hole and moves on

“Then a friend walks by, ‘Hey, Joe, it’s me can you help me out?’ And the friend jumps in the hole. Our guy says, ‘Are you stupid? Now we’re both down here.’ The friend says, ‘Yeah, but I’ve been down here before and I know the way out.'”

<West Wing Hole scene>

These are smart adults.

Well.

Kids need the same help.

And I say this unequivocally just in case you look around and see they are shrugging off the help or adamantly opposing the help or any other type of typical tween/teen independent ‘fuck you I don’t need your help’ attitude you will get.

Kids need help getting out of holes.

That’s it. No ifs, ands or buts.

They may not like asking for help … but they need it.

Look.

We encourage young people to embrace their individuality.

And we should.

But with that encouragement also comes a responsibility. For if they do embrace their individuality they will also be embracing the fact that they are in some form or fashion … different.

We don’t want our kids to be alike.

“The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.”

The Dawn

Self esteem really isn’t about ‘being alike’ or similarities or being part of the crowd. Sure. It can play a role. But real self esteem comes from embracing the individuality, the ‘true to thineself’ aspect, that lies within everyone if they seek it.

And in that path to a strong self esteem there are potholes and sometimes some really big deep frickin’ holes.

I can almost guarantee every kid will either slip into a hole or go crashing into a hole at some point in their young Life. I can guarantee that because there are so many holes, real ones and created ones <the worries that inevitably follow a young person through their teen years>, that it is simply not possible to miss them all.

I will share a teen truth just to remind all of us adults:

Teen life and high school is not really a melting pot but more a jungle, run along crude and arbitrary lines of popularity. The kids <today as was yesterday> face the onslaught full spectrum of adolescent anxiety … worrying what your peers will think … secret crushes <and finding the courage to tell the object of what is sometimes simply a fantasy> … worrying you’re too poor <or too rich>, worrying about your parents … worrying if you are good enough … even worrying if haven’t rolled the cuff of your jeans  up just high enough to be right.

Some of that sound silly? You bet.

But we should take it all seriously.

Teen life is the worst and the best of Life.

It has dark, brutal undercurrents and the glittery sparkles of Hollywood all tempered by the disturbing ongoing clash of the dream and the reality.

Which leads me to say that they will need help getting out of whatever hole they fall in. And I am talking about active help, not simply insuring they now they have some intangible support system to lean on or reach out to. I say that because we are often quite flippant with regard to the belief that we are ‘there for them’ and the reality is that sometimes when they fall in one of their holes … they not only lose sight of you <and everything else> but the abyss steals their voice.

For any number of reasons <fear, insecurity, embarrassment, esteem, misplaced courage, independence, rebellion> they will not speak up … or out from the hole.

You have to be active. You cannot simply say ‘here is a rope and I can pull you up if you need help and take it.’ More often we have to jump in the hole yourself and join them.

Why? Because if you permit them to linger too long in the hole … well … the abyss will gaze into them. And inevitably that abyss will find some dark corner in the mind and will find a place to live, eat and breathe for years and years to come.

Look.

Holes are fine in Life.

They are part of Life.

You just have to make sure you know how to get out of them.

Just make sure you teach kids around you to get out of them.

Make sure you do not simply offer a lifeline out of a hole, but jump in with them and show them the way out.

It will be a Life lesson they will never forget.

Ponder.

=====

Everyone was born with a limited amount of fucks to give.

During your teenage years you give a ton and slowly give less and less from there.

just shower thoughts

=====

When I saw this quote had to sit back and think.

Why?

Because I could read it two ways.

First.

As you get older you just get worn down and just stop giving a fuck about a lot of things.

Second.

As you get older you learn that not everything deserves ‘giving a fuck’ and you give less, but, you should give more of a fuck when you do.

I pondered this a little.

And then I got curious and found that if you type “give a fuck” in google search you will get about 4,610,000 results (0.38 seconds), but … here is the interesting thing  … you get page after page on ‘philosophy <or ‘the art’> of not giving a fuck.’

Basically the internet is strewn with articles and advice on how to not give a fuck. How crazy is that? It is almost like the google world is attempting to offer some extraordinary justification for being indifferent, to actually practice being indifferent, which, in my mind, is maybe a different slant on how to be a complete moron.

I mean, c’mon, if we really only have a limited amount of fucks to give, well, wouldn’t you expect some really good advice on how to prioritize and parse them out? I say that because it seems like we could all use some good advice with regard to knowing when to give a fuck and when not to give a fuck.

I will say one thing about giving a fuck. Caring about shit is the essence of Life.

Ok. Maybe two things.

Caring and actively engaging in shit is the essence of Life <I actually called it RSVP and Life once>.

But. The moment you become indifferent, the moment you just don’t give a fuck, well, there is no Life. There is no heartbeat. Life is dead.

I am certainly not going to suggest you care about everything. I will not because I agree that we do not have an unlimited amount of fucks to give. But it just doesn’t make sense to not care.

Now. Life does a fairly good job of suggesting not giving a fuck is a much easier way of living Life.

Life is full of a lot of shit we don’t understand.

Life is full of a lot of things that just do not seem to make sense.

Life is full of a lot of things that just doesn’t seem logical.

Life is full of a lot of things that seem different than what you want or think about.

Life is full of a lot of questions and a lot fewer answers than we want.

Life is full of a lot of answers that don’t really solve anything.

Life is full of a lot of things that make you scratch your head and say “I never understood why.”

All of those things seem like “slow” as in “a lot of shit that will slow me down from getting to where I want to go and getting what I want to get.”

I imagine after reading that list and my last sentence many people may think “then why give a fuck.”

Well. Because none of those things make Life any ‘less’ or any less meaningful. They just make it a little less certain. They just make things a little more risky. They just make it all a little less straightforward.

In fact I could suggest that almost all Life throws at you could fall into the “WTF category”. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t give a fuck.

Anyway. I agree with the opening quote. I don’t believe we have an unlimited amount of fucks to give. That doesn’t mean we only have one or two just that they are not unlimited.

But that doesn’t mean you should embrace the thought “well, I have no more fucks to give … so … I just don’t give a fuck about anything anymore.” Nor should it mean you should start seeking opportunities to not give a fuck under the belief it will help you get what you want and where you want to be faster.

Look. Here is what I know about giving a fuck.

If you give enough of a fuck about your life, and trust it to give a fuck about you on occasion, well, a fuck of a lot of good things can happen if you just fucking go out and work hard. Ponder.

====

“The detective thinks he is investigating a murder or a missing girl. But truly he is investigating something else altogether, something he cannot grasp hold of directly.

Satisfaction will be rare. Uncertainty will be your natural state.  Much of your life will be spent in the dark woods, no path visible, with fear and loneliness your only companions.

But answers exist.

Solutions wait for you, trembling, pulling you to them, calling your name, even if you cannot hear.

I believe that someday, perhaps many lifetimes from now, all will be explained, and all mysteries will be solved. All knowledge will be free for the taking, including the biggest mystery of all – who we really are. But for now, each detective, alone in the woods, must take the clues and solve mysteries alone.”

Jacque Silette

====

We are all detectives investigating Life and our Life within it.

That said. We all think we are investigating purpose or career happiness or happiness in general.

But despite doing all that investigating most of us eventually realize that grasping the things we seek is fleeting and more often our grasp is tentative and indirect.

Sure. We all find some satisfaction, but they tend to reside in glimpses, not in endless continuity, and certainly not in perpetuity.

Suffice it to say we tend to find this inconstancy & uncertainty far too common … and uncomfortable.

The truth is we are most often in the dark with regard to overall personal purpose with no clear path visible and even when on a clear path it is often paved with doubt & uncertainty. That means the physical companions which stand alongside are the companions of fear, doubt and loneliness.

Despite all of that I tend to believe we all know answers exist, and we all know they await us somewhere, even if we cannot hear them.

Because of that belief we are constantly investigating who we really are often desperately grabbing at clues or proof to provide some comfort that we have either solved the mystery or at least are on the path to solving it.

That said.

I find “who you really are/who am I?” as a silly, if not stupid, self question.

Why?

Who I am today is not who I will necessarily be tomorrow.

Which leads me to an uncomfortable thought.

If you take the time to really think about this topic, I believe we all kind of know, in an uncomfortable sense, that the mystery of who we are will only be explained … well … maybe lifetimes from now, but suffice it to say most likely not in our own lifetime.

How frustrating that sounds as I type it. Think about it.

The only people who will know who we truly are today are not us, but someone somewhere in a future yet to be defined.

What a frustrating thought <at least to me>.

And yet.

I have no doubt most of us, each of us a detective, will continuously search for clues and solve what mysteries we can today.

That’s what we do.

We scan about for clues to be better, think better and understand better. Why? Because we are all detectives, whether we want to be one or not, all attempting to solve the mystery that is us & Life around us.

Ponder.

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

“Community is the fact that we work toward the same goal, that we accept our respective roles in order to reach it.

Values is the fact we trust each other.

And, culture?

Culture is as much about what we encourage as what we actually permit. That matters because most people don’t do what we tell them to. They do what we let them get away with.”

Fredrick Backman

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

“You don’t know what you can get away with until you try.”

Colin Powell

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

Well. The relationship between secrets and culture and community is one which is fraught with contradictions, conflict and humanness.

I imagine this conflict is driven by the natural chafing between self-interest and community <I have called this community individualism & Enlightened Individualism in the past>.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

We talk a lot about community and team and all of that good stuff. And we talk about it with good intentions. The problem is that true community demands some sacrifice.

Therein lies our big secrets.

On occasion we decide self-interest is more important than sacrifice.

Uhm.

This is a version of ‘what you can get away with.’

That phrase sounds horribly horrible. It suggests nefarious type behavior. But the truth of it is most of us see what we can get away with on some very personal day-to-day less-than-nefarious type stuff.

• We cut some corners.

• We maybe don’t tell people how we truly feel <or who we truly are>.

• We steal some post-it notes.

These are our little secrets.

We may even have some bigger personal secrets that we decide are just not things we want to share <these are not nefarious … just personal>.

Regardless.

For many of us our behavior arcs toward what we can get away with. That doesn’t mean it is completely unethical, or some abhorrent behavior, just that while norms set a ‘median’ standard guideline Life is constantly suggesting ‘but this one time you can get away with doing this.”

Which leads me back to the real issue.

The issue resides with the friction between culture and community and self. What I mean by that is the stronger & more powerful the cultural community norm is the bigger your secret becomes if you avoid the norms. This secret takes on exponential size if you start believing that the norms that are good for you are good and the ones that don’t match up with what you believe is your self-interest are bad.

You only accept the existence of the formal and informal cultural norm structure that constitutes accepted community construct, uhm, only as long as that suits your purposes.

Your big secret, therefore, doesn’t have to do with your own behavior, but rather in your non-belief ,if not overall disdain, for the community norms.

Which leads me to hate.

Why hate?

When you decide to see what you can get away with, you have to mentally divide community into “we” and “they.” And in doing so you make ‘we’ good <which suggests what you can get away with is on the side of good> and, conversely, you make ‘they’ bad.

This is a simplistic tactic for attempting to carry the burden of a big secret.

Hate is simple and hate can be an incredibly powerful empowering emotion.

Why?

In this scenario, using hate, the world becomes much easier to understand and less confusing, in the scheme of things, if you divide everything into friends & enemies, good & evil, right & wrong and a basic we & they.

This helps us because the world is strewn with conflict. Not just physical war, but of ideas, thoughts, beliefs and attitudes. Cultures, communities and classes are bombarded with conflict after conflict. And maybe because of the sheer amount of conflict one of the first things we do is pick sides. We choose a side to stand on because … well … it is easier. It is easier than thinking or, even more difficult, trying to hold parts of two ideas which appear in conflict in our heads at the same time. And once we have chosen a side we then go out and seek some information, or ‘facts’, to confirm not only what we believe but the side we have chosen – this permits us to maintain the status quo and chug along with Life as ‘normal.’

Oh. Yeah.

And then we proceed to do is demonize, or dehumanize, the other side. We diminish them. Make them, their thoughts & ideas, lesser than.

……. making “they” smaller ……..

I would suggest this all just makes you smaller as a person <carrying around a big secret>.

Which leads me to say that big secrets make small people.

Yeah. Unfortunately all of us become smaller with a big secret.

And this smallness is compounded by the unfortunate fact that you become even smaller when ‘we’ are the people who others HAVE to keep big secrets from because they believe, and know, we cannot handle them <or don’t believe in them>.

All secrets carry a weight to them.

===

“To agree to keep a secret is to assume a burden.”

Sam Harris

===

In fact I could argue that all knowledge is a burden. It carries a weight of responsibility with regard to what you do with it, how you act because you have it, as well as how you think about you, and others, with it. Oh. Secrets ARE knowledge.

Having accepted knowledge you have made an agreement with it. I tend to believe we don’t think about this. We accept knowledge as … well … maybe like income earned – disposable income in fact. We worked for it, we earned it and it is now ours to spend as we choose.

But knowledge is actually more like freedom. It is an unalienable right, but it is also a privilege and therefore one assumes a responsibility to it.

Uhm.

And with responsibility comes burden. Which almost sounds odd in that something with ‘free’ in it also carries such a heavy burden. Maybe I should just suggest that nothing really comes for free, i.e., everything has something attached to it.

Knowledge?

Responsibility. The burden of responsibility. And that is a weight you carry. One which can be as light or as heavy as you make it. But. It is a weight nonetheless. One which you learn to carry well or carry poorly.

Knowledge tests our ability and our character with regard to how well we can carry this weight. It tests how strong we are .. once again … in ability and in character.

Having said that <and most likely having a number of people feeling a little uncomfortable thinking about knowledge that way>.

Secrets are a completely different level of a knowledge burden.

And secrets are tricky.

• Some are thrust upon you — unwanted but yet yours nonetheless.
• Some are gifted you — carefully shared by someone who believes the weight it carries is too much for themselves … alone.
• Some are just yours — built by you and carried by you.

But regardless of how you assume the responsibility of a secret; it is also knowledge. And therefore it also carries a burden, a responsibility, and a weight.

I don’t have the scale to weigh them, but my guess is that a knowledge secret exponentially weighs more than a traditional knowledge.

I also don’t have any research, but I also tend to believe, just like extra physical weight, as soon as we start feeling the extra weight of a secret … we seek to shed it.

Therein lies the true test of character.

Therein lies how big secrets can make small people.

All knowledge tests you. Secrets test you even more.

Knowledge, and secrets, take a strength of self to carry its weight.

The weight of responsibility of having the knowledge, the weight of freedom knowledge typically gives us and the weight of character that knowledge either makes you bigger or makes you smaller.

Whew.

That is a lot of extra weight we have accepted by taking on these secrets.

Which leads me to good.

As in good people doing good things. And as in good versus almost good.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that sometimes very thin line between good and almost-good can make a massive difference in life. That sometimes very thin line can decide whether your secret makes you bigger or smaller.

Look.

If you are clever enough, even if you embrace community, you can get away with a shitload of stuff. But cleverness does not eliminate the fact you gain a bigger secret burden with every action.

And you know what?

The “community” knows we struggle with this a individuals. In fact it has even created some ‘auxiliary precautions’ to help us avoid unnecessary secrets.

Huh?

This is James Madison’s Federalist Paper #51 or “if men were angels” argument:

===========

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

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

We are no angels as people.

Secrets bear that truth out.

And … well … we all carry secrets.

And … the bigger the secrets the smaller we become.

Ponder.