===

Architecture is a way to create a physical version of an idea or a feeling. It is the way to construct reality as we wish it to be, rather than as it is.

Deyan Sudjic

===

“If I had to represent man ‘as he is,’ I should have required so bewildering a tangle of lines that a pure treatment of the element would have been out of the question; there would only have been an unrecognizable blur. Besides, I have no desire to show this man as he is, but only as he might be.”

Paul Klee

===

The basic ingredient of architectural design consists of two elements: mass and space. Interestingly, I would suggest this is the basic ingredient of social connectivity. Ponder that. I’ll get back to that later.

Anyway.

If the essence of things is the relationship between these two things, I would suggest, in today’s world, mass has taken on a disproportionate value compared to space. We seem to have a preoccupation with mass to such an extent it almost seems like we have become space blind. This is not a healthy situation to be in. Awareness of space engages in our full range of senses. And, I would argue, engaging all our senses is the pathway to engaging what is possible – for the individual as well as the community engaged with the space. Or maybe I could suggest that our progress is found within our capacity to perceive space from the spaceless. In layman’s terms that is a deepening perception of context and a deepening understanding of the situation possibilities. In systems thinking terms that is a deepening sense of the system as a whole.

Which leads me to say that space is made up of two elements: movement and stillness.

Not to get to “quantum” but these things can happen simultaneously.  This is the people’s canvas with which they can paint whatever experience they would like. And while we may put a higher value on mass, within space, the reality is the mass and space equation can be experienced by anyone, some moving and some still, on an equal basis. The test of our humanness is actually found in whether we can approach space and deal with it as a whole to maximize total potential. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out this demands that we do not think too early in terms of how to form the experience. Form should derive from, not be dictated by, either the design and the structure of the space or what we desire to design from that space. Making arbitrary decisions with regard to the experience too early too early in the process tends to stunt thought and inhibits or stop the flow of basic creativity within the space. I say that because once articulated structured experiences are hard to get rid of and tend to impose themselves where they do not belong. I’m suggesting that presence should be emergent. To be clear. I fully recognize we relentlessly attempt to ‘manage space’ and use ‘mass’ (and masses/people) to craft the space experiences all the fucking time. Emergent experiences are not happily embraced by people – generally speaking. In particular, leaders (a mass in and of themselves) invest a lot of energy managing spaces in the attempt to manage people and, well, manage power. In many ways, many ‘mass’ things, people included, are architects and architecture. Architects build for emotional and psychological purposes, as well for ideological and practical reasons. That said. Architecture is about power. What an architect can offer, in part, is the sense they are creating a space in which there is some sense of meaning and purpose or, maybe, that the meaning and purpose can be explored if not found within that space. At its best it includes a sense of belonging to a wider world, but at the same time celebrating the individual (the power) and his or her place in that world. But architecting, and architecture, is far too often concerned with the instinct to control, to order, to categorize, to shape life as it should be lived in a space, to choreograph every activity within every space. In other words, shaping a demand of a certain view of the world.

Which leads me to the interesting relationship between mass and space.

It is one thing to constrain space by structural devices such as walls. It is another thing to infuse space with activities that constrain minds. One could argue that the highest level of value as both mass and space working well together is to heighten the sense of ‘the mind’ and minds. What this pragmatically means is that while there will always be mass there must be enough space to provide for different activities and to allow things to articulate themselves in such a way that possibilities emerge free of constraint. The relationship between mass and space should be a continuous flow of experiences where each moment of time is preceded by a previous experience and becomes the stepping stone for the experience to come. If we desire a continuous flow of ‘progress experiences’, then the relationship of spaces and masses should not be one of constraining but rather releasing. Just to remind everyone, one of the objectives of space is movement. The purpose of a space is to affect the people who use it therefore its composition must encourage a continuous unbroken movement, flow, of impressions and experiences. Maybe what I am suggesting is that mass is a participator of space and should be viewed as an engine of movement, not just stillness.

Which leads me to stories and narratives.

Structures, buildings, meetings and gatherings are all expressions of mass and space of the culture within which it resides. They demand notice and are narratives and stories themselves. These stories are informally created as well as formally created. We, all of us, should think about what I just said. Far too often we emphasize the stories and experiences we construct and craft as the stories and narratives that matter. Yet, structures, buildings, meetings and gatherings generate narratives all by themselves. To be clear. Crafted “space narratives” have always been dependent upon the allocation of resources and manpower. Which means the execution of crafted narratives has always been at the discretion of those with their hands on the levers of power, i.e., those who wield the mass within the space. Although many spaces may appear to be rooted in pragmatism, or even diminished into some definition of ‘just space’. it is a powerful tool of human psychology. Far too often it is a tool for inflating the individual ego to the scale of a community, a city, a nation and, yes, even a business. It reflects the motivations, ambitions, and insecurities of that particular ‘mass’, therefore, if someone squints hard enough they can see the nature of its belief in power, its strategies, and its desired impact upon people. Space, in and of itself, is a form of mass communication. By understanding what it communicates, and the relationship between psychology and power, offers a key insight into what exists and, in fact, our own existence. And there is where I will end. With a cautionary tale for those who thrive in ‘crafting spaces, experiences and stories.’ Space, left to its own devices, tells it own stories and narratives and offers its own experiences. These are the ‘informal stories.’ These are the stories the ‘masses’ tell themselves when some ‘mass’ isn’t telling them what to think about that space or within that space. Ponder.

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

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.

===

“No matter how careful you are, there’s going to be the sense you missed something, the collapsed feeling under your skin that you didn’t experience it all. There’s that fallen heart feeling that you rushed right through the moments where you should’ve been paying attention.

Well, get used to that feeling. That’s how your whole life will feel some day.

This is all practice. “

—

Chuck Palahniuk

====

“It’s never as good as you want it to be; It’s never as bad as it seems.”

—

William Chapman

====

Well. Chuck Palahniuk writes some really deep shit. Stuff that really makes you think. That said, I have to admit, when I read the opening quote a lot of things about living Life, in business and personal, made a helluva lot more sense to me.

Maybe it’s just me, but, it seems like most of Life is tainted by sense of constantly missing ‘something’ … as in something maybe better than where we are and what we are doing and feeling or in what we have done. It isn’t always this huge disappointment. It’s just like a little nagging sliver in the palm of your hand.

All the while this sense is interposed with glimpses of … well … what is actually better. We, being we humans, naturally don’t accept the sense we missed something. Therefore we begin becoming more & more careful with how we invest our time and more careful about what we do <or don’t do>. Basically, we start treating our lives carefully assuming that if we do so, we will have less sense of something missing and more glimpses of ‘the better we feel like we are missing sometimes.’

Boy.

Are we wrong.

Boy.

We sure are investing a shitload of energy chasing something I believe Life simply dangles in front of us to tease us with thoughts of ‘what could be.’

It is quite possible we should learn to accept the nagging sense of missing something as … well … good. Good as in it makes us a little more alert for ‘things.’ Maybe it just makes us pay attention a little more.

Maybe we should accept the feeling isn’t lostness nor the thought that maybe we were not on the right path in Life.

Maybe we should just accept it as a characteristic of a good life.

Anyway. All of this leads me to a quote, and a thought, I vehemently disagree with:

======

……. me reading this quote ……

“People who succeed tend to find one goal in the distant future and then chase it through thick and thin.  People who flit from one interest to another are much, much less likely to excel at any of them.  School asks students to be good at a range of subjects, but life asks people to find one passion that they will follow forever. “

David Brooks

<The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources Of Love, Character, And Achievement>

=======

That is just bullshit.

Life does not ask people to find one passion that they will follow forever. That’s like saying that I love ice cream, but I am only going to eat chocolate ice cream for the rest of my life because it is my favorite flavor.

What a potentially boring life.

What a potentially ‘missed opportunity’ life.

The whole ‘passion’ discussion makes my head hurt so badly I start rubbing my temples so hard that then the sides of my head hurt too.

Let’s be clear. It is not passion <although glimpses of passion is always fun>. Life asks you to do the best, be the best and pursue what you believes makes you the best of what you could be … that’s it.

That’s what you follow forever.

Is success achieving that ‘one goal in the distant future?’ Maybe for some. But ‘people who succeed tend to find one goal and chase it’ is bullshit. What happens if I suck at picking that one goal or maybe my sense of direction sucks as I ‘go thru think & thin’ getting to the horizon <only to find I am standing in nowhere land>?

Look.

I am all for people pursuing goals.

I am all for people being passionate.

I am all for pursuing thru thick & thin <assuming what you are pursuing is ‘real’ and not some fantasyland>.

But I am not all for putting the blinders on, the bit between the teeth and then run like hell toward some goal on the horizon. I do believe you should be inspired in your actions … but inspired is very different than passion.

Passion.   I have a passion … it is for something.

Inspired.    I can be inspired by many somethings and moments and experiences and … well … you get it.

Here is a Life truth. The people who tend to succeed are inspired … by one thing or by many things … doesn’t matter. They are just inspired people. 

===

“All the effort in the world won’t matter if you’re not inspired.”

Chuck Palahniuk  

===

All that said. Let me circle back to the beginning. No matter how careful you are, no matter how much and how hard you pursue something … you will still have a sense of having missed something. Everyone has an undercurrent sense, a feeling, of missing something.

Look. We all pursue one thing — happiness. We may couch it in some ‘idea I have’ or ‘money’ or “purpose” or, well, anything else life has to offer, but we all want, and therefore seek, happiness. I would suggest what Chuck suggested we think about is not really acceptance of ‘lesser than what we want’ but rather accept the balance Life offers us.

The balance in that we will almost naturally have some sense of ‘something better’ no matter how careful we are in managing our lives or the pursuit of some goal.

The balance of actually getting a glimpse of that ‘something’ and not having rushed thru some important moment versus the missing feeling.

Well. Having said all that.

When I read the opening quote I had a better understanding of why so many people are unhappy far too often.

Because if we DON’T accept the sense of missing something as part of living a full Life … well … that means you will spend your entire life chasing that sense <to suffocate it in some way>. If you do that, well,  that pursuit will inevitably suffocate your Life <and that is an unhappy Life>. Ponder. Maybe I am missing something. And maybe I am not.

==========

Originally posted October 2015

===

“We find the true person only through group organization. The potentialities of the individual remain potentialities until they are released by group life. Thus, the essence of democracy is creating. The technique of democracy is group organization.”

Mary Parker Follett, The New State

===

I just had a conversation about employees with a good friend of mine who runs a business where “A clients need A players” came up. To be fair, he quickly said “I know you believe all employees have at least some A-level qualities/skills.” I do. Generally speaking, I believe most businesses squash the A-level ability in most people and the waste of human potential is immense. Certainly, some people have specific skills better than other people and ambition fluctuates person-to-person (ambition should never be conflated with skills), but, there is such a waste of human potential particularly in what many call ‘the workers’ or the blue-collar jobs or what leadership typically deems “the doers.” The bottom line in the discussion I was having was “I can’t tell you if you should be hiring anyone, or even who, if I don’t know if you are maximizing the people you have.”

But let’s get to potential.

In the 1980s Professors Edward Deci and Richard Ryan from the University of Rochester defined the six main reasons people work: play, purpose, potential, emotional pressure, economic pressure, and inertia. Since then, most research has suggested the first three motives tend to increase performance, while the latter three hurt it.

• Play is when you are motivated by the work itself. You work because you enjoy it, e.g., creating learning programs or problem solving how to break through to each person. Play is our learning instinct, tied to curiosity, experimentation, and exploring challenging problems.

• Purpose is when the direct outcome of the work fits your identity. You work because you value the work’s positive impact on, or for, other human beings.
• Potential is when the outcome of the work benefits your identity. In other words, the work enhances your potential.

Since these three motives are directly connected to the work itself in some way, they will improve performance to different degrees. If we want employees to have the cognitive ability, flexibility and agility needed to solve complex problems and collaborate effectively (whether face-to-face or remotely) as well as being able to develop and apply qualities such as critical thinking and creativity, we need to consider what we can do to enable those abilities to flourish and thrive and potential seems to be a rich mine for personal progress.

Which leads me to leadership (or nudging).

The conscientious nudger seeks to design systems and processes to help people make better choices for themselves. That said. Any choice architecture begins with sensemaking. For example, losses loom larger than gains in our minds and this steers motivation within sensemaking and choicemaking. Potential is found not only in curiosity & learning but in accepted risk and acceptable losses. All of this can be crafted in effective sensemaking. What I mean by that is if everyone makes sense of situations in the same way, or with similar characteristics, the choice architecture (and its boundaries) is crafted by the sensemaking and not through any leader (this is called The Law of the Situation). Therefore, the leader simply nudges people with a common sensemaking framework toward potential solutions, nudges curiosity and nudges probabilistic thinking so that people can explore – which is where potential is always found.

 

“Having a better theory of emergent organization would have a lot of practical benefits, allowing us to generate or simplify sets of rules that will result in productive ends.”

John Miller, Science of Complex Systems

==

Unfortunately, too many leaders inhibit people from asking questions that once seemed too absurd to consider and thus they prevent people from probing for patterns and insights that once resided in the realm of the unknowable. Potential explores limits and imitations. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t acknowledge limits but in doing so it should not amount to a dismissal of potentials.

Which leads me to principles.

Any time we seem to discuss A players, B players or any types of players we inherently create a warped competitive environment. I am not suggesting a business shouldn’t encourage some competition but it should be competing without feeling like it is competition or you are being competitive – you compete with stagnancy & entropy. This is when you are simply attempting to maximize your own potential and skills assuming your best will be, well, your best – win, lose or draw. This also assumes you believe your best will demand everyone else to bring their best so that even in a competitive environment if you ‘lose’ it Is simply because everyone played it the best they could.

So let me offer some principles:

• Human potential represents an organization’s main source of productivity

• Technology augments people, people don’t complement technology, potential emerges from augmentation

• An individual’s potential is not defined by one skill, but rather all skills/abilities (of all depths/dimensions) an individual has

• The highest organizational productivity, progress, profitability is found through maximizing opportunities efficiently and, simultaneously, effectively maintain productivity, progress & profitability

I tend to believe if you follow these principles you will just have team players, no A, B, C or whatever, and you will increase the probability these players will maximize their potential and, as a consequence, the business successes will increase. 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.

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

“It is always important to know when something has reached its end.  Closing circles, shutting doors, finishing chapters, it doesn’t matter what we call it; what matters is to leave in the past those moments in life that are over.”

Paulo Coelho

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

“When you start to suck, stop.”

Kristen Hersh

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

So. This is mostly about business <although, I imagine, some aspects bleed into Life>.

In business we create false endings all the time. And I mean ALL the time. Milestones, quarterly objectives, standards, etc. We do this not just because people have a tendency to work better aiming at something but also because we suck at knowing when something has naturally reached its end.

Now. I have written about stopping, or closing down, when you start sucking and how difficult that is.

Back in 2012 I said “sucking is like quicksand.  The harder you work to stop sucking the further you get sucked down into suckedness.”   A fun idea to write about, but that is different than recognizing an ‘end.’ That is simply not recognizing you have given all you can and it is all downhill from there <diminishing returns>. I have written about ‘periods’, the stop punctuation, and the art of knowing when to stop. A fun idea to write about but that is different than recognizing an ‘end’ … that is simply about not recognizing when you should shut up.

This post is about knowing, and I mean really knowing. when something has reached its end. Knowing that it is time to close, close up … and move on.

Uhm. This is hard. Really hard.

And, speaking for myself and how I think philosophically, I know I make it even harder. I once wrote about running through the end of project, I called it “riding to the buzzer.” Riding through things you are working on makes it a little more difficult to recognize whether you ran through a milestone or through its natural end. I say that because here is where a natural end truly becomes sneaky. 99% of the time it doesn’t appear as some brick wall or solid stop.

Sure. ‘The end’ most likely does have a stop sign around if you pay attention. More often than not any sign there is, is most likely covered up by some overgrown bushes which have never been trimmed. It seems a little strange because one would think we business people would be better at seeing ends and when to close up on something and move on. I mean, what the hell, business is strewn with milestones, objectives, deadlines and a slew of ‘people created’ ending points. Yet, most business people suck at the really important ability to know when something has reached its end.

We are not particularly good at it with regard to a company <uhm … companies actually do have life spans>.

We are not particularly good at it with regard to employee initiatives <once in place we have a nasty habit of thinking it should be an ongoing ‘organizational culture tool’ which enables consistent behavior>.

We are not particularly good at it with regard to existing products & services <what happens when there is actually something better to be offered?>.

We are not particularly good at it with regard to sales objectives <what happens when our stated audience is … uh oh … sated?>.

In fact. What we are particularly good at is getting whatever it is that we want done into a “doing” mode and then developing a whole slew of ways to nudge it down the road. I imagine if I stick with that metaphor I could suggest we suck at not seeing any stop signs because we are too focused on nudging and tweaking the engine and replacing shoes so people can keep walking down that road. But ‘being over’?

Whew. We hold on way beyond the sell date. Everyone does <me included>. It is natural.

=========== 

Letting go. Everyone talks about it like it’s the easiest thing. Unfurl your fingers one by one until your hand is open. But my hand has been clenched into a fist for three years now; it’s frozen shut.

All of me is frozen shut. And about to shut down completely.

Gayle Forman 

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

It is natural because of the dreaded “what’s next?”

Yeah. In order to acknowledge an end, to close up shop and move on, you have to know what’s next. And not only that … you kind of have to already have a plan in place or at least a road to bus everyone over to where they can get off and start walking. Maybe that is where we business folk suck the most. It’s not that we don’t know when to stop we just don’t know how to start again. Start anew.

About the only time we are actually good at it is within a ‘forced end.’ As in … we have no choice.

As I typed that I thought about, well, a different kind of business — the business of having a band and the arrival of the Foo Fighters after the death of Kurt Cobain:

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

“There were people that really resented me for starting this band. ‘How dare you start another band?’   They asked me ‘Why did you decide to carry on and make music that sounds like Nirvana?’ and I said well, wait a minute – like, loud rock guitars, and melodies, and cymbals crashing and big-ass drums?

‘Cause that’s what I do. What do you want me to do? Make a reggae record?”

Dave Grohl

<Foo Fighters>

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

When viewing the music industry and bands and individual artist you can find a lot of examples of forced ‘doing what needs to be done and moving on’ as well as ‘well, it is time to move on’ type endings <we business people should think about that a little>. When forced, talented business people do what needs to be done.

Unfortunately most of business doesn’t really create this kind of ‘forced decision.’ Most times we simply try and squeeze whatever we can out of whatever we have. And we squeeze until there is nothing left <way beyond the ‘end’>.

Ok. What to do. This is solvable and relatively easy in the scheme of things.

It is a version of ‘planned obsoletion’ <which I have always been a HUGE fan of in business>, but your senior management team needs to sit down on occasion and not do ‘blue sky thinking’, but hunker down like a military plan of action and say “we won this ground and what ground do we attack next.” This includes an attitude which says we will aggressively pursue that plan <so it is not just a plan but a plan of action>.

Far too often we look at the ground we have won and seek to consolidate it and, well, consolidate it. Squeeze and squeeze and squeeze. And, on occasion, we fool ourselves into thinking we are truly exploring ‘what’s next’ by saying ‘let’s take that hill just outside of the area we currently occupy.’ We make it sound like some massive effort that will refresh us. Instead we are investing significant resources on a less than significant objective. I am certainly not suggesting that incrementalism does not have a role in business strategy but rather we far too often use incrementalism to ignore the stop sign we just walked past. I am not a big SWOT analysis guy nor am I a big ‘white space’ business guy. I am more a pragmatic “this is who I am and this is what I am good at and I don’t care who I may compete against or what they may be currently doing I believe ‘these x’ people will like what I have to offer and I am going to go get it” business guy.

In a growth situation <which, by the way, I tend to believe any healthy organization should always be in> you should be seeking to grow. To expand. To think of ‘saturation’ as a swear word. To always be thinking about how to shake-the-etch-a-sketch so that stagnancy <in sales, attitude, behavior, thinking> never sets in.

To be clear. Sure. I believe you should always talk with your innovations/new product pipeline people because they may have some new widget up their sleeve you can go and expand your business with but, more often, you will be successful by looking at what you have now and finding new ground to attack with that. I have found your new widgets just have a tendency to cement the ground you have already won more often than not. Keeping with the military analogy I often tell businesses to think of their business modeling with an ‘occupation force’ team with a separate “attacking army” team mindset. Especially if you are in a growing category you almost have to have a “win this ground and move on” attitude or you can get stuck in a grind-it-out business war.

Regardless. It is important to know when something has reached an end. If only because it permits us business folk to close it off, leave it behind, not invest more energy squeezing something that has really ended <even though we do not want to admit it> and move on to the next chapter of our business life.

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

“Do not fear to lose what needs to be lost.”

Sue Monk Kidd

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

“Better to write for yourself and have no public, than to write for the public and have no self.”

Cyril Connolly

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

So.

If you write, your biggest desire is to be read.

If you write, your biggest fear is to be read.

You want to write things that matter, but to do so you have to not only take a distinct stand but you also have to inject some of your own distinctness. While you feel best when you put things down on paper that meet that criteria, it is this that which leads to your biggest fear — it will be read. Because that is judgement time.

Writing is wandering the ragged diagonal between duty and desire.

Regardless.

I guess in some way we, who write, want people to be pleased, and to pay attention. You wouldn’t be human to not want this in some form or fashion.

That said. Primarily, maybe what is most important is, as long as you write for yourself and can be pleased by what you write and say you have spoken your mind, well, you are ahead of the game.

Secondarily, if at some point you entertain someone else and happen to stumble across the truth to share and someone sees it, well, consider yourself lucky — it was a good day.

I’ve written over 2500 pieces. I’d be lying if I didn’t say not every day was a good day. That said. The good days are really really good. And that’s why you write.

 ================

“To every rule there is an exception—and an idiot ready to demonstrate it. “

Vera Nazarian

==

“Any fool can make a rule. And any fool will mind it.”

Henry David Thoreau

==

Everyone, and I mean everyone, is tempted to break a rule or two. This includes even a normal <or quasi sensible> person. As I noted in my ‘pirate post’ the sane people in business get frustrated with not getting shit done and is tempted to become a pirate <raise the black flag> and kill <hopefully not literally> conformity, the status quo and those things that may dull the edges in business <and life>.

“Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”

H.L. Mencken

For today let’s call the well intended rule breakers <not the amoral actors> rebels. All businesses need a rebel or two.  Why? Rules encourage compromise and rebels hate compromising.

Rebels cannot.  It is about winning on their terms or losing on their terms – ‘terms’ most typically defined in a simple “do what is right’ mentality.

To be clear.

I am not suggesting cheating.

I am not suggesting lying.

I am not suggesting anything nefarious.

I am simply suggesting that some rules may need to be sacrificed, or adjusted, in order to do what is right. And sometimes it is a truth that there is a better, if not actually best, way of doing something. That said. This is where businesses run into some problems.

Business is a contradiction with regard to rules.

Business loves construct and process and best practices and ‘how people should do things’ and loves defining “how this company plays by the rules” <literally outlining rules> and, yet, they want people to think freely for themselves. Business actually thrives on people who don’t simply follow rules like a sheep, but rather look at rules with a discerning eye of ‘stupid or smart.’

Ah. Smart.

Smart people don’t encourage breaking rules. Smart people encourage breaking stupid rules.

Smart people don’t break rules for the sake of breaking rules. Smart people assess rules and break them when appropriate.

Look.

Being a rebel is tough mainly because there are some wacky rule definitions scattered throughout businesses. I do believe you can encourage individualism <rebellion> in some other way than ‘the world is full of rules. Be the exception.’ No. I KNOW you can encourage individualism and ‘smart behavior choice even in the face of rules.’

Valuing some sense of order thru rules, and personal accountability toward rules, is kind of what makes civilization run. Same with business. Smart rule breakers respect rules because they do offer order, but recognize stupid rules as order for order sake.

Look <part 1>.

Some rules are good. And rules intended to keep people safe <even if it is a stupid rule> and a business from running into a ditch is good. Telling a person that it is good to break the rules, no matter how seemingly small or stupid, is a bad lesson. Rebels need a discerning eye.

Look <part 2>.

Beyond society, in business I know breaking stupid rules is sometimes necessary to get things done. Excellent effective leadership actually seems to come with an unwritten responsibility to cut through rules that act as barriers to achieving what needs to be done <for the overall betterment of the organization>. I could argue that truly great leaders get where they are because they can do exactly that, legally of course, when the rules tell us otherwise.

Some people call this cutting through the red tape. I call it the ability to weave your way thru the organizational bullshit and get shit done. I can guarantee that if you look throughout any successful organization you will always find some ‘smart’ rule breakers who work diligently to overcome or circumvent the rules, regulations, and policies that unintentionally hinder progress and make it difficult to accomplish shit that needs to be done.

Anyway.

Business isn’t always a Dilbert scene and business SHOULDN’T always translate into some simplistic perspective. In organizations there is certainly individual responsibility, in behavior & decision making, but there is also a relationship with the greater good & greater organism. A person may actually be one of those professional ‘break stupid rules smartly’ people, but ‘managing’ people takes a different skill.

Uh oh.

I think I just suggested two sets of behavior rules.

Anyway.

Here is what I know about the art of breaking stupid rules: independence.

Independence in terms of viewing rules smartly, independent thinking, independent accountability and, well, a dependence upon others to independently agree that this is one of those situations in which there is a stupid rule creating an obstacle to doing the right thing.

I would suggest that great business leaders who embrace independence as an organizational concept are often like the great frigate captains of the old British navy <who were kind of like rebels within a larger organization>. They showcased an ability to effectively participate in the larger organizational activities when required and an ability to be effective taking off on independent campaigns.

I would say that if you do want Independence, well, you do have to be smart about it. Once again:

Smart people don’t encourage breaking rules. Smart people encourage breaking stupid rules. Smart people don’t break rules for the sake of breaking rules. Smart people assess rules and break them when appropriate

One last thing on the ‘smart’ aspect.

This is not intuition or instincts. This is rational, logically driven behavior. Intuition means different things to different people, but suffice it to say it is a horrible way to consistently manage a business & make business decisions. Intuition reflects biased views <usually based on personal experience>. Balancing logic & experience & speed & instincts is an incredibly tricky balancing act, but that balance is often the formula for success if you want to break a stupid rule with independent thinking.

All that said.

99% of the time rules are in place for a reason. Someone thought it made sense and offered some value. I say that to remind all the rebels out there you need to “step in” to a rule, understand it, untangle the stupid part, identify what guidelines are meaningful and then envision not only what you need to do <in breaking the stupid rule>, but also envision the consequences.

Hey. I didn’t say it is easy being a rebel. Rules, even stupid ones, should take some work before you break them. The best rebels do the work to insure breaking a rule offers real value <in other words, breaking this rule was valuable disobedience to the construct>. Ponder.

=========

“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