==========

“We all have one foot in a fairytale, and the other in the abyss.”

—–

Paulo Coelho

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

My anger at the world coils inside of me. It’s a directionless seething, there’s no name or face to aim at.”

————–

Claire Zorn

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

Well. Life demands us to draw a lot of lines.

And more often than we would like to admit it demands we place one foot on one side of a line and the other foot on the other side of the line.

That may not sound … well … right.

Or maybe the best thing to do.

It may even sound like I am suggesting you ‘straddle the fence.’

Nope. This isn’t straddling, this is about being grounded or balancing oneself.

Balancing? If you don’t place one foot solidly on either side, you can be quite easily consumed by the extremes of Life which are, more often than not, found on only one side of a line.

If you don’t place one foot solidly on either side, you can be quite easily consumed by others who seek to consume what you may think you don’t really care that much about <but you should … and actually do when you care to think about it enough>.

If you don’t, you can be quite easily consumed.

I guess what I am saying is that Life demands you pragmatically be active in drawing some lines so that you have some sense of when you are getting too, well, “too”. It helps if you can have some sense of where to actually place your feet that is meaningful.

Maybe what I am saying is that many of us have no problem ‘making a stand’, but if you really aren’t sure where your line is then it is quite possible you aren’t really sure you are taking your stand in the right place.

Okay.

Maybe think of it this way.

It’s kind of like making sure you have things in perspective when you take a stand.

It’s kind of like demanding realistic hope.

It’s kind of like demanding some hopeful despair.

It’s kind of like demanding you believe in some fairytales and some abyss-like darkness.

It’s kind of like demanding lines for yourself so you can deal with the lines Life is going to demand of you.

Look.

I don’t really believe there are angry-only people. They just have so much anger within themselves that their line is drawn differently than others.

I don’t really believe there are dreamer-only people. They just have so much imagination within themselves that their line is drawn differently than others.

But here’s the deal.

You have to draw some lines.

There has to be some reality to ground some imagination.

There has to be some truth to ground some questioning.

There has to be some principles to ground some rebelliousness.

There has to be some fairytaleishness <I made up that word> to balance out some of the inevitable abyss.

You do have to have one foot somewhere other than where your other foot resides.

I know.

I know.

That sounds a little of whack from conventional wisdom because far more often you hear “both feet on the ground” and shit like that. But if you have two feet on the line … well … you have chosen to stand on a thin balance beam and will teeter your entire life. That is tiring & dangerous. But if you have two feet, one on each side, you have chosen a life of fairytales AND a life in the abyss.

All that said.

Yes.

There are times you draw a line and make a choice to shift both feet solidly onto one side. I would suggest this is a situational decision and not a “living Life” type decision. Situational like:

That is right and that is wrong.

That is good and that is bad.

That is normal and that is not normal.

Those are most likely the moments in which Life says “now, in this time and place, here is the line … on which side to you choose to stand?”

I would suggest sometimes we fuck this up by confusing a ‘Life one foot here & one foot there’ decision and a contextual situational decision. What I mean is that in that time and place you may try and keep your fairy tale foot in place and your abyss foot in place … and mistakenly take on a different type of decision demanding a different type of line.

That would be a bad decision.

The good decision?

In that time. in that place. In that moment. You shift your feet.

Sigh.

I never suggested lines were easy. Just that Life demands we draw a lot of lines. I would suggest that if you do not draw some lines you will find yourself lost in anger coiled within, or maybe constantly living a less than fairy tale life dreaming it all away, or stuck in some dark abyss seeing no way out.

Yeah … lines come in pretty handy at times. Pretty handy in managing Life. I can tell you <for sure> that lines can be pretty handy at helping you decide when something should end … and something should start.

—

“On stormy nights they both dreamt intensively, violently – they often drowned.”

=

Ellen Van Neerven

—

So.  One of the delightful wacky benefits of the infamous worldwide web is finding random cool shit while researching something. In this case that randomness permits me to share what some cool nerds do on New Year’s Eve.

Read.

Yup.

Sorry old folk, but there are a large group of young people who don’t just tweet or text, they actually read.

And not just read, but a 28 hour … yes … 28 … read-a-thon.

==

Treesofreverie 28 HR Read-A-Thon | December 2014 – January 2015

==

** note: if you love books, the home website for this 2015 read-a-thon, Trees of Reverie, is fabulous.

This is awesome.

Fucking awesome.

I am a voracious 60something reader and I admittedly would not read for 28 hours, but this is awesome.

All hail to young readers.

Look. Tucked throughout the internet are a delightful group of blogs, tumblr sites & websites all written & created by young people dedicated to reading and books and thoughts about books. Interspersed within their book ramblings they offer some youthful insights to world happenings as they view them thru some relatively naïve eyes, but with some extremely clear well thought out thoughts.

All totally focused on books and reading.

Some thoughts.

First.

For any of the older people who went out on new year’s eve and got silly drunk and bemoaned the state of civilization, the world and the decline of our youth, well, I have some news for you.

All is not lost.

The future always has leaders lurking in the present. You just need to look for them, nurture them, and then just get the fuck out of their way.

Second <and last>.

For any of the younger people out there who hunkered down and spent new year’s eve thinking about learning how to change the world they see in the present, I salute you.

And support you.

And will get the fuck out of your way so you can do what I, and my generation, cannot do <shape the future>.

And I will end by saying to young people an edited version of the quote I opened with:

On stormy nights they both dreamt intensively, violently – they often soared.

Let’s get 2021 rolling.

Read the 28 hour read-a-thon days before new years eve rules:

–

===

treesofreverie:

Treesofreverie 28 HR Read-A-Thon | December 2014 – January 2015
How to get involved:

• If you would like to take part, please REBLOG this post or repost this image with a link back to this original post if you aren’t using Tumblr to participate.

• You may post across all social media sites.

• Some suggestions for what to include in your posts may be photos, reading updates and thoughts on your book/s, quotes, book reviews, or even your reading (and possibly blogging) goals for 2015.

• Use the official #treesofreveriereadathon tag so that others can keep track of your progress.

• This Read-A-Thon will start at 8PM on Wednesday, 31st December and finish at 11:59PM on Thursday, 1st January.

How this event will work:

• Unlike regular Trees of Reverie Read-A-Thon events, there will be NO SIGN UP for this event. This is going to be a very casual Read-A-Thon to bring in the new year and get those reading goals off to a great start!

• There will be no Link Up posts, but if you wish to create a TBR list and Reading Goals you may do so.

• If you wish to use this Read-A-Thon time to also organise your reading goals and lists for 2015, then you are more than welcome to do so. This also applies for any blogging goals, etc. that you may wish to set up for the new year.

• You may opt to only take part in some of the Read-A-Thon, particularly if you have plans for New Years Eve. I have included this extra time for those who may wish to get organised with goal setting for 2015 or for those who may wish to do some extra reading before the end of 2014. This is a very casual event so please feel free to use this time in a way that best suits your preferences.

• There won’t be any Reading Challenges, but you are more than welcome to utilise any of the previous lists.

• There will be no FAQ for this event, but if you have any enquiries about how a Read-A-Thon works, you may wish to read through the latest FAQ which was for December’s Read-A-Thon.

• The official time zone that is usually in place will not be used for this event. Please feel free to read within your own time zone. 

• I have set up a Discussion Board on the Trees of Reverie Read-a-Thon Goodreads Group for anyone who is interested in using Goodreads as another outlet for this mini-event.

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

“Incrementalism is how we slide into participation by imperceptible degrees so that there is never the sense of a frontier being crossed.” 

—-

Jonathan Glover 

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

“Progress lies not in enhancing what is, but in advancing toward what will be.”

—-

Kahlil Gibran 

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

Well. Incrementalism is a virus. And once you catch it is a sonuvabitch to cure.

I, personally, believe the entire business world, including new business incubators, has this virus. Incrementalism has seeped its way not only into mainstream business but also mainstream ‘innovation’ pipelines.

Yeah. Innovations too.

I dare any of you to walk the halls of your local business incubation center and find a real, “break the etch-a-sketch” idea in there. If you are lucky, you will find one. The majority of innovation ideas these days, incubators as well as established companies, is all about incrementally leveraging from something existing.

Sure. They may claim its “unique” and “a whole new way of doing things”, but the majority of the time, lets say 98% of the time, it is a derivative of something that exists. That is how far the incrementalism virus has reached into the business world.

But this post today isn’t about innovation. This is about how incrementalism just makes us sad. It makes us sad because if you embrace incrementalism that means you have given up on, well, something that is not incremental. You have given up on being able to do something big and risky and game changing. And, worst, you’ve given up on making any substantial decisions <because incrementalism is simply an excuse for not making a clear cut decision>.

Now.

You may not believe you have given it up because we, in the business world, actually cleverly use incrementalism to convince ourselves we are actually achieving big changes.

….. incrementalism dance ………

We do the dance of ‘small steps to achieve big change’ which is kind of some odd waltz in which we make the same moves over and over again and point to change as “we improved how we dance” <but we are still in the same place dancing with the same person dancing to the same music>.

To be clear.

Even I, someone who loves change and “shaking the etch-a-sketch” in business, have been sucked into the black hole of incrementalism.

We do an incredibly good job of convincing ourselves that big change is hard, shit, that any change is hard and almost impossible to do because ‘it is difficult to do’ (note: which is mostly a bullshit thought). Given that, we do an incredibly good job of convincing ourselves that the only way to effectively successfully implement change is through smaller thoughtful steps. All leading to … we do an incredibly good job of convincing ourselves of all that, in fact, so much so that’s all we do.

Look.

Big change is possible. You just need to be smart, thoughtful and choose the ‘big’ wisely and with open eyes. But nowadays we view ‘big’ as some place we need to work our way towards and not just something we do. Unfortunately, as soon as we step onto the incrementalism slippery slope it, more often than not, causes everyone to slide, unintentionally, into unchanging behavior <or microscopic change increments>. This means everyone does small thing after small thing which make everyone feel like they are changing and that shit is changing … uhm … all the while the world itself is changing faster.

This means in our incrementalism we are moving forward and, yet, falling behind. It’s like walking on a moving sidewalk in the wrong direction.

Maybe the worst part?

We do not even see the backwards effect of our supposed forward movement. This happens mostly because most of us suck at not only changing, but perceiving change. We easily lose sight of any change as we focus on the incremental activity we have wholly embraced as ‘progress’ <because we say in our minds: “big change is impossible and this is the way to do it!”>.

The other very real danger of incrementalism is that while you have your head down focused on the incremental task at hand not only may the rest of the world be moving faster than you – it may even turn. So you will keep plugging away plodding down your incrementalism path and all the while the rest of the world is now trundling away in a completely different direction.

By the way. In business this is bad.

Anyway.

I will absolutely admit that most of the business world absolutely recognizes the importance of seeking to continuously reinvent and innovation, yet, sadly mostly we are actually just going through the motions. The motions may look incredibly sensible but they really aren’t achieving any change of any significance.

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

the term Incrementalism is also used as a synonym for Gradualism. Incrementalism is a method of working by adding to a project using many small incremental changes instead of a few (extensively planned) large jumps.

Logical incrementalism implies that the steps in the process are sensible.

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

I fully admit that convincing people that change is not hard <and overcoming ‘it pays to be sensible’> is hard. And I fully admit that the “big version” of this is even harder AND I admit that any non-incremental change is even more risky <which makes overcoming “it pays to be sensible” even harder>.

But that isn’t my point.

My point is that it seems like we have convinced ourselves in the business world that change is ALWAYS best achieved gradually and incrementally. We should always find the easy small steps and do them.

So what <you may be asking>?

This means we begin measuring the success of the business not by any real change, but rather defining our usefulness and worthiness by measuring it in increments versus the past. Incrementalism more often than not doesn’t get measured by how much closer to the ‘big change’ you are but rather by how far you have gone from what you were.

Uhm.

That is nuts. And while it is nuts that is almost exactly how over 90% of business conduct business <and their change>. Worse? This incremental behavior decision making actually bleeds into incremental decision making in general. Everyone starts believing that a bold decision just isnt worth it when you know everyone feels comfortable with an incremental decision.

Look.

While I always advocate timely good big change, I certainly would advocate embracing incrementalism on occasion. Business change is, and as always been, about choice. You look around and choose where incrementalism may be most effective and where ‘big change’ is actually needed. In other words, for doing smart change you do both within your business.

** note: this is exactly the same for strategy – deterministic & emergent. Emergent is simply another word for ‘unplanned for opportunity’ or opportunistic and typically is an opportunity for a non-incremental result.

Yeah.

I can do both at the same time. This has two benefits:

• Organization: all businesses need to be reinvented in some way. I cannot remember one business I have seen or been involved in that hadn’t established some routine that didn’t need to be changed significantly. Incrementalism steadies the organization by not destroying something, but rather fine tuning it. Conversely when you can tie big change to the organization situationally it energizes the organization that it is being smart <to not change everything>, but bold <in that it is willing to make selective smart big changes>. Showing both is the best of both worlds.
• The employee/individual: incrementalism is a virus almost like mononucleosis. It encourages employees to almost sleepwalk through the day. When you inject big change and encourage everyone to believe it can be done and develop a plan to show it can be done and activate people to start getting it done, individual employees are reminded that there IS something more than either the status quo or ‘incremental and gradual change’ <which they were struggling to discern from the everyday grind anyway>.

In the end. My concern.

My concern is that our love of incrementalism is killing meaningful change. Its killing meaningful decisions. Its killing believing meaningful (bigger) things can actually happen.

I don’t want to kill incrementalism, but I certainly want to breathe new life into “big” and meaningful.

Just know this about incrementalism: the problem is that incrementalism is seductively sleepy. It’s the Prozac of business strategy. All I can really suggest is that every business should stop taking Prozac on occasion and watch how the pulse of the company picks up. They may find that Life off of Prozac just isn’t that bad. More importantly, they may find they can shrug off the sadness of incrementalism and have a happier organization. And that is a good thing in business.

—

“Where the emotion has found its thought and the thought has found the words.”

=

Robert Frost

——

I love this quote for a number of reasons. Let me focus on two.

Life & words.

I love words. I truly envy people who know how to take a seemingly mixed bag of words and put them together in a way that makes people laugh or cry or just “feel something.”

Words play such a common role within Life, and lives, I tend to believe they get overlooked. There are so many and so many are used so flippantly without thought that sometimes they can seem like a commodity. We overlook their importance in their seeming absence of distinction.

But.

Words used well can lift a Life above the common & ordinary or steer someone to a better destination.

Words used poorly can submerge a Life into darkness veering someone down a slippery slope of doubt and despair and disappointment.

So.

My advice is to choose words wisely.

Business & words.

This is something practical.

I tell people in business that more great ideas, more great thoughts, have died because they have not been articulated well then anything other reason in the world (more than even process or scared people).

Suffice it to say, great thoughts are meaningless if no one can understand them.

Words, themselves, are ideas.

Words used well give ideas oxygen and Life.

Words used poorly suffocate ideas and kill.

The most powerful thoughts and ideas in the world have typically been captured in some words that have clearly communicated the thought behind it and evoked some sort of emotion.

In the end. You have to find the words or the best thought you have ever had will die. That is almost a postulate in life.

So.

With all that said and with full understanding that I will never be able to use words a well as Robert Frost (or maybe even Jack Frost) I have this book I keep with me everywhere I go.

Choose the Right Word by S. I. Hayakawa. It is THE  book for those of us who challenge ourselves to use the right, or best, words whenever we can.

It is the bible of wordsmanship.

If you have any interest in choosing words wisely, in Life or in Business, this is the book to have on your shelf.

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

“The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark.”

——-

Michelangelo

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

“Go higher and higher, until it becomes impossible to bring you down, I wanna use a microscope to locate you, don’t even dream of coming down.”

―

Michael Bassey Johnson

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

……….. Pierre Pauselli …………..

Business, in general, has a wacky way of talking about bad news & ‘less-than-positive’ business information. In business, and Life I imagine on occasion, we look at down in some fairly absurd ways using voodoo math, clever graphs and … well … some dubious comparisons all to prove that down is actually up.

Yeah.

It has to be voodoo – math or graphics —  to show both down AND up.

No shit. Really.

To them … well … Down isn’t down, it is really up <if only my bank balance could implement that math>.

Examples.

Unemployment is down this month <but its still up versus a year ago>.

Sales are down <but it’s up versus the rest of the category>.

Our new product is losing money <but we are getting new customers>.

And maybe the most famous ‘up is down’ scenario … “we have cut our spending but get more with what we have!” <always be very very leery of this one>.

WTF.

Let’s be clear.

In business when is down, well, up?

(Answer to that question) ………. NEVER.

Down is down.

Down is bad.

Down is never the objective.

Sigh.

If I hear this one more time in one more conference room my head will explode:

————–

 “… well Mr. Giraffenee, it’s a tough economy right now. The category is trending downward at 11%, but we are only down 5%. So we are doing well in a tough category. In fact … <insert pregnant pause here> … we are actually up when you look  it that way.”

— people staring at powerpoint looking serious … “hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm …” —

(Mr. Giraffeney after a minute or so)

“So our sales are down … but not really down? I love it!”

————-

What a load of bullshit.

To me negative is down. And bad <because it isn’t up>.

To be fair it is easy to talk your way into the down but not really down rabbit hole of economic unreality <in fact … I say hanging my head sheepishly … I have done it myself years ago>. It is often a self-preservation, program preservation, technique <albeit a slightly dubious one>. Today’s management seems intent on finding something wrong to fix, someone to blame and some reason they will not look good. making down look up can be an effective way to protect a good long term idea in the short term <sad but true>.

To be fair It is extremely easy to justify ‘down but not down’ by saying if people aren’t spending, it must be ok that they are not spending with us. It is extremely easy to say if times are tight than that must be the reason they don’t value our brand as much <or any brand>. It’s a tough competitive world out there and it never hurts to remind everyone it is a tough competitive world.

Lastly.

To be fair … It is important to note that a person might not know he/she is doing something he/she shouldn’t do. Training in today’s business world is pitiful. Teaching people how to tell the tough truths, the harsh truths, is almost nonexistent.

Anyway.

It may be easy to fall into this ‘down is up’ double speak, but it is bullshit.

Up is up.

Growth is always the goal. And if you are not growing you are dying.

Here is something to chew on <a business truth as it were>.

A truth with no caveats on market status, economic challenges or budget constraints.

Business is out there.

People are buying stuff.

And there are plenty of people buying stuff.

Yeah.

Even today.

Even yesterday.

Even tomorrow.

Plenty of businesses are gaining market share and there are a boatload of profitable companies <flush with cash by the way>. And there are a lot of companies with increased sales. And there are a lot of growing companies.

The truth is that we have an extremely robustly sized economy out there my friends. When people talk about ‘shrinking economy’ or ‘shrinking industry’ … don’t laugh too hard in their faces … size is relative. No reasonable business is in an industry with only $100 dollar available and it is shrinking by $5.

Sales and growth are out there for the taking.

Note: while I originally wrote this during the ‘great depression’, fundamentally, this is true during the pandemic. while economies have clearly shrunk, people are still spending money. Every business should have the objective of ‘they should be spending it on me.”

I say all this because it can be easy to justify doing what you are doing a variety of ways and saying down isn’t really down is a way a lot of people do so.

Stop.

Just stop.

Up is attainable.

Growth opportunities are always there.

You may just have to be a little smarter to get it. “Smarter” almost always resides in appealing to consumer needs without losing sight of the fact you have to make money … profit. You cannot <and should not> discount your way to success. That path is a very slippery slope not only from consumer attitudes perspective <defining how they value you>, but it is also puts a massive strain on profitability <which impacts the organization like a bad ripple effect>.

You have to be smart and insightful with how you talk with people you want to buy your stuff.  Maybe you need to seek a new role, or a differently defined role, that is more vital and easier for consumers to rationalize. And, god forbid, tell the truth & have something worth paying for.

Here is a fact.

People will spend against need – real or perceived. They also search for value, but that doesn’t mean people will not spend premiums for quality. Or spend more money for a heightened sense of perceived need <which is actually a “want” if I was going to be technical with myself>.

Look at SUVs, Starbucks <where they are open drive thru lines are nonstop>, Apple and Whole Foods markets <I could point out a shitload of under-the-radar businesses but you wouldn’t know who the are>.

All doing quite well thank you very much.

All ain’t the cheapest shit out there.

This is simply finding growth under pressure … and under existing market conditions.

Harsh truth for everyone? Persistent sales stagnation is most likely a reflection of how people perceive needing what you have to offer more so than it is “the economy.”

(sorry to burst anyone’s excuse bubble with that)

If you want to look at the larger economic situation go ahead, but do so by just accepting an attitude that the economy’s growth is going to be minimal at best, with the risk of another sharp downturn very real, and quit whining and go out and find a way to grow. Businesses must not stop their quest for growth even in ‘bad times’ nor should they stop their quest under the guise that ‘well we were down … but not really.’

Here is one thing I can promise you about growth companies.

In every case, there are a group of people in that company that see things not just as they are, but as they could be.

And then they go out and get it.

No excuses.

So.

I guess I wrote this to warn people about people who stand up and say “we had a good year … we are not down as much as everyone else or the category.”

Down is never up.

And, by the way, up is attainable. Today. Yesterday. Tomorrow. No excuses.

I guess I wrote this to suggest to businesses that the greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark. Go get some market share.

A mind once stretched by a new idea never regains its original dimensions.

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

Ok. The whole concept of “original” idea seems to bring out the worst in people. And maybe because I get to teach and talk with high school kids on occasion (and, boy, do they have ideas — lots and lots and lots of ideas — all original in their minds) I get to talk about the “truth” about original ideas.

For example.

I get to say. There are no original ideas.

Okay.

That was black & white.

Let’s say they are truly truly rare.

Look. I have been lucky in the whole ‘seeing awesome ideas’ category.

I have seen some of the world’s best innovations groups.

I have seen some of the most successful entrepreneurial business people in the world present their ideas.

I have seen some of the most creative people in the world show ideas.

And?

I think I can count on one hand truly original ideas.

Okay.

Derivatives and nuances?

Sure.

Original?

One hand.

So. Let’s break original ideas down into two aspects.

1. The thought.

2. The implementation.

The thought is a “what if” or “could this be” type scenario.

Forget it.

Here is the truth.

Someone, somewhere, has had the same thought.

Some people have figured out a way to share it. And if those some people have figured out a way of articulating it well <or well enough that people understand it> they are the ‘some people’ with credit for an original idea.

By the way. All these are diminishing numbers.

Ok <and “uh oh” thought to follow>.

And then there are the ones who articulate it well enough to be understood and have an audience who (a) gives a shit and (b) wants to do something with it.

By this time you can be found somewhere dancing on the head of pin with the few others who fit there with you.

Oops.

“Wants to do something with it.”

Yup.

(b) is important because truly original ideas scare the crap out of most people.

——–

“Don’t worry about people stealing an idea. If it’s original, you will have to ram it down their throats.”

Howard Aiken

——-

Now, unfortunately, the quote above is incredibly dead on right.

Huh? Go ahead and visit most management teams and talk about scared and ‘great ideas’ and I can almost gaurantee you will get some happily delievred version of “great ideas should scare you”. Uhm. Here is where you unfortunately run into the infamous “what people say versus what people do.”

What do I mean?

People say: “show me ideas that scare me” quickly followed by “if it scares us it must be a good idea.”

And then.

People do nothing. Yeah. Nothing.

They may say: “They <note: it’s never ‘me’ it is always ‘they’> were too scared to do it. They just didn’t see the risk return on it.”

Well. I will make one point here and then move on … ORIGINAL MEANS IT HASN’T BEEN SEEN OR DONE BEFORE SO HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN!!!!

<yes. I shouted that AND used exclamation points>

Maybe because it is new <and therefore untried or unseen> people get nervous. Anyway, suffice it to say, original ideas are every rare.

Okay. Moving on to the protecting the relatively rare original ideas.

People spend gobs <lots and lots and lots … well … you get the point> of time worrying about protecting proprietary ideas and proprietary process and ‘original ideas.’

Corollary: Even if they don’t have one they invest lots of energy discussing and worrying about them.

Okay. Look.

If I am a drug company, maybe a software company or technology company with some engineering widgetology or maybe P&G which has some skin lotion formulation that some whiz bang ingredient then, yeah, you get protective. Okay. “Maybe” you get protective.

note: Just for humor at the end of this post I have included a “proposed confidentiality process” we sent to a maniacally protective prospective client <yes … we did send an actual one, but they were fun people as well as maniacally litigious and wanted to have a little laugh over their obsessive behavior with regard to confidentiality>

Anyway. Throughout my career I have encountered company owners who were obsessed with ‘protecting our original ideas.’ I kept on trying to point out to them that unless you’re a new products innovation group the odds of you truly having an original idea is lower than USA men’s team winning the World Cup.

I sometimes believe people spend so much time thinking they have an original idea and investing so much energy trying to keep it a secret they forget the energy it takes to actually get it to happen.

In fact. To be honest I believe I have been in several situations where we actually had a fairly original idea, however, in presenting the idea I probably went overboard trying to draw links to things people have done in non related industries. It’s a little crazy, but original ideas have an easier time being implemented if it feels ‘fresh’ to the industry it is going to happen in but ‘used’ by someone else first.

Note: this is actually a concept called “optimal newness”

If you are not very, very, careful, you actually end up making original ideas look ‘not so original’ so that they can be implemented.

Crazy huh?

Regardless, in the end, I would worry less about whether it is “original” or not. I would worry more about whether it was a good idea.

And idea that will work.

In fact … it is true (take this one to the bank) if you stop thinking ‘original’ and start looking for “similar to” it becomes easier to implement and easier to sell (or have someone implement).

Sound wacky? Yup.

But it’s true.

Just face it. Originality (as with many things in life) is a shade of grey.

Or maybe an aspect of something that already exists. Or maybe just worry about this:

——-

“Until you can create something that captivates people, I’d invite you to just shut up. It’s easy to attack and destroy an act of creation. It’s a lot more difficult to perform one.”

Chuck Palahniuk

——–

Worry less about original.

Worry more about the idea and worry more about making it actually happen versus protecting it.

So. That said. Here are some thoughts if you want to protect your “original” ideas:

<yes … we really shared this with a client>

——–

< dear maniacal company>: Additional Confidentiality Steps

–          Cyanide pills

The pills are embedded in team member teeth caps with a tracking chip set to identify and explode upon the presence of a <competitive company> employee.

(note: this is covered in our dental plan)

–          Enigma coding machines

We have identified the two last working Enigma coding machines.  We can place one in your offices and the other will remain in <the managing director’s> office (which is better than card protected room because his executive assistant is better than a pit bull protecting that office).

–          Etch-a-Sketch communications

All communications will take place via etch-a-sketch. Twice a day all team members will shake their etch-a-sketch.

–          Invisible Ink

All written communications will be conducted in invisible ink. (but still under lock and key guidelines).

–          Fort Knox

Quick research has uncovered that the majority of the gold has been removed from Fort Knox and space is available. We may have to tweak the compensation agreement, but we would be willing to consider setting up a field office in the Fort Knox vault to service your business.

–          Cosa Nostra

Through some relationships <our managing director> has, we may be able to make some arrangements to completely eliminate the <competitive company’s> conflict once and for all (if you know what we mean). Once again, we may have to tweak the compensation arrangement to accommodate this service.

These are just some initial ideas which we would be willing to discuss in the interest of collaboration.

======

Originally posted August 2010

(originally posted April 2015 but seems relevant today)

=======

“It’s easy to make a buck.

It’s a lot tougher to make a difference.”

Tom Brokaw

——

“If you believe you can make a difference, not just in politics, in public service, in advocacy around all these important issues, then you have to be prepared to accept that you are not going to get 100 percent approval.”

=

Hillary Clinton

————-

Well. This is about Starbucks and “Race together” <“stimulate conversation, compassion and action around race in America”> and businesses making a difference.

First.

In general … brands & companies tend to be rewarded when they align themselves with a cause. Cynically speaking … this is so because people are pleased to have the opportunity to feel self-righteous simply by buying something for themselves.

Second.

If when a business does something ‘responsible’ or something directed toward a specific cause or taking some action with an eye toward some issue and it is a true extension of the corporate culture, i.e., authentic, it is powerful. Uhm. But this teeters on a very very fine line … thinner than thin.

Third.

It is a cynical cynical world out there these days.

That said.

Let me take a minute to discuss the ‘race together’ Starbucks initiative and how the general population has responded <and of course my opinion>.

===

Howard Schultz, the head of Starbucks, thinks the gourmet coffee chain has a responsibility to address America’s vexed race relations.

After a series of internal meetings at the company, he decided to launch “Race Together”, a co-venture with USA Today, a newspaper, to “stimulate conversation, compassion and action around race in America.”

“Race is an unorthodox and even uncomfortable topic for an annual meeting,”

“Where others see costs, risks, excuses and hopelessness, we see and create pathways of opportunity — that is the role and responsibility of a for-profit, public company.”

===

Suffice it to say the the initiative has created a shitstorm … okay … a fairly significant backlash.

Even by employees.

– Starbucks baristas, who were invited to write “#Racetogether” on coffee cups, responded with derisive tweets: “Being a barista is hard enough. Having to talk #RaceTogether with a woman in Lululemon pants while pouring pumpkin spice is just cruel,” tweeted Ijeoma Oluo.

—

– Corey duBrowa, a senior vice president of global communications at Starbucks, received such a deluge of angry messages that he temporarily deleted his twitter account.

Well. Beyond the fact I think I would have a couple of choice words for my employees <like … shouldn’t those be exactly the type of people we should be starting the conversation with ? … and … gosh … i know your job is tough but sometimes companies are bigger than the shit we do every day ..> I would be scratching my head a little over the angry response from the genera population.

<and having met Howard I imagine behind closed doors he tore his hair out>

Just guessing here. I imagine that the general backlash is grounded in some cynical viewpoint feeling that Starbucks was piggybacking on a serious social issue for its own economic gain.

Maybe people perceived that a Starbuck’s interest in racial issues kind of felt like some marketing ploy.

And then a shitload of people <pontificating marketing & branding experts kind of like me but smarter> started bringing up practical flaws — how are people supposed to talk about race in a 30-second interaction with a stranger while picking up coffee to go?

And then there are jerks like me who come out of the woodwork making snide remarks about how this is ‘bad for the brand’ poking at all the reasons from a marketing, PR or branding perspective the campaign was flawed or misconceived.

Aw geez … will everyone just shut the fuck up.

Please.

Just stop the talking & bitching.

Think bigger picture, people, … bigger picture.

The last thing someone should say., or CAN say, is that this was a stupid business decision. It was a bold, well intended, risky business decision.

One fraught with business peril, but with massive moral upside.

Do I think it was a good business idea? I doubt it.

Would I have had the kahones to do it? I doubt it.

What do I like about it?

Well. Someone has to go first.

Or maybe.

You can make a bad business decision for the right reasons.

Right reasons?

Should a business be sticking their nose into social culture issues and shouldn’t they be sticking to making revenue and paying their employees fair wages?

Yikes.

If businesses are not permitted, or don’t even try, to play a role in the development of society issues, values and driving positive cultural dialogue <notice they didn’t offer a solution … simply desired to facilitate the dialogue & discussion> … well … then who will?

Please notice I don’t call this discussion ‘social responsibility’ which I tend to believe has become one of those trite business bullshit phrases of which is being abused and mangled by consultants and business leaders and gobs of useless books.

Far too often the discussion of the role of business in society manages to digress to simple business ‘criteria’ like corporate reputation, innovation, competitiveness and growth.

What bullshit.

If I decide to do something right it is because I want to do the right thing. I want to set aside ‘business criteria’ of reputation, innovation or revenue growth. And the only growth I am talking about is moral growth. Integrity growth.

Yeah.

I know that this means I am standing up against Milton Friedman and disagreeing vehemently with his point of view as stated in 1970:

—

The discussions of the “social responsibilities of business” are notable for their analytical looseness and lack of rigor. What does it mean to say that “business” has responsibilities?

Only people can have responsibilities.

A corporation is an artificial person and in this sense may have artificial responsibilities, but “business” as a whole cannot be said to have responsibilities, even in this vague sense.

… and have said that in such a society, “there is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.”

—-

Well. I respectfully reject this thought Mr. Friedman.

I reject it with integrity and a belief that someone should stand up and speak when it is right to do so.

I reject t because … well … someone needs to stand up because if no one does nothing changes.

Now.

It is possible what Friedman said was true in 1970, but I doubt it. But suffice it to say that in 2015 businesses are in the social crapper <or on the bottom of the moral barrel> and therefore should be the ones to step up.

If not them, then who?

Peter Drucker clearly articulated salvation by society and how business plays a role in the ‘salvation.’ He also clearly outlined the dangerous shifts occurring back in 1990 or so when businesses started focusing more solely on bottom line measurement.

Look. We spend more time working than we do with our families. We spend more time interacting with businesses in totality than we interact with anyone or anything else. Why shouldn’t business play a role?

And why should they be chastised for doing so?

In the good ole days barbershops and post offices or corner bars were where dialogue & discussion took pace.

These days? Often it is the coffee shop.

Sure. I’m generalizing, but you get the point.

Regardless.

Going back to the Hilary quote upfront, if you believe you can make a difference and actually do something with that objective in mind … you shouldn’t expect 100% approval. You just gotta take the step and start going. It doesn’t have to be a big step like what Starbucks attempted but take the step.

In addition.

==

“If you’re going to say what you want to say, you’re going to hear what you don’t want to hear.”

Roberto Bolaño

==

Stepping up ain’t always popular. And stepping up means that you are at the front of the pack where it is a shitload easier to hear all the crap you don’t really want to hear.

And stepping up means you are gonna teeter on that fine line of making a difference in an authentic meaningful way.

In the end.

I like the fact that a big far reaching business suggested they WANTED a role in the discussion.

I like the fact that a big far reaching business suggested that something may be more important than sales <because if anyone believes this was a marketing gimmick guaranteed to generate sales they have been smoking far too much pot for their own good>.

I like the fact that a big far reaching business suggested that part of their brand ‘value’ wasn’t how much people valued them but rather how much people respected them … or how much self-character they placed on their own value.

Shit.

A zillion experts will tell you all the reasons they shouldn’t have done it.

This one non expert stands and applauds and says ‘I am pleased you did it.’

Would I have had the balls to do what Starbucks did?

I don’t think so.

But, damn, I wish I did.

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

“Damaged people are dangerous. They know they can survive.”

—

Josephine Hart

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

“There are only two ways to live your life.

One is as though nothing is a miracle.

The other is as though everything is a miracle.”

Albert Einstein

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

Experience matters.

And I don’t mean some high falutin’ job or some responsibility given but rather mistake experience.

That said.

I like people who make mistakes.

I like people who have made mistakes.

I like people who have had some significant failures.

I like people who have tried doing a variety of shit and have a list of shit that just didn’t go so well <or as well as they had wanted>.

I like the people who realize you survive 99% of the time you go out and try something without holding back.

Everyone who has survived some failure or mistake comes out of that experience damaged in some way. Most times that ‘damage’ is found in expectations or, maybe better said, plans or ‘how I envisioned it would go’.

While it has been a long time for me I vaguely remember when I first jumped off the cliff professionally. I vaguely remember doing so with a plan and a planned path in mind.

Some people would call that “rationale for taking a professional action.”  

Well.

The plan and path went to shit fast.

But I adapted and got to where I wanted to go. I survived. But I survived with damage.

The first damage is related to ‘the rationale.’

You start questioning how smart you are or how insightful you may be with regard to business organizations and what matters. I mean … what the hell … you thought it out, weighed the options and chose a course. Only to end up face first in some mud puddle that was never in your rationale.

Your ‘rationale thinking’ gets nicked up a bit.

The second damage is related to a harsh understanding, and semi-surprising revelation, that business mirrors Life.

You tend to believe business is more orderly and less chaotic than Life in general. Business offers a solid construct and when viewing the organizational chart you can easily envision paths and plans and people. You quickly learn that organizational charts are the biggest lies in business. They look static, they look flat and they look solidly structured,. The truth is that they are constantly shifting, they are multi-dimensional and ‘structure’ actually means ‘power’ can reside not in the box towards the top but rather in some inane responsibility in some department you never even paid attention to.

But.

All the damage offers some benefits.

The scars actually strengthen an aspect of who and what you are.

The biggest benefit is that your “I will survive” mentality shifts from a belief & hope to proven truth.

Yeah.

That experience matters.

Once you know you can survive, Life becomes different particularly in the business world. When you first step into professional life most of us step carefully. We watch each step and recognize, more often than not, survival and success is more about a battle of attrition than it is actually doing something superior. And, yet, the longer we stay in that mode of behavior the more likely doing something, anything, starts taking on a larger & larger looming presence “doing that could ‘kill you.’

And maybe that is why I love damaged people.

They respect the danger, but do not fear the danger. They have met danger, been damaged, and understand that being damaged is not the same as being killed.

Damaged simply means “I have survived with some scars to show for it.”

Just as I would prefer picking up a sword which has some nicks rather than a new shiny unused one as I went into battle I prefer the nicked & used people to be on my teams as I go into the business battle.

And maybe the real reason is a little more philosophical <with a little humor attached>

In business, once damaged, you have a little more sense that it is not only a miracle you survived, but that it is a miracle anything good actually happens in an organization of any size.

That may sound slightly cynical, but I would suggest it is slightly pragmatic.

Success in business is almost like running through a series of double Dutch jump ropes.

A little good sense of timing, a little miracle or two, a little smart instinctual actions and smart experience driven maneuvering. And absolutely some damage.

To conclude.

I like my people a little damaged. They not only know how to survive but know they can, and will, survive moving forward and taking steps.

I like my people damaged. They tend to not mind, well, getting damaged and are willing to do some spectacular things along the way.

……………… typical Bruce index card ………….

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

“Creatives need constraints like a good architect needs the laws of physics (and in particular, gravity). It’s by working within the constraints that, ultimately, we creatives test our limits and push ourselves to grow.”

SJ_Murray

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

“In all pointed sentences, some degree of accuracy must be sacrificed to conciseness.”

Samuel Johnson

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

One 3×5 paper index card and a writing utensil (my preference is a pencil). I

would say 90% of any of the ideas I have ever had that have been worth a shit have occurred in that constrictive space using that ancient writing tool.

That said. This is about ideas and thinking. I am a scribbler. And a sketcher. And a pencil guy. I carry around a stack of index cards & constantly sketch out thoughts for people. I can confidently say my index cards are strewn around the world. I am sure some are used for dart boards, some for a good laugh & some actually was a seed for some idea.

To me, index cards means I cannot rely on, well, anything. The space demands that I use it however the idea demands. It is an exercise in brevity & clarity and forces some economy to the idea or thought.

When pinned up on some board the idea or thought has no place to hide. Shit. The thinking has no place to hide. If that space can display the core of some value proposition (which, inevitably, that is an idea), thinking has won the day.

Now. In my defense there is an entire book on ‘The back of the Napkin”   (I bought and then donated to some business library) and Jessica Hagy wrote a book called Indexed (which I never actually bought)  and Hugh McLeod wrote Ignore Everybody (a fabulous book) and has built an entire company/business around ideas succinctly communicated – all espouse the value of a constrained ideation method.

All that said.

While I have used index cards for decades the whole idea of constraints & old school simplicity came to mind the other day where I had a great conversation with a young person and at the end of it he said “I envision you live your life free of constraints and the rules that inhibit the majority of people.”

I hesitated <slightly taken aback> and responded “I’m sorry I gave you that impression … I think Life, as well as business, is best lived within a construct and while I believe society and some experts try and establish some silly rules … rules, in general,  are good and boundaries typically enhance creativity.”

Yeah. I believe Construct is good.

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

constraints maximize pragmatism & demands productive imagination to explore possibilities.

“Creatives need constraints like a good architect needs the laws of physics (and in particular, gravity). It’s by working within the constraints that, ultimately, we creatives test our limits and push ourselves to grow.”

@SJ_Murray

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

So let’s talk about the relationship between construct, constraint and constrict. Constructs can either, or both, create constraints or constrict. Typically, that is not a reflection of the construct but rather the constructors (people) or the managers of the construct (people).

constraints maximize pragmatism & demands productive imagination to explore possibilities.

Constructs can be either good or bad because constructs, in general, define some finiteness in a complex infinite world.

Note: I believe construct is incredibly important for the future of business. I believe the key to the future is a business which can think conceptually and implement well against those concepts. It will be a natural way of combining emergent & deterministic strategies against concepts represent the most valuable opportunities.

Think about football fields, rodeo rings, Broadway stages, yes, even index cards, any finite space creates a construct for someone to maximize the space … in a multi-dimensional way. Thinkers take the 2 dimensional traditional constructs and seek to build within any and all dimensions.

Sounds weird, but finiteness offer freedom.

As a corollary … no finiteness encourages aimless unfocused wandering.

Note: ‘no finiteness wandering’ could be construed as freedom by some, but it isn’t really. Freedom in and of itself only has value where it is attached to some purpose or construct or intent. No finiteness freedom sounds good <on occasion>, but inevitably is extremely dissatisfying.

I’m not suggesting unfocused wandering doesn’t have some value, but rather that the great ideas and thinking don’t come from the unfocused, but rather the focused.  I am actually suggesting there is a massive difference between construct, constraint and constrict. When I refer to finiteness and boundaries I have also very clearly stated ‘nonrestrictive.’

Restriction: Too restrictive is most often a reflection of someone or something imposing philosophical and/or ideological control over others. More often than not tight space ‘finite builders’ leaders see people as a single unit, or engine, in which all the people are parts rather than autonomous individuals. They believe that if any part acts outside of the boundaries the entire unit could break. They build their boundaries not seeking to enhance creativity and innovation, but rather to control each individual’s behavior in order to ensure that what you do as an individual does no harm to the whole. It is meant to rein in and not let free and meant to create conformity and unity <albeit it is actually “oneness’>.

It is a faulty premise … and a defensive constrictive premise.

Why is it faulty?

—-

“… provide an extended definition of creativity that embraces potential cross-cultural variations in this construct.

Creativity is defined as a 4-criterion construct, which includes attributes of novelty, utility, aesthetics, and authenticity. Novelty attribute stipulates that a creative work brings something new into being, which presents a new conceptual framework and/or modifies or violates an existing one. Utility attribute stipulates that a creative work is what a producer or a recipient considers creative, what represents an important landmark in spiritual, cultural, social, and/or political environment, and what addresses moral issues. The aesthetics attribute stipulates that a creative work presents the fundamental truth of nature, which is reflected in a perfect order, efficiently presents the essence of the phenomenal reality, and is satisfactorily complex, expressing both tension and intrinsic contradiction. Authenticity attribute stipulates that a creative work expresses an individual’s inner self and relates one’s own values and believes to the world. These attributes establish a comparison matrix, which can be used to evaluate and compare the levels of creativity of works from different areas of human endeavor.”

Anatoliy V. Kharkhurin

———-

Constraint: Creativity of the mind is exactly the same as creativity of innovation. It is multidimensional and needs a balance of constraint and freedom in order to maximize potential.

The best creativity, thinking & ideas, happens within a construct offering constraints. Well established boundaries, ones that supply some constraint without being restrictive, create an environment in which the mind can roam freely within a realm provided some focus for that freedom.

True creative freedom is found within finiteness not without.

As I said in the beginning … “Life, as well as business, is best lived within a construct and while I believe society and some experts try and establish some silly rules … rules, in general, are good and boundaries typically enhance creativity.”

Anyway. While index cards certainly offer constraint (forces you to focus, or simplify, a thought) the real value is in the puzzle piece management, i.e., being able to envision how a thought fits into the grander narrative/scheme of things

Life, business, thinking in general, is a million-piece puzzle of which we gather the pieces one at a time. While our minds naturally store away everything we see and read and experience, an index card permits us to catalogue those pieces, no matter how tiny, onto a small canvas. The index card is a method of processing information, collating it, filing it away for when it is needed.

Let me be clear Life, and business, and thoughts; each is a million-piece puzzle. Period. Full stop.

Some people gather pieces and assess and others just don’t have that ability and use just the pieces that seem the most important.

Neither is good or bad in and of itself.

But I will say what is good is assembling those puzzle pieces in a constrained space. I don’t care if its index cards, notepads, whatever. If you can assemble puzzle pieces and assemble a thought within a space <canvases seem to be the construct du jour although I tend to use x/y axis> you can almost guarantee that people will be able to see the idea and its value.

But let me end this with a contrarian thought to what I just offered: assembling those puzzle pieces in a constrained space.

What if the entire idea of a constrained space is false?

What if all those post it notes and index cards are simply potential pockets of certainty within an infinite, boundless, world of uncertainty mired within complexity?

I thought about this staring at a whiteboard with index cards arranged on it. What if instead of viewing them as possibilities or information on some canvas (which is a construct) we see them as possible certainties in a lack of construct uncertain world? What if I viewed these index cards as finite games to be played within an infinite game? None of this suggests the value of using index cards and having construct to place some smart constraints on thinking & doing is valueless. In fact. It may even suggest that focus and clarity is even MORE important because they may actually represent the only real certainty you can find to place in a constantly changing complexity context. Ponder that.

====

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

Pema Chödrön

====

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Narrative Collapse:

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

That said.

Why do individual stories matter?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All of this creates:

Energy.

Optimism.

Self interest.

Greater good.

Productivity.

Meaning.

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

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

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

All that said.

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

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