===========

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

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

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

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

Everything has to do with everything else.

Life is a succession of events that link with each other whether we want them to or not.”

Arturo Perez Revarte

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

Vague sucks.

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

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

Is this work valuable ? Sure.

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

Do most people do this work? No.

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

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

Once again.

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

That said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I imagine I have two points today.

First.

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

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

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

Second.

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

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

A vague outline is a choice.

No more and no less.

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

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

Anyway.

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

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

It is just damn practical to have some vague outlines.

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

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

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

====

“Uncertainty is a bitch.”

Anonymous

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

 “It is not the strongest of the species that survive, not the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.”

Charles Darwin

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

On November 18^th 2009 I wrote these words:

Welcome to Enlightened Conflict.

It was my 1st post. I suggested the site would do 3 things for readers:

• make you think
• communicate the effectiveness, and power, of words
• may learn, and unlearn, some things

All I really believe I have done is write about uncertainty and uncertain things <albeit couched in a variety of topics and opinions>.

Over time, writing and thinking, I have learned one thing for sure — uncertainty truly is a real bastard. It encourages an inability to choose, a lack of clarity or evidence to a foreseeable outcome and throws in a nice dose of ‘little to be hopeful for’ because of that indiscernible future and some shit to fear the possibility of.

In other words. It creates a suspicion that the future just may not be the one you were hoping for.

That said.

Today I will talk a little about what I perceive as a unique time, at least in our lifetime. It is a point in which general uncertainty is colliding with personal uncertainty which is colliding with leadership uncertainty.

Why is this unique?

Well.

This uncomfortable alignment rarely happens.

We may have some personal uncertainty, but we look to our leaders and they offer some sense of certainty. Or maybe we have some leadership uncertainty, but we feel good about ourselves and have a sense of certainty just do what you know is right.

You get the point.

Now. Far too often, I included, we suggest that uncertainty is just about a test in character. But today, in the present, this is becoming a test in skill, competency, abilities and, yes, character. We will be tested on all fronts – inside ourselves as well as outside ourselves. We will need to decide what we are truly good, if not great, at and either stand aside and let someone else do what needs to be done or permit ourselves to accept that it just ain’t gonna happen the way we wish it would happen. That is a test on all fronts not just character.

Regardless. I truly believe this is a moment. A moment in which uncertainty reigns. A moment within the ‘tide of the affairs of men. ‘

 Within my 1^st 5 posts, on December 5^th 2009, I shared this:

—————

There is a tide in the affairs of men
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.

William Shakespeare

========

This quote is a reminder that opportunities in life are fleeting, but there are many — if you pay attention. And, yes, I do think it is nice to remind yourself there are many opportunities ebbing and flowing in front of us <because then you stop dwelling on regrets>. But I imagine my point today is that while we should seek these tides and be aware they exist and be aware that sometimes the tide in the affairs is thrust upon us.

I feel like that last thought better reflects the uncertain moment we live in presently.

To help me I pulled out my battered copy of Hayakawa’s “Use the Right Word” trying to find the right words and on page 550 there it was – significant. Synonyms for significant are listed as  consequential, grave, important, momentous, serious, vital and weighty.

These are the words we use to refer to factors, and moments, that are outstanding, crucial or that have considerable force or effect. The word ‘significant’ itself suggests something that is outstanding because it is especially meaningful or excellent; no urgency or forcefulness is necessarily suggested by the word — its impact is set in stone and solid. The power of the individual word is that it contains, and retains, each aspect of the synonym words.

So, yes, what makes this moment so solidly significant is its less than solid uncertainty.

And maybe that is why this particular uncertainty in the present seems a little more agonizing.

=====

“Our civilization is founded on the shambles, and every individual existence goes out in a lonely spasm of helpless agony.”

William James

=====

I am not a ‘glass is half empty’ view of Life and living Life guy, yet, James has a point here. Almost everything we do, certainly anything good, is built on the shambles of something. Therefore, our existence is challenged by the threat of some helpless agony … in our pursuit of being happier with some unknown certainty.

In this case the shambles we are trying to build upon is ‘uncertainty.’

And while some may suggest “how the hell can you build something out of nothing” I would suggest that is what we do when we are at our best.

When we use our skills, whatever capabilities we have and work together, actually cooperate, while being the best people we can be. In other words, we build something out of the nothingness uncertainty.

Here is what I know.

We all seek to make some positive impact on the world whether that world be our immediate circle or some grand global circle or somewhere inbetween.

Combine that with a thought I read somewhere that to live nobly is to avert one’s eyes from the bad and seek that which can be found in the light of good. And I think that is what James hints at — averting one’s eyes is … well … not easy.

Tell someone to not look at something and the temptation to look increases exponentially. And, let’s be absolutely clear, while uncertainty resides mostly in nothingness, and nothing tangible, we place that uncertainty in tangible things <events or people> so that we can stare at it as a prime example of uncertainty. It is not that we seek the agony and sadness of Life its just that I tend to believe we want some tangibleness because then it seems more easily conquered. And then this uncertainty alignment agony takes on a whole new level — our inevitable desire to create some plans to make things certain.

Yikes. That is a horrible objective.

Yet. Doing this is natural because we are taught almost from day one that planning, and a plan, is the key to success and happiness. In other words this suggests we can … uhm … plan for certainty.

That seems kinda crazy.

Shit.

It sounds like certain agony.

In fact.

It sounds like we are constantly sifting through the shambles of plans made and broken as we seek to make some meaningful progress in Life.

===

“The detective thinks he is investigating a murder. But truly he is investigating something else altogether, something he cannot grasp hold of directly. Satisfaction will be rare. Uncertainty will be your natural state. Much of your life will be spent in the dark woods, no path visible, with fear and loneliness your only companions.

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

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

Jacque Silette

<fictional detective>

====

Look. Uncertainty is a bastard. It certainly makes us question ourselves — who we are as an individual and what we are truly capable of.  Today’s version of uncertainty is just our own version to the nth degree as it encompasses all things in our lives.

Here is the good news.

We all know answers exist and we all know they await us even if we cannot hear them, but we all know some certainty of some things exists somewhere.

This means we are constantly investigating who we really are and what we are really good at often desperately grabbing at clues or proof to provide some comfort that we have either solved the mystery, or, at least are on the path to solving it.

I will note that at all times I tend to find the “who you really are” as a silly, if not stupid, self-question.  Mostly because who I am today is not who I will necessarily be tomorrow. But, in particular, in this time and place I tend to think it sells the moment short. It encourages us to find our inner strength and inner core of who we are and suggest we will be able to walk the bridge from uncertainty to more certain things & places.

That is wrong.

And dangerously wrong.

We are going to be judged for this moment in time.

That I can guarantee.

And it will not solely be on character. It will be on skills, abilities, capabilities and how well we identified what we could do and whether we did it or not.

This may sound harsh, but the only people who will know who we truly are today are not us, but someone somewhere in a future yet to be defined. So looking for that kind of validation today is a fool’s errand. Yet. It should not stop us from being detectives, in fact, it will most likely be our continuous search for clues and solve what mysteries we can today that will guide us from uncertainty to some certainty of something better than what exists today.

In the end.

Sometimes we call it uncertainty.

Sometimes we call it ‘the unknown.’

But you know what? It doesn’t matter what name you put on it.

It’s fear.

In this case, in this time and place, it is an alignment of fears of whether we will be good enough as people, good enough in skills, good enough in leadership, good enough in abilities and good enough to meet whatever challenges exist in today’s existing uncertainty.

Oh.

To be clear.

Sometimes I believe we associate fear with weakness or possibly too often associated with ‘not enough positive thinking.’

That is wrong to do so.

I tend to believe we would be much better off, particularly in the here & now, to cut through the bullshit and just call fear by its name and face it — in all its black & white glory and the uncertainty and the fear associated with it — and step into it as my friend David Amerland suggests, with intentionality.

I am not suggesting you to not feel some fear of uncertainty or even that I don’t feel fear because, of course, I feel fear.

Who the hell doesn’t? <and if they say they don’t … they are lying>

I believe it helps to just face it.

And I am not saying this because I believe “fear is a great motivator” <because I would suggest that it is really survival that is a great motivator … not fear>. I suggest these things because fear, more often than not, actually freezes us … makes us do nothing. If we face it, we name it, we say ‘fuck you’ to it, we will do what it takes and needs to be done — try things in trying times.

To be clear.

I do not believe we are at a cross roads.

I believe we are on a road and we have an obstacle, one that we just cannot see and one that no one has articulated or shown us yet. It just exists in our minds and, yet, we know it exists as much as the thought of Santa Claus in the hearts of children. That is kind of what uncertainty is.

I do know I feel uncertainty and I am fairly sure I am not in a minority. I feel like most people, if asked, would just say something like “I am not sure what is going to happen” which means uncertainty resides at the core of what is in the here & now.

What I know for sure is that we will build something out of his nothingness. We will look back, or the generations yet to come will look back, and they will see something.

This I know.

Something will be built from the scraps of uncertainty and it will be built upon a foundation of what is the best of us.

The structure will showcase the strengths of our better skills, capabilities and abilities.

The skyline of the future will be a reflection of the best of us having worked together to create a better version of what exists.

Why do I know this?

Anything less is not the best version of who and what we are.

Anything less means uncertainty won.

This is our test.

This is our time.

This is our certainty.

That I know.

Yeah.

On November 18^th 2009 I wrote these words: Welcome to Enlightened Conflict.

I have never stopped believing that the best version of us is better than most of us think it is and that everyone just needs to be reminded of their ‘better version’ in order to permit it to stand up and speak out and ‘do.’

It is time for us to prove me right.

But uncertainty certainly is a real bastard, ain’t it?

It takes some intentionality to actually be the best version of who and what we are and can be.

Make your choice. Choose wisely.

=====

a version of this was posted in late 2016

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

James Monroe:

“National honor is the national property of the highest value.”

==========

“Results are obtained by exploiting opportunities, not by solving problems.”

―

Peter F. Drucker

====

Well. In honoring America on July 4th I want to take a minute or two and share some thoughts on moving forward (progress). Not about making America great again, but rather what has always made America great — a land of opportunity and not a land of solely results. Semantics? Maybe. But an important one.

Opportunities is about reaching for what could be and within that resides a good dose of failure or ‘lack of results.’

Opportunities are to be explored with no guarantee other than an opportunity for good results.

Opportunities are to be explored as ‘possibilities’; not guarantees. And those are the types of things that make a country great, not just winning or results, but rather exploration of what could be.

It is the journey of opportunity.

Look. I admit.

I am a 100% business guy and I have absolutely fallen into the “seeking results by solving problems” trap on occasion.

That said. I know in my heart of hearts that exploiting opportunities is the key to business success, but in the day to day grind, especially if you enjoy solving problems, you can get focused on “boy, I sure had a good day because I solved a lot of problems.”

It is natural because problem/solution reflects tangible, almost immediate, pleasure & satisfaction and some clear identifiable outcomes.

Opportunities are less tangible and more hopeful. And if you have ever run a business, well, unfortunately, day to day business cannot run solely on hope. Yet, true leadership is more often than not defined by providing opportunities to those who seek, and need them, the most.

It seems like on this July 4th, this America 245th birthday, we would do well to remember this.

Regardless. My biggest issue with most politicians is a general lack of understanding of business and how it applies to how a government & country can be managed.

Now. That said. I continue to believe a business person, with no government experience, can never successfully manage a country. So while a lifetime politician will always struggle to understand the underlying attitudes and behaviors of a successful business, a business person cannot simply apply business learnings to actually running a country.

In my mind I believe someone who understands attitudes & behaviors & motivations is one most likely to be a successful leader. And this doesn’t mean understanding anger or frustration, but rather what motivates, inspires and makes people move rather than stand and bitch. In fact, leadership doesn’t mean standing around, or at some podium, blaming all the problems America has on ‘other people’ or shouting at the top of your lungs saying “I can solve these problems.”

Most likely instead of pointing out the problems, we should seek the opportunities that exist <and there are a shitload> and explain how to exploit them.

Shit. The founding fathers of America did just that.

They didn’t sit around bitching about problems and wringing their hands over seemingly insurmountable obstacles nor get angry because answers & explanations do not seem to exist or maybe seem unattainable at the moment. They argued over which opportunities represented the best opportunities for the better progress of America.

They didn’t have all the answers, but they certainly knew the objective – identify and exploit opportunities.

===========

“Just because we don’t understand doesn’t mean that the explanation doesn’t exist.”

Madeleine L’Engle

=========

There will always be questions. There will always be doubts. And there will always be ‘problems.’ Making something great is most often found in looking at what is and discovering the opportunities and exploit them. Let me be clear. Opportunities don’t reside in the past.

I can’t bring back jobs … but I can create jobs.

I can’t stop globalization … but I can exploit the opportunities globalization offers.

I can’t recreate a dying industry or dying skills … but I can create new industries with the skills that exist.

I can’t stop terrorism … but I can create the positive country environment which deters people from even wanting to terrorize.

What that means about ‘making America great’ is if we, or some leader, creates an environment in which opportunities are exploitable, and exploited by those who are most in need, all the major issues slip away.

I often wonder why instead of bitching about what is ‘holding America back from greatness’ we simply just accept that everything happens for a reason. We may not understand the reason <and, god knows, these days we want to invest more energy bitching about not understanding the reason than we do making progress away from what is happening>, but just accept it and get on with getting on.

Accept the fact there will always be more questions than answers, but you ask the best questions and use the answers to discover the opportunities and exploit them.

Accept the fact that even though things may not be going the way you wanted them to go or the way maybe that it should go … well … opportunities exist <if you look>.

The American dream never resides in the past. The founding fathers had a dream of what could be and the biggest gift they gave us was not any document or law or ruling guidelines — it was the gift of looking forward and not backwards. The gift to shed problems and issues and disagreements by advancing confidently in the direction of what could be.

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

“If one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours.”

Henry David Thoreau

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

Making America great will never have anything to do with building any walls, or breaking up banks, or free college, or dividing people, or gun control, or abortion, or minimum wages, or … well … any issue we seem to invest far too much energy debating.

Making America great will always have to do with seeing the opportunities that exist – not any we have to actually create – and exploiting them.

Crumbling infrastructure? We have an opportunity to build whatever infrastructure we want.

Massive debt? We have an opportunity to cut unnecessary expenses <in the real world this is called “down sizing”>.

Archaic education system? We have an opportunity to throw out the old way and build a completely new way <and this doesn’t mean privatizing education … which is not a real solution>

I could go on and on.

Every supposed “problem” America has represents an opportunity. So maybe instead of running around trying to ‘fix’ all the problems someone should sit down and say “they are what they are … what are the opportunities moving forward?” We should inevitably seize opportunities as a pathway to something better ahead.

Harry S. Truman:

“Men make history and not the other way around. In periods where there is no leadership, society stands still.  Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better.”

Leadership is never about just solving problems — that is simply a different version of ‘standing still.’

245 years ago a relatively small group of men with really only one thing in common – a vision & the opportunity to build a country – saw opportunity as what would make the fledgling country great.

They had no interest in standing still, but rather moving forward.

That didn’t mean there were not problems nor did it mean they ignored problems, but they recognized the way out of almost every problem and issue was forward, not by fixing, and therefore they sought out opportunities and  sought to exploit the existing opportunities to the benefit of a better America.

My wish for year 246 is to stop talking about what is wrong and who has done something wrong and instead talk about all the opportunities that exist. Stop talking about what America is, or isn’t, whether its great or not, and get on with getting on.

Happy July 4^th.

==== postscript ====

One could read this, should one choose to read it a certain way, and think I am suggesting ignoring some fairly important societal/institutional flaws under the guise of ‘not looking backwards.’ One would be mistaken. You have to clearly see where you have come from before you can fully tap into the potential of what could be in the future. Part of recognizing the past is to recognize why some opportunities were missed so that potential can be maximized in the future. Racism, institutional and societal, misogyny, institutional and societal, among some other issues cannot be ignored. Until we, as a country, accept them as truths, true potential cannot be unearthed in the future.

==========

“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.

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

Why are we so full of restraint?

Why do we not give in all directions?

Is it fear of losing ourselves? Until we do lose ourselves there is no hope of finding ourselves.

————-

Henry Miller

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

Wimp. Gutless. Chicken. Wuss. Mamby pamby. Spineless jellyfish.

Pick your word.

That is what business has become.

Yeah. I know. Harsh.

Go boldly is just not a phrase you hear often in business anymore.

Not even whispered.

Heck.

Not even kiddingly.

Instead we use words like ‘managing risk’ or ‘planned change’ or “restrained response is necessary” or “we need to follow the process” or … well … any other chicken shit scared-to-do-what-needs-to-be-done word or phrase.

Now. To be clear.

Everyone talks about being brave — “let’s be bold”. Yeah. Everyone sits in meetings and waves their hands enthusiastically or look around sternly making statements and actually talk about bold thinking and bold moves and, well, being bold. Attend any planning meeting or transition meeting or change meeting, in fact, pretty much any meeting in a business office and at some point someone will throw the ‘let’s be bold’ card out onto the table.

What happens next?

Everyone looks as Bold sits there on the table within the reach of anyone. Sitting there on a plate like everyone’s favorite donut .. all the while everyone looking at it is on a diet.

Oh, so tasty.

Oh, I can’t touch it.

This most typically happens in some snazzy meeting room and when someone starts talking about the direction of the business and change, but it also comes up when talking about some new initiative, some new ‘creative thinking’ or … well … anything that may appeal to younger employees or anyone who truly wants to do something good, or spectacular, on the business. 

Conceptually … the desire is there. So why is there no real bold behavior?

We are in a mamby pamby business world.

We are in a ‘let’s stick with the tried & true <safe> to maintain whatever growth we just celebrated in our last meeting” <which was most likely really crappy but justified by a verbal ‘better than the competition’> world. We are in a “let’s be edgy but don’t scare off any potential customers” <which those people most likely aren’t a viable revenue stream anyway> world.

Unfortunately for these spineless shits sitting around conference tables … reality in today’s business world is that we are actually in a “smart bold actions at the smartest time” <but … uhm ,.. apparently no one is smart enough – bold enough? – to identify the smart time>.

It sucks.

We are now living in a “rationalize minuscule change as bold actions’ business world. It is demoralizing as well as a less than effective business strategy.

All that said.

This lack of boldness strikes deepest during transitions and change. And I can logically explain why.

Change in business scares the shit out of any manager & leader.

Okay.

It scares the shit out of 99% of business people <mostly the older more experienced>.

Yeah, yeah, yeah … change sounds great, but in practice it is a shitload like chaos. You plan, but as soon as transition hits its full stride the plan is … well … no longer a plan.

Ok. It is the remnants of a plan.

This means many managers are left with scraps of a plan in their hands and this means that many managers are left to make their own decisions and left to their own devices. This also means that many managers find out they are gutless chicken shits.

Why do I say that?

In their minds ‘go boldly’ is defined by “implement the plan.” Boldly implement the plan to the nth degree.

Without a plan? The cold fear of the unknown and being unsure freezes boldness.

<sigh>

Wimps.

We have become a business world of wimps.

And this lack of a bold muscle can cost you in a variety of ways.

If you do not go boldly you will not only never find success, frankly, you will also ever find “you”, as in yourself, as in “what I am capable of.”

By the way … bold does not mean ‘stupid’. Bold simply means attempting to control your destiny – your personal one and your business one. And in doing so … well … you are letting the chips fall as they may by managing the chips as well as you can.

In Greek this is called Kairos. Kairos is the ability to adapt to and take advantage of changing circumstances.

The concept suggests you have an opportunity to manage what fate has in store for you … if you manage the circumstances as they arise.

And how does this relate to ‘be bold’?

Well. Kairos suggests that fate has a whole array of possibilities to shove your way – not just one in particular. Uhm. That means, if you buy that thought, depending on what you do and how you act and what you say … uhm … Fate just may end up offering you a possibility other than what it thought it was going to offer you a moment ago. This also suggests some boldness increases the odds in your favor with regard to fate. I personally do not think this is ‘fate favors the brave.’ I believe it is less about bravery and more about simply boldly acting upon what your experience suggests is the way to go as a way of managing your Fate.

I could argue that 90%+ of business people do not balk at the idea of ‘being bold’, but balk at actually being bold.

I could argue that the % may even go up higher during business transition <change> times.

Yeah. Even with a real challenge and the authority and space to operate “bold” is unfortunately very very low on the list of business behavioral attitudes.

What is high on the list?

“Restrained response” …

“Restrained behavior”

“Restrained risk.”

I have one word for you.

Wimps.

“Restrained” is for all the fucking wimps.

Look.

We need more smart bold non-wimps in today’s business world.

We need less chicken shit, scared to move, business managers and more bold managers who seek possibilities with a 360 degree view … without restraint … and the desire to do the right smart thing in any direction.

Lastly. Better than any whizbang cultural “happiness mojo” initiatives, being bold, embracing bravery within the business actions, will increase the energy of the organization, attract young people & increase overall productivity as well as engagement (which is the real prize in a business).

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

“The only thing that has ever made me feel old is those few times where I allow myself to be predictable.”

Carlos Santana

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

General Mark Milley:

“disobedience, when done, must be done with trust and integrity, and you must be morally and ethically correct.”(Disciplined Disobedience)

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

Well. There is no lack of articles on generational gaps in business and, yet, almost every one of them focuses on simplistic “generational characteristics”, “old versus young” and “what millennials want” and shit like that. Sure. Useful but I would argue all young people have always wanted a version of the same thing “do good meaningful shit without all the old people bullshit.”

Anyway.

What no one seems to talk about is the core frictional axis in today’s business generational issue: business philosophy<embodied in how ideas are created & implemented>.

That said. While I will certainly piss some people off by suggesting 50somethings are slowing us all down <impeding progress> I will do so by hopefully using some rational arguments rather than simply ranting.

The foundation for my belief will center on 2 things:

• Compensating
• Compensation

Of course this is, in reality, about ‘letting go holding on’ <with a dose of ‘please move on’>. That said. 50somethings are the biggest impediment AND catalyst for progress.

Let me explain.

Impediment. They cannot let go. They are holding on with a stranglehold sense of fear to what they ‘know.’ I recognize that this is actually a topic on some elder generational life truths:

• No one can do it better than I can.
• It was always better when I was younger.
• It is always worse now than it was before.

Every generation as they get older believes this. Every generation of businesses has a bunch of people sitting in their corner offices looking askance as the young skip down the hallways tapping their proverbial fingers on their desks wondering how to corral all those young whippersnappers to do it the way they did it.

And it can get worse.

The old folk think they are living in the present <their perception> by implementing what is comfortable <the past> therefore their behavior is incredibly difficult to impact because their mind is telling them what they are doing is actually different than what they are actually doing.

Ok. Now that I have blasted 50somethings as being stubborn bitter curmudgeons and the biggest impediment to change, I will take a minute and also note, given the right attitude, 50somethngs can be the biggest enhancer/catalyst of progress. There is a relatively small percentage of 50somethings who have the ability to straddle generations <attitudinally> and have the ability to insert themselves into the younger generation’s minds and desires to strengthen the engine of progress rather than stall the engine.

Please note … I am not suggesting these 50somethings have to be as good as the young at technology or whatever new innovative techniques out there yet to be discovered, in fact, it may benefit them to not be or even try. Their value is in their heads and experience and the nudging of ‘what can be’ using selected knowledge from ‘what was.’

Let’s call it ‘selective best practice learnings.’ Topmodels suggested it was the happy few who could explain things. I have to tell you. I think the market place needs more of these “happy few” 50 year old+ employees than ever before (and I am gonna tell you why). Now. I am not suggesting all 50+ people are the same. And this generalization may be translatable to other age groups but let me suggest there are three groups:

• Over 50 and all they know and believe in is what they were taught when they were in their 20’s.
• Over 50 and they have all the knowledge they need to be on their own and like being on their own (I call these builders)
• Over 50 and have accumulated iterative learning over the years and have a unique combination of old and new (and like renovating)

(note: I wrote a post about Builders versus Renovators)

The first group is lost in the past. They will struggle because their thinking and ideas and even their vocabulary can be out of date. They will suck at transformation or renovation. Their hope is finding someone who needs to work on their internal construct of how to get shit done. But mostly these are the people when we were young we thought were ‘out-of-touch’ from the real world (or chuckled to ourselves because they would throw out up to date buzzwords acting like they knew what was going on).

The second group has accumulated enough knowledge and expertise and confidence where mentally they have flipped from ‘working for someone’ to ‘working for myself.’ They have recognized their ability to build. And they like building (which is different than transforming). They would suck at transforming because they want to run the place and not simply be an enabler for the organization to shift. (Ralph also talks about this within his newsletter as “fear of flying” and learning about yourself). They could possibly be out of touch or they could be leading edge entrepreneurs. But it doesn’t matter because they are now going forward as their own boss.

The third group? They are renovators. Companies should be fighting over these people. They are old but not old. They are experienced but still learning. They have a solid thinking construct but flexible in application. They may have their quirks (because I believe all of us older people start feeling more comfortable in our own skin and therefore are a little less worried about ‘fitting in’) but also tend to be more interested in the result than worrying about step by step how they get there. They can actually make the current buzzword understandable by using past functional learnings to explain them.

So. When I say “fighting for these people” I don’t mean to suggest that companies should be stockpiling these people at the expense of young energetic fresh thinkers and doers. I am simply suggesting that companies need a good tier of these boomer types to transform themselves when, frankly, a lot of companies need to be ‘transforming.’ (and my definition of transformation is leveraging from solid good older characteristics an injecting some new characteristics). I am also not going to suggest there should be a direct correlation between % of boomers in population and % of boomers in the makeup of business organizations. That would seem kind of silly to me.

But the numbers are pretty compelling that organizations should seek that third group of over 50ers (let’s be nice and call them boomers). In 2009 The PEW Center released a study outlining the current generation gap is the largest in the almost 50 year history of the study. Today, an astounding 79% of Americans believe that there is a generation gap in the ways young and old think and believe. Truly the only way to bridge that gap within an organization and eliminate generational divisiveness is to have boomers who can effectively communicate with and motivate all age groups.

There are not many of these 50somethings out there.

—————–

“The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.”

L.P. Hartley

—————————-

I equate it to the fabulous few who can travel to a different country and seamlessly blend into the attitudes & behaviors of the new country.

Generations are, in general, slow to change and adapt in a normal every day situation. Today’s 50somethings are exponentially challenged with change and are not dealing with it very well <i.e., not letting go very well>. I believe it was a French sociologist, Emile Durkheim, who developed a psychographic method to establish different socio-cultural groupings <I believe it is called the Sinus Milieu>.  Anyway. Basically it is a model that challenges us to think about behavior, preferences and cultural practices. The main premise behind the model is called ‘the lock-in principle.’ The principle simply states that if we get used to something we do not want to change our habits <or attitudes an beliefs> even if we are presented with something new or different that might be better. Simplistically it consistently shows <to a point that it is almost an unequivocal behavioral truth> that habit is stronger than the desire for improvement.

This thought partially explains that while 50somethings actually share the same desires as young people they are reluctant to let go of what they “know.” this gets compounded by two things:

1. With the advent of data & technology, the working business model has transformed from a “idea construction” model to a “idea destruction/reconstruction model“.
2. With the internet the gap between older experienced based knowledge and younger theoretical based knowledge has become sliver thin.

JEREMY SCRIVENS

“Over the past ten years, businesses have used Lean, Six Sigma, business process engineering and other techniques to drive costs out of a business. They have also succeeded in driving people nuts. Something really important happened two years ago. The percentage of people who loathe their jobs has been rising and the number of people who love their jobs has been falling. Two years ago these lines crossed. If we don’t find a way to reverse that trend then we are truly stuffed.”

Sliver thin? This is the compensation and compensating thoughts I shared upfront. 

• compensation

While this is about management style as well as purpose ultimately this is about money … not only how we personally get paid <earnings & wealth> but also how the company gets paid <profits, revenue, growth, etc.>. The current 50something management generation is literally and figuratively the generation that got squeezed. This was the generation who had to learn how to do more with less. This was the generation who was also demanded to generate more profits and sales increases … with less.

If there is anything this generation understands better, it is the concept of the squeezed dollar.

Now.  Let me explain. As business evolves and the economic environment surrounding industry evolves the needs of the business leader changes. It is natural to adapt to what the economic environment demands <or be killed if you don’t>. The burden of this business generation? The squeezed dollar <versus the bloated dollar of the previous generation>.

The current generation of business leaders has had to thrive in a ‘squeezed dollar’ environment.

• The squeezed dollar is the unfortunate fact that because of the boomer generation leaders’ wonderful success … the financial community demanded the same results … but the consumer demanded transparency.

Therefore in order to maintain continuous sales growth <which is actually a relatively ludicrous concept> and continuous profitability the current business leader had to find ways to squeeze the same profit/growth out of less dollars <cutting staff while cutting prices while cutting … and cutting … and … well … cutting>. I say all this because this economic pressure creates a certain type of management style in order to be successful. 50somethings learned on the job and actually were quite successful maintaining the boomer ‘earn as much as I can’ attitude <a version of extravagant desire for more> as well as working leaner … on the edge of what an organization is actually capable of.

Compounding this is the next challenge.

• Compensating

There is always a fragile relationship between generations … old holding on to what they know and have while the young are trying to pry things from the old … trying to get them to let go <of ideas, responsibility, things, etc.>.

From a ‘wisdom’ perspective the current generation gap is different, and more challenged, at the moment <although it has been this way in the past … just not within our experienced past>. While this wisdom gap between adults and the youth <in Life and in business> has always existed I will call this unique current gap challenge ‘the war on the adult advantage’ <or false knowledge versus real knowledge> for the sake of my discussion.

False knowledge. This is harsh <and an over generalization> but adults have always made shit up. We pass our opinions and beliefs along as facts … as real knowledge based on real life experience. Let’s call this the ‘years advantage.’ Most likely it is a ‘focus group of one’ knowledge but in the past adults could own this advantage the majority of the time. And at its worst … it is simply a defense mechanism to deflect youth energy away from something we would prefer them not to be focused on or thinking.

Real knowledge. Adults almost always had a real practical technical ‘how to do it’ advantage … mostly because in this case we had seen & done it. And done it many times so that it was almost with true expertise <or at minimum we had the process understood and efficient>. Nothing beats practical hands on experience <remember that old folk>.

The internet has squeezed both.  Today false knowledge can be challenged immediately.

And real knowledge?  Well. With some professional proficiency an adult will always maintain an advantage but with the advent of the computer and technology … many adults have actually LOST the advantage. Ultimately … the internet has squeezed this entire advantage perspective <actual wisdom as well as the learning process itself> to the head of a pin.

Only those adults truly agile and adept at thinking are maintaining this advantage.

But, in general, the 50something response?

We are threatened. The two main pillars of advantage have become toothpicks. So we hunker down. We take an increasingly bunker mentality and batten down the hatches <ok … no more tired metaphors>.

What do the 50somethings inevitably have to hold on to <and put a death grip to never let go of>? Whatever slim margin of advantage we can own, the unassailable portion, is ‘how we learned to do it’ — the process and the mentality and the ‘work’ on HOW we learned what we learned that got us to where we are.

Heck.  We got here this way … so any other way is a short cut <or not the right way>. Uh oh. Why is this an issue? Well. My good friends at topmodels.com helped me out again. They refer to it as “why faith is replacing knowledge.”

“… our world is getting more complicated all the time. Black and white, good and bad, right and wrong have been replaced with complicated constructs that leave most people in the dark.

As the world around us becomes increasingly fast paced and complex, the amount we REALLY know – what we can really grasp and understands – decreases all the time. Today it is more or less taken for granted that we do not understand many of the things that surround us, such as mobile phones and ipads. And even if somebody tried to explain the DNA code to us, we would probably be out of our depth.

We are increasingly surrounded by ‘black boxes’ … complex constructs that we do not understand even if they are explained to us. We cannot comprehend the inner processes of a black box but nonetheless we integrate their inputs and outputs into our decision making. The amount that we simply HAVE to believe, without understanding it, is increasing all the time. As a result we are tending to assign more importance to those who can explain something than to their actual explanation.” <The Decision book: 50 models for strategic thinking

Krogerus & Tschappeler>

Well. That thought scares the shit out of 50somethings. It stands against everything we were taught.

Faith versus actual knowledge? How can you truly understand if you don’t understand <all the innards and stuff>? The young are replacing <some> knowledge with faith … and the old are not letting go of ‘stop and learn the knowledge.’ There is certainly a balance … but 50somethings are not interested in balance … they are interested in having ‘no faith’ because they perceive it as having ‘too much risk’ or ‘not the way we did it.’

<insert ‘get over it’ here>

There is a massive opportunity for 50somethings if they can get their shit together and quit ‘compensating.’ If they simply quit cocooning simply to maintain their adult dignity <their wisdom factor> and seeking to simply maintain whatever slim perceived advantage they can have over the youth <not actually increasing the gap but simply strengthening the fine thin line between the two>.

Today? It is a more hardened thinner gap than in past generations.

The future is always ‘now’ to the young because the future exists in their ideas. Whenever the future ‘happens’ it becomes the present and then immediately the past <kind of my explanation for the excessive restlessness the youth in business have>.  50somethings need to learn to let go and hold on for the ride <as a conductor>.

Ultimately … the old have lost their traditional grip over the young and are holding on harder than ever before. They are over-compensating to maintain control <or their advantage>.

Bottom line on this topic. It really comes down to two things … attitude and respect.

Attitude.

The right attitude <combined with some respect> is the requirement for adapting to change and generations.

With the passing of time each of us changes … experientially and psychologically. In certain situations, younger people do not like accommodating themselves to traditional experiences and in others older people are reluctant to accept the new. In order for a person to change themselves, it is necessary that they not only be convinced of the appropriateness of this change but they also have to have the right attitude. The attitude matters because … well … this shit doesn’t happen overnight <despite the fact everyone seems to think if you don’t make changes immediately you will get crushed>. In order for everyone to adapt organizationally everyone, both generations, need time.  Time to assimilate the new and the old and create the necessary experience as well as process it to make … well … progress.

Respect.

Oddly, I will suggest it isn’t that the young should respect the old, but rather the opposite. I believe the 50somethings need to get their proverbial heads out of their asses and develop some respect for the young and what they can do <that we cannot>. Show them respect and I imagine they will show us respect <if we have the ability to deserve it along with the right attitude>.

In the end.

There is a lot of talk amongst older folk on “changing” and “adding purpose to businesses” but my prediction?  Existing leadership <and middle management> will screw this up mainly because they will only see the short term as an opportunity to get an older, more mature, cheaper employee and not recognize the longer term issues that will arise. They will screw it up because they will focus on ROI & not ROY:

• Lack of ROY <return on youth>: youth and young people are the cheapest innovation engine in any organization. While typically overlooked in an innovation model their innate ability to provide a fresh perspective through fresh eyes is invaluable. Organizations may not recognize their current loss with the ‘lack of youth’ within their organizations but it is having an impact. It has a domino effect within an organization. Without the ‘hidden youth engine’ more pressure will fall on older employees for innovative ideas … and these employees are more focused on ‘safe behavior to maintain employment’ and … well … you can see where this ends up.

Focusing on what we perceive as ‘generational differences and ‘youth attitudes’ <and not the organizational issues> I believe we older folk will not manage this issue well. Mainly I believe this because we will tend to focus on numbers & jobs and not some key psychological aspects <some Maslow stuff>.

There is truly no generation gap with desire to what we want <purpose, meaning, joy of task, being better, hope>, but the real gap exists in the minds of HOW things should be done.

As noted in my construction versus deconstruction posts, it is a new business world out there today and navigating the transition is where the best minds of the older generation should be focused. I could argue we are currently in the business world’s liminal space <uncomfortable, uneasy transition space> and if you agree, well, then we are simply on our way to someplace new & better. I could also argue we need a new business model for a new business world and fortunately for everyone the young are more capable of implementing this new model than any existing generation.

………. axial shift in economics Otto Sharmer ………

————

“To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting.

It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.”

==

Oscar Wilde

—————————

Well. I wrote Society of Fairness in February 2016. I revisited it due to 2 things:

• I just wrote “guilt free accumulation” which explored the shallowness of values versus the pleasures of capitalism
•  just discovered Otto Sharmer and read his piece “Axial Shift: the New Coordinates of Societal Change.”

Both of these pieces explored some of the societal challenges we face but, at their core, both revolve around what we view as fair – for I and We and Us.

To be clear. Fair  and fairness is a much more difficult topic to discuss than one would think. Maybe it is more difficult because I believe we are living through a period of simmering anger. People are angry with government, with capitalism, with media, with religion, with inequality, with immigrants, with Europe, with big business, with Russia, with how they get treated and with, well, everything seems to be changing.

In my eyes all of this is rooted in an overall question, and concern, at an individual level of “with all this change as the world transforms I am afraid change will not treat me fairly.” <this is a derivation of my post of “I get angry when people screw with my hope”>. Therefore we rage against anything we can attempting to insure the tentacles of fairness touch us at some point. In other words. When the world seems t be going to hell in a handbasket we grab on to our basket, fill it up with anything we can grab and protect it with clenched fists.

———

“The most dangerous moments are not when people are their poorest but rather when their expectations of significant improvement are raised … and end in frustration.”

de Tocqueville

—————

Interestingly, the whole discussion of fairness ITSELF creates a sense of anger.

The reason for this is that fairness sounds simple, but is complex. The most basic logic of fairness suggests choosing between which poor people, or who is most in need, are more worthy of the help of the generous and “morally superior” wealthy. That is the mental logic we apply as we attempt to parse out fairness rather than have fair become mired in “equal for all.”

Yet, while even struggling working people will agree those in truest poverty, particularly children, are first in line for ‘fair’ their personal anger is not even partially quenched. They are not quenched because fairness is both an “I” thing AND a “we” thing which is not selfishness, but self preservationness.

A society of fairness is one in which we are fair with each other and the system, in turn, is fair to us.

It is about attitude (and persistently holding onto that attitude).

It is, at it’s core, frankly, not glamorous.

It is the nitty gritty stuff and not the college education and wall street or even the government.

It is about marrying principle and pragmatism and gradual improvement.

It is infrastructure like streets, trains, highways and roads, public parks & community centers, easily accessible fountain water, lower level easy access good public education, stuff like that.

It is basically common sense bricks & mortar actions within a … well … the hard part … an equality based moral order frame.

Jobs is the tangible <which we need> and moral order is the intangible which creates the structure for behavior within the tangible. Jobs may be hierarchical <at the moment>, but morals should not be hierarchical.

These are not problems which can be fixed by simply suggesting rich white folk save the poor or “marginalized working people.” In addition it’s not just about people fighting back against injustice and working hard. It is about personal responsibility AND shared responsibility. It is about people being active positive participants in their own lives and society, itself, positively participating in individual lives.

A ‘society of fairness’ clearly reaches into the heart, and soul, of what most of us care about, it reaches into our attitudes (because it is hard work), but almost immediately runs into the economic obstacles of ‘what is fair’.

I tend to believe all of us know that it doesn’t mean everybody has the same income. It translates more into equality of opportunity. The difficulty resides in putting dollars & cents and tactics & objectives against ‘fair & opportunity.’ No one, and I mean no one, couldn’t simplistically point out the extreme unfairness in today’s society, but the true society of fairness is defined not by the extremes but rather what happens in the majority.

I share my thoughts today not to suggest we shouldn’t seek a society of fairness, but rather to point out that “fair”, in and of itself, is significantly more complex and complicated than when looking at it on a superficial level.

That said. We can do something to make the world the place we want it to be if we get our heads on straight.

What do I mean? I found a fabulous little article at a site called Common Cause Foundation on Values  . But it was in the middle of the article where the author nailed the issue with regard to attaining a Society of Fairness.

==

Common Cause Foundation has recently conducted research in the UK and the US looking at the values people hold, and the values they think their fellow citizens hold.

We’re still analysing this, but here are two early results. Firstly, a large majority of people hold self-transcendence values (generally concerned with the wellbeing of others) to be more important than self-enhancement values (based on the pursuit of personal status and success). But this isn’t seen by most people, who believe that their compatriots hold self-transcendence values to be less important, and self-enhancement values to be more important.

Perhaps this is a key reason why many people don’t get engaged and active, although sharing values that would otherwise lead them to – because they believe that they are in a minority, and that society at large doesn’t share their values. We call this the ‘perception gap’. It’s a gap that many in our media, and many in government, seem to work hard to perpetuate.

==

In America we are certainly living out that ‘gap’ quite vocally, but as we wrestle with fairness and shared self-transcendence values I will note some reality — America has always been defined by a combination idealism and materialism. A balance of the two & it would be silly to suggest ditching one for the other. I would also note both are powerful sources of motivation.

The idealism expresses the best of human instincts in that it sanctifies the fixing America break someone else prioritizing of others over oneself and requires social and political respect. The materialism celebrates individualism.

===

“It is not fair to ask of others what you are not willing to do yourself.”

Eleanor Roosevelt

===

The combination has coexisted because one never sought to fix itself by breaking the other. The natural coexisting conflict sparks greatness, opportunity and progress.

In my words it is organizational alignment of social, materialism and political.

The difficulty with the idealism side of the equation is that people’s idealism tends to translate into, well, it doesn’t necessarily live in the real world. In our idealism, our hope to be the best of the best, we seek some things that aren’t feasible in a practical sense <and, yeah, someone is gonna throw out that practicality is just another word for “too hard”>. My response? It’s not too hard, sometimes it just isn’t feasible. That is because unfortunately ideas are reliant on two things: the power of the idea and access to an infrastructure to embrace & implement the idea. If either side fails to meet the challenge it all fails.

It is irresponsible to offer up ideas for consumption without an infrastructure in place <or a foreseeable path to a rebuilt infrastructure> to, at minimum, accept the idea and, at maximum, implement the idea.

And that is where alignment on fairness tends to fall apart.

What is maybe worse is that not only is it extremely difficult to effectively communicate what I just said but also many people don’t care when they are dominated by anger. They just want solutions – they just want it done.

And if that anger is tied to a real & tangible & personal ‘unfairness’ … well … gradualism never sounds compelling and, frankly, isn’t compelling. Revolution appears much more attractive.

Here is a realistic truth. In 1990 Peter Drucker discussed Salvation by Society <his version of society of fairness> and how a transforming business world was killing it. We now see in the late 2010’s the full repercussions of that transformation. I say that because while ‘fairness’ may begin today its positive transformation will take decades to become re-embedded in our business, and societal, structure and institutions.

Anyway.

I love the idea of a society of fairness. Unfortunately, in today’s world, fair means different things to different people. And demonizing any group of people, even despite their inordinate wealth, doesn’t really seem fair. Good people reside at every wealth level. Good people reside in every skin color. Good people reside, well, let’s just say that 98.5% of the time 98.5% of the people are good <I made up the 98.5% and thought it looked smarter than simply putting 99%>. And the 1.5% bad are not solely in the purview of the mega wealthy.

And therein lies the hope for a Society of fairness. Good resides in the significant majority. It simply lies dormant and needs to be reawakened.

With that I return to Otto Sharmer. What I like about his thoughts aren’t all the specific thoughts (which I could haggle with aspects), but rather the holistic integrated view of creating a society of fairness. It is complex, & I am not sure we are aligned with what ‘fair’ really is, but if we can envision what the totality could look like, well, it can be built.

=====

originally posted February 2016

I recently reread Peter Drucker ‘s “No More Salvation by Society” (from his really interesting 1989 book called “the new realities”) in which Drucker reflects on how businesses, governments <and politics> were shifting their focus on delivering ‘an everlasting society which achieves both social perfection and individual perfection’ to seeking ‘economic salvation.’ Let me translate that: ‘money began to matter more than doing the right thing.’

Ok. That is a big concept and a big thought. And I as I read it it seemed to encapsulate an issue that really bother me about how many of today’s businesses (and management) are being run.

But, first, my caveat. Drucker is a frickin’ brilliant thinker. But. I recognize that Drucker’s writing can seduce you into thinking his ideas and thinking are your one true love. He tantalizes you with obscure facts and references and tucks you in with a nice warm theory that makes you dream big thoughts. And while most known for management theory he has written brilliant thinking on government, politics, ideology as well as business.

So, please note, while I love his thinking I believe, as with most theorists, taking it as the holy grail is fraught with peril.

That said. His thought on Management and businesses and there is “no more salvation by society” is valid. And I believe the issue is more relevant and important today then even in 1989 when he offered up the concept in “the new realities.”

Ok. The idea of Salvation by Society.

At its core it suggests businesses, and managers, have a responsibility to Society by creating ‘better people.’ Better as in values, moral compass and, in general, ‘do the right thing’ attitudes and behavior.

So no one is confused it is not about salvation through religion <although he does suggest at some point that in the vacuum created by the departure of businesses in this role that religion would attempt to step in>, but instead the idea revolves around creating better citizens through conducting life within a ‘better business behavior’ construct. That is not our current business environment because business went through “the shift.” The shift reflects Drucker’s basic premise is that at some point beginning in maybe the 70’s functioning society changed direction from societal priorities to economic priorities.  In other words, we shifted from a society being driven by social power <values based> to a society driven by purchasing power. This big shift was driven by the fact politics <and politicians> began integrating economic promise into their platforms thereby replacing social betterment (or salvation by society) as a governmental platform. Simply said, ultimately, the holy grail became “increasing the purchasing power.”

Interestingly he foresaw several things <that will resonate as we think about it>.

He believed the disappearance of the belief in salvation by society would create an anti-society environment and that salvation could only be achieved outside society, i.e., only in and through the person <he even suggests a withdrawal from society>.

Once again. A Bruce translation.

Let’s call this the growth of a “me” generation or “what’s in it for me” philosophy <which embodies today’s business world AND the push back we are also seeing>. He may have meant it in a slightly different way, but that is how his idea came to life. He said in 1989 that the death of the belief in salvation by society, which for 200 years had been the most dynamic force in the politics of the west and increasingly globally, created the rise of economic salvation (and a void in societal values … or salvation).

Once again. This is not salvation by faith but rather Salvation by Society <... values wherein we do the right thing for the greater good.  Empower the weak. Make the tide rise higher for all morally>.

And, I agree with Drucker, we sacrificed that “higher” direction at some point.

Now. This is a really big issue which has implications in the business management world (at a later date he addressed further implications in “Management as Social Function and Liberal Art”) as well as individual homes <and heads> and government.

Anyway. Some thoughts.

about the blurring of the 99%

At the time he wrote New Realities the disparity between the haves and the have-nots was not as extreme as we have it today. But in a way he foretold it as we shifted from “salvation by society.” By exploiting a common interest in prosperity we have created a ‘blurring of the 99%.’ The blurring began as instead of “quality” interests <social and cultural values and styles> policies and programs were being developed to focus on individual ‘spending power.’

As he suggested:

… blue collar workers are clearly blue collar workers and yet in their lifestyle there is little left of working class except possibly preference of beer over wine. Their concerns are material … a motor home, a fishing cabin and retirement pension. They see exactly the same television programs as everybody else. They have exactly the same access to web based knowledge as everybody else. They buy the same consumer goods in the same supermarkets and they often take similar vacations. They do different work but they no longer lead different lives. They define status not through their economic interests <social and cultural values & styles> but rather through their spending power.

I don’t mean to disregard those within the poverty level, but the reality is that it is difficult to discern massive differences within the 99%. Upper middle class is burdened with debt & upside down mortgages and lower middle class <the traditional blue collar> is actually relatively unchanged in their wealth situation. ‘Spending power’ is, through different formulas, of equal status.

salvation, society & government

Someone will point out, as Drucker also did, it seems to many of us that politicians and governments are pounding the “anti government” in their rhetoric, yet, they are anything but.

They do not look upon government as the organ to produce a better let alone a perfect society. They see the function of government in specifics – to improve American competitiveness, to cut back the power of British trade unions, to make renters home owners, to improve farm productivity.  The role and the function of government is perceived as different and so is its ultimate aim.

So, beyond the blurring of the 99%, government is currently built upon the foundation of individual purchasing power which, ultimately, feeds the ‘wants’, not the needs, of the 99%. In other words. Their programs are not about producing a better society, but rather ‘creating disposable income.’

In addition, even if government wanted to shift focus to bettering society, we have increasingly come to doubt that there is “one right answer” to any social problem. There are wrong answers for sure but we understand that social issues are much too complex to admit a simple answer. If they can be solved at all they always need several solutions – none of which individually are quite right. Sounds obvious doesn’t it?

Well. Here is a problem.

In order to have popular appeal in today’s world, any promise of “salvation by society” must be a simple “this is the only way” (or at minimum ‘this is the best way by far’). Nuance, ambiguity or even multidimensional solutions struggle to survive in today’s world. This increases the difficulty of re-finding our inner societal soul.

about society

In society, with the emphasis of authority, leadership, legitimacy, hierarchy, interdependence and individual desires all focused on purchasing power, rather than ethical responsibility as the ultimate evaluation of what is happening in society and how people act, it is not difficult to see how society issues suffer in the pursuit of achievements & output rather than what is put into the achievement and output.

Ultimately Drucker outlines global implications with all societies and individuals:

– At the heart of Drucker’s explanation about the world economy is that the world economy will become a non-national flow of money and information as well as the trade within cross-border alliances. This translates into daily money flow exceeding what is needed to finance international trade and investment for several months <domestic economy may look completely different>.

– Information transactions (e.g., face-to-face, print, Internet, movies, and videos) are even larger and are “…probably growing faster than any other category of transaction in economic history.” <note: this does not suggest substantive transactions just an increase in quantity of transactions>.

Both of those leads us to the fact that the driver for growth, prosperity, and employment for every developed nation has become the international economy, i.e., globalization.

This also translates into the truth a domestic economy and international economies are relatively indistinguishable except in a political, social, cultural, and psychological sense. On a side note, we should all note, we continue to focus most of our discussions ‘domestic – only’ and in fact we tend to lean toward an isolationist, or at minimum, a domestic policy as a stand alone. That thought is contrary to the actual economic reality (therefore we continue to have economic inefficiencies and strife).

I point that out because in our simplistic dialogue over economics and ‘purchasing power’ we miss the opportunity to showcase that attaining the highest value of meaning and economics when all interests are aligned: self, business, country, global. For it is within that value chain the “I” (self) sees intrinsic value in what they do in the grander narrative and global benefits because it is empowered by a collection of people and their ideas & work.

That said. Domestically countries can take steps to elevate society to the benefit of economy. Drucker <remember … this is 1989> outlines how the Asian-rim nations (Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, and Singapore … he did not foresee China at that time) have become the models for trade policy. Each of these nations has refrained from managing short-term economic fluctuations; rather, they have invested heavily in education and training, rewarded saving and investment, and penalized consumption. Also, these nations have given priority to performance on the world economy over domestic economic performance.  In other words. They focused on a healthy society, attitudinally, ethically and skills, in order to achieve economic success.

Regardless. All these issues, and all aspects of, feed into a society that is becoming dysfunctional.

society is sick

More important than the economic issues there are unresolved societal problems of attending to the common good. We are increasingly unable to address the problems of society and “…in every developed country, society is becoming sicker.”

The issue is exacerbated by the fact that as businesses fail at their commitment to society <see my next post … worldly desires> the government began establishing huge bureaucracies to attempt to address the issues … and have failed to measure up to the problem.

Drucker suggested a rise in “volunteerism” to fill the absence of this salvation thru businesses/government, but I believe he ignores the overwhelming stress on time with people in today’s age. In my eyes salvation by society needs to be reestablished within ‘existing hours’ <not volunteer hours> therefore businesses need to begin re-assuming its responsibilities to society.

The incompetence of government in solving social problems is not solely the government’s fault. It is more a reflection of lack of alignment between people’s attitudes & behavior throughout the day, i.e., their work life and out-of-work life.

In addition. While I like the government assuming some responsibility, it seems like it should be a shared societal responsibility <including businesses>. Yes. I do believe business SHOULD be involved in society. Ok. maybe I believe business should be aware of their role in society. By the way, Drucker agrees.

We invest a lot of energy focused on “economy” (is it good, or bad, or improving, or sucking, or whatever …) and we don’t invest a lot of energy on society and the health of the citizenship.

We also seem to blame governments a lot.

And yet, I imagine, if I were to do a survey with two databases, one of typical households and one of business owners, and ask how they assess the health of their respective homes/businesses that by far the number one response would be an economic/monetary assessment. A balance sheet or balance statement assessment first and foremost.

I say that to make a point that this is about alignment, shared responsibility, and a shared sense of priorities. To say government has a responsibility to society is to only complete a portion of the successful formula. Business is of, and within, society & community.

Anyway. It may have been written in 1989, but Peter Drucker’s “the new realities” is thought provoking when examining the issues of today. I would argue business, even more than government, can solve a sick society and establish the underpinnings of, well, salvation.

===

“There is nothing quite so useless, as doing with great efficiency, something that should not be done at all.”

―

Peter F. Drucker

===

“Efficiency is doing the thing right.

Effectiveness is doing the right thing.”

―

Peter F. Drucker

===

Well. It took me far too long to recognize why Bernie Sanders is appealing to young people so much.

I knew it wasn’t “free” or any version of entitlement because while that may attract people it doesn’t create passion.

I knew it wasn’t “revolution” because while that generates passion in the young <it is associated with overturning status quo> it isn’t grounded in the kind of realism which creates a true active & involved following.

I knew it wasn’t simply that the system is “rigged” because while that generates some anger or frustration it doesn’t generate the ‘measured optimism’ you feel from younger people.

I also knew the empty criticisms of the young of being lazy, entitled, idealistic, pampered, naïve … are 99% bullshit.

So while Bernie can sometimes feel a little like the Pied Piper I knew there was something deeper.

The deeper ‘thing’ happening is something I have written about ad nausea and believe is what is creating conflict in the business world.  It is what the younger generation wants to embrace in business and career versus what the older generation sees as the way to conduct business and what is important in a career.

Yeah. We seem to forget that each generation creates their own imprint – on society, on culture, on values … and, yes, on business.

My generation was about “efficiency dollars.” How could we squeeze every dollar out of a business with the least resources. We squeezed quality and effectiveness under the scrutiny of efficiency.

The generation before me was about “maximizing quality dollars.” This was about bloated profit margins and charging for high quality output <whether it was actually high quality or not>.

This younger generation sees their own version of business <I speculate it is the “added value dollar” management>. They seek ‘effectiveness’ as defined by Drucker. We may confuse this with ‘having a purpose’ or ‘something bigger’ or , as Bernie suggests, ‘less idolatry of money’, but it is more that younger people want to work in a world which values doing the right thing while making money and less about meaningless material shit.

Now. This doesn’t mean they don’t want to make money. This doesn’t mean that they don’t like money.

It just means they view the business world they want to work in as one doing the right thing versus doing something simply to make money.

This is not a revolution. This is simply a generation standing up and saying ‘here is how we wish the world would view success.’

There may be an ‘anti-establishment’ aspect to what is going on but I would argue it is less about government and less about a ‘rigged system’ and more about a desire to create the system they envision as better than what is. And while Sanders is tactically impractical and offers some unachievable things which are counter to American culture & existing behavior he does offer a vision of a world which the young could embrace … rather than the current world in which the 50somethings are beating the crap out of their hopes and ‘business and career everyday conduct’ desires

The change that this younger generation seeks certainly has some societal aspects but they realistically understand that 80% of their lives is made up of their life in the working world. They also realize, and rightly believe, that if they could conduct business the way they believe it should be conducted that many of the issues we face will inevitably be resolved.

I would guess if asked in one-on-one interviews the young people following Bernie could give a shit if we break up the big banks or big business or even Wall Street. They envision change would occur if they actually were in positions WITHIN the system to create the desired behavior.

They want a chance to do it their way.

Personally? I want them to have a chance to do it their way.

And, yet, they need to understand that the lure of money is corruptive – to a business and to each individual’s moral imperative.

“Few people- and probably no one outside the executive suite – sees much reason for the very large executive compensations. There is little correlation between them and company performance.”

Peter F. Drucker, The Frontiers of Management (1986).

Drucker, in The Frontiers of Management (1986), described this as the “Greed Effect” <he also discussed this in terms of economic salvation in 1989 New Realities>.

To be clear, greed is an easy thing to conceptually dismiss but incredibly difficult to practically fend off as more & more money <and your lifestyle changes with the more money> enters into your Life equation.

Where I think the younger generation may be slightly naïve is to not understand that.

And I think Bernie is extremely naïve on this <mostly because he doesn’t have any business experience>.

Money is here to stay. And the desire to make money & have money is productive — when well managed.

To me there needs to be a shift not in the system but in the heads & hearts of the participants – leaders & employees.

And that is where I saw a difference between Bernie & Hillary in 2016 (and I imagine someone in 2020 will draw a comparison).

Bernie doesn’t know diddleysquat about business but his personal issue, idolizing money is bad, coincides with the younger generation’s belief that there has to be more to life than making gobs of money and going into business every day being measured on outcomes <rather than what is the right thing to do>.

He empowers them to believe they will someday be in control of the business world and can solve it themselves <not the government>.

Hillary also doesn’t know diddleysquat about business but her personal issue, removing problems/barriers, not only does not coincide with the younger generation’s attitudes but also does not appeal to what every business person knows …  “results are obtained by exploiting opportunities, not by solving problems.” <Peter F. Drucker>. She does not inspire empowerment but rather offers government solutions to enable an individual to be less constricted with regard to opportunity.

One suggests you will be able to take the bull by the horns <”because I believe you are capable to do so”>.

One suggests we will fence in the bulls <”because I believe if the bulls are gone you are freer”>.

Both are good solutions, but younger people are more apt to be full of piss & vinegar and will take the former over the latter. That is <mainly> why young people follow Bernie.

Look. I do think a successful business needs compensation as a reward and incentive and that they should be directly tied to the achievement of objectives <or progress>. And I do believe that compensation systems should not be so rigid as to exclude special rewards for “performance over and above the call of duty.”

But I do believe that each business generation arm wrestles the torch from the prior business generations as they create the business environment they envision and the objectives can change therefore the compensation rewards would inevitably change.

And that is what Bernie is really tapping into. And, frankly, I agree. I just don’t agree with going about it like he is suggesting.

Making money is good.

Wanting to make money is good.

Having money is good.

Thinking about money with perspective is even ‘gooder.’

I get tired of reading over and over and over again about anger and anti-establishment and … well … everything else almost every politician or political pundit keeps blabbing about. I wish they would start discussing attitudes & behaviors and why generations are threatened and other generations are inspired to attempt change.

In the end it will not matter to America, or any country for that matter, to make some nebulous ‘political party’ unite. What will matter is to unite, or align, generations. We need the 50somethings to embrace the opportunities the 20somethings have to offer the existing powerfully effective systems and, conversely, we need the 20somethings to embrace the opportunities the 50somethings have provided them.

====

originally published April 2016

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

“You cannot live without establishing an equilibrium between the inner and outer.”

—–

Paul Auster

=========

“I used to think of you that way, you know. Like the sun. My own personal sun. You balanced out the clouds nicely for me.”

He sighed.

“The clouds I can handle. But I can’t fight with an eclipse.”

–

Jacob

=======

“The idea that talent is directly proportional to your trophy cabinet is one I oppose.”

—-

Alex Turner

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

Ok. I have been extremely consistent over the years with regard to my belief that I think balance is the key to almost any successful endeavor – in life & in business.

Suffice it to say I am a big balance person. And, yet, the other day during a business discussion it occurred to me that I may not be using the right word or even have the concept correct.

I may actually be a ‘proportional’ advocate.

Let me explain. Business, more often than not, is about assessing the correct proportional value of a topic, fact or idea and assigning the correct proportional response to that value.

Sure. That may inevitably arrive at something we could call “a balanced response”, but to get to the so-called balance we need to think about proportions.

I imagine, in my head, this means we need to stop viewing things as a zero sum balance, but rather as proportional to the situation in hand.

Now. I did some research and back in 1975 a guy named Piaget described the essential characteristic of proportional reasoning as it must involve a “relationship between two relationships.” I am not really sure what that means, but I am guessing it means that proportional assumes some dimensional aspects while balance is simply a relationship between two more concrete/discrete things.

He also suggested that proportional involves something called “additive reasoning” which, to me, explained my misrepresentation of balance.

Balance suggests an either/or trade off — something like teetering on a balance beam.

Proportional suggests a more spatial trade off or, maybe, ratio based trade off. What I mean by that is I can add one thing as part of a compromise and its true value is a zillion and give up one thing as part of the same compromise and its true value is 1/10^th of a zillion (despite the fact their actual costs may be different).

I balanced my response, but gained a proportional advantage.

There is even something called ‘the constant of proportionality’, but that becomes too complicated for my pea like brain so I will let you google it and see if you can explain it.

I imagine my real point is that most of us, most likely, are proportional thinkers and not balance thinkers <although we say we are balanced>.

More often than not we invariably assess things through assimilation and the synthesis of multiple things <numbers, ratios, tangible, intangible, and … yes … even missing information & components>. Our decisions are a messy mix of analyzing a series of unequal and equal things shaping them into the proper proportions to make a, well, proportional response. This can all make sense but it doesn’t really make it any easier for us. its not easier because balance is easier to assess and judge, balance is almost always associated with ‘fair’ while proportional often looks like something won & something lost and balance gets confused with linear zero sum game decision making.

All that said. Here was the bigger epiphany to me on why we should explore the more difficult pat of proportional thinking.

While balanced may seem like a simple improper term the truth is the more one focuses on balance the higher the likelihood I would actually end up doing the wrong things.

Huh? If you focus on balance you will inevitably try and force equality in all things. That may sound good, but it ain’t really reality. Simplistically it means you are focused on the wrong outcome & objective.

Instead, if you focus on the best proportional response to every situation, you may not end up with a one-to-one balanced relationship on any one comparison you review <which creates issues in its own right>, but you will end up with a balanced relationship on any given series of comparisons.

That last paragraph may actually showcase why most people focus on balance. In a simplistic measurement business world we are almost always demanded to show one-to-one or linear explanations.

Balance does that.

Proportion does not.

This means to embrace being proportional means you will have to accept the burden of explaining the more difficult to explain, to showcase asymmetrical as actually being simple and dimensional can actually reflect symmetry. Nothing in what I just shared in that last paragraph is easy. Particularly in today’s business world.

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

“Divide the target in proportion to the available resources”
―

Sunday Adelaja

==========

All I really know is that, whether I like it or not, I am actually a proportion person and not a balance person. It only took me over 25 years in business to figure that out <no one has ever suggested I am a quick learner>.

Think about it. You may actually be a proportional person too. More importantly, maybe you should be.

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

“Whenever you take an action, decide by both your brain and heart in equal proportions. Balance them as far as possible.”
―

Bikash Bhandari

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