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

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

——

Frederick Douglas 1850

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

“The ultimate test of man’s conscience may be his willingness to sacrifice something today for future generations whose words of thanks will not be heard.”

―

Gaylord Nelson

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

Ok.

Because of the business I am in <marketing advertising & business strategic consulting> I am constantly inundated with the hyperbole associated with “new and unique.”

So, I admit, I am always skeptical of “worst ever”, “best ever” and “whatever superlative you want to toss out” ever.

That’s why I almost always step up to the plate when I hear someone suggest how the world is changing like it has never changed before.

Or that our situation has never been worse.

Or something is better than it has ever been before.

I admit.

I kind of chuckle when I hear all this.

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

Or even when I pull out the quotes I used to open this piece.

Frankly.

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

Shit.

Most people any age.

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

Ok.

If I were sensitive, I would care.

Or more likely I would care if I didn’t find quotes like this.

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

Sure sounds like something you may have heard recently from some pundit on TV.

But.

This is mid 1800’s in a speech in NYC.

It is a fact that each generation has faced some radical change and thought process and attitude shift.

Yup.

I could argue <and I have> that the more things change the more they stay the same.

They stay the same because … well … we move on, we progress, we improve upon what is. Inevitably, as that happens, each generation gets “left behind” as another races toward what will be.

Think of it as tectonic plates in which friction occurs as the new plate slowly <and sometimes quickly> surges over the older plate.

Yeah.

The older tectonic plate.

The one that is supposed to be smarter.

The one that is supposed to know the best.

The one that “got us to where we are today.”

The one that suggests “why throw away what appears to be good.” 

Well.

The one has someone scraps of truth in what they are thinking.

Pieces or parts smarter and know the best?

Yes. Sure.

On the whole?

Nope.

Why?

You don’t know what you don’t know … and if you hunker down on only what you do know … well … that is called “stagnant.”

Ok.

To be fair.

A minority of those being left behind actually enjoy the change an the friction and the conflict. These are the ones who empower the youth. Fuel it. Guide it. Not restrict it. Those few get to enjoy the ride toward “what will be.”

But they are a minority.

On the whole the majority of any older generation holds on for dear life to what they know and makes them comfortable. And it would possibly be okay of they did that and remained silent … but instead they complain and gripe about what is lost within the following generations and, ultimately, go to some fairly absurd lengths to try and slow change.

It is too bad.

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

But.

Regardless.

In the end.

Change comes upon us whether we want it or not.  As Frederick Douglas said in 1850 … ‘you cannot ignore the intellect of the world.’ Change is our constant companion <and mostly a friend> … at all times we face “a change has come over the affairs of mankind.’

True in 1850.

True in 2017.

True in 2150.

This doesn’t mean that we are not slow to change … because we are. Change in mankind is like turning a full tanker ship.

Part of this slow change is actually a reflection of mankind’s survival DNA.

And if you want to debate the ‘slow change’ than maybe accept thinking of it more like Schumpeter’s Creative Destruction. The small rise up disrupting and destroying the status quo and that of ‘the big’ … and through their destruction <eating away at the status quo> they begin recreating what is into what could be and what will be.

Now.

I am not suggesting all past experience should be ignored. But it is a fact, a truth, that the older generation needs to be able to let go of some ‘beliefs’ in order to free the change that is inevitable in the affairs of mankind.

I say that recognizing this is not a truth because they were wrong in the past but rather because they are wrong ‘now.’

Effective change demands a healthy dialogue and relationship between the past perspective and a new perspective.

And this is where the current affairs of mankind tend to fall short … they lose perspective as time goes on because they have cocooned themselves within their successful behavior.

Regardless.

This post all comes down to several overarching thoughts.

Each generation faces radical adversity.

Each generation facilitates extraordinary change <typically beneficial as a whole>.

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

And, lastly.

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

Why?

Because we are managers.

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

We wonder why managing young people <call them millennials if you would like> is so difficult?

Well.

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

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

And maybe even more important … older managers need to remember they are not the mustang’s mothers & fathers but rather we are savvy cowboys seeking to guide energy.

Anyway.

Is this poetic metaphor a bad one? Maybe.

But certainly something worth thinking about.

A change has come over the affairs of mankind … uhm … the more things change the more they stay the same. This is not anything unique … this is called “progress.”

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

 

“Those who stand for different causes during different generations often experience the same oppositions and the same difficulties as those of the previous and the next generations. That is the basis of history repeating itself.”

 

―

Criss Jami

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

===

“A diamond is a chunk of coal that did well under pressure.”

——

Henry Kissinger

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

“When you do things right, people won’t be sure that you have done anything at all.”

–

God (in Futurama)

===

Well.

Think what you want and say what you want to say about Kissinger … but the opening quote is awesome <although, geologically speaking, it may not be truly accurate>.

In our quest for recognition as a leader many business people, and leaders in general, seemingly get shoved <on seemingly a daily basis> into some absurd universe where everyone judges you <mostly on some absurd views of ‘being noticed is what matters’ or ‘shine bright like a diamond‘>. I say that because this means thinking of yourself as a piece of coal seems … well … quite underwhelming and quite ‘unleaderly’ <I made that word up>.

Uhm.

But.

One of the most frustrating things you learn early on in a management career path is that you do not get credit for what you are expected to do. And maybe what makes this most frustrating is that this lesson applies to a crisis as well as the most mundane everyday grind responsibilities.

But.

The thing is as you gain more and more responsibility you learn that this is actually a good thing.

People like reliability.

People like consistency.

People like a foundation of quiet competent leadership.

People like you doing what you are supposed to do <with little fanfare>.

This is a lesson learned early on in a management career … and you can tell the leaders who <a> did not learn it or <b> saw the lesson but lack self-confidence … because they … well … ignore the lesson and exhibit ongoing aggravating self promotion <even on the things they are expected to do>.

That said.

This doesn’t mean you aren’t tempted to take a moment or two to point out, sometimes in some fairly loud messaging, that you want some credit for what you are doing.

This is the ‘dance.’

The management & leader “credit dance.’ I call it a dance because every good leader knows they have to do some self-public relations and, yet, they don’t want to be seen as doing any overt self-public relations.

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

“The price of greatness is responsibility.”

—–

Winston Churchill

=======

Being a great leader is all about doing your job and doing the right things at the right time … and <I imagine> figuring out how to actually tell people that you did the right things at the right time. This means not being seen a as blowing your own horn or being some narcissistic attention seeking, credit seeking asshat but rather one who understands it really isn’t about gaining credit or accolades but rather reassuring people that the right things, the good things, just get done under your watch.

I would note that reassurance is a powerful tool. It is powerful because doing things right isn’t about small … nor large … but if you do it right … really right … people will not really be sure that you’ve done anything at all and, yet, feel reassured that you are there.

Now.

In today’s bombastic world it can actually become a bad thing if no one notices. Why? <insert a ‘huh?!?’ here> because someone else at the exact same time is telling everyone what they did … and yes … unfortunately … often the squeaky wheel does get the grease.

Aw heck.

The truth is that the value is never in the credit. And leaders know that. And we everyday schmucks need to remind ourselves of that more often.

—-

“I alone cannot change the world, but I can cast a stone across the waters to create many ripples.”

————

Leaders know that the little things can matter and that just delivering upon what you are supposed to do really matters <a lot>.

A subtle touch can create the needed ripples. Doing what you are supposed to do insures the right ripples are always … well … rippling.

Good leaders know you can be the initiator, instigator or implementer … or even all of them … and it doesn’t really matter.

I would note that within the realm of doing what you are supposed to do about the only thing that can truly diminish ‘greatness of simple doing’ is not accepting responsibility – for the bad and the good and all that it takes to get to either place.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that what I just stated is ‘character’.

Leaders don’t lead by asking or telling people to follow it most often happens by doing the shit you are supposed to do really well.

I know. I know. That doesn’t sound “great” but greatness really cannot be achieved without it.

Oh.

This kind of suggests that greatness is a contradiction.

Let’s use Winston as an example.

Huge ego. MASSIVE ego. Charismatic speaker. Maybe one of the greatest orators of all time. Made some huge mistakes. HUGE mistakes. …. But humble in his responsibility. He permitted  the people to get credit for success and strength and what needed to be done … all the while doing what he as supposed to be doing.

He was vocal, and sincere, on issues and the people of Great Britain getting credit.

All despite his ego.

Great leadership reflects a unique balance of ego and humility. Ego to effectively lead and humility to be effectively followed.

I would imagine those with the greatest character reside somewhere on the line between those two things.

I would imagine those with the greatest character reside somewhere in between not getting credit for what they are supposed to do and actually being acknowledged for enabling greater greatness.

Well.

I know it isn’t popular to say this but most of the best things in Life, and leadership,  are found in the unspectacular:

• The best people more often than not go unseen and unnoticed by the majority.
• The best moments more often than not go unseen until looking back.

Just as perfection is most often found in the imperfections … spectacular is most often found in the unspectacular. And, yes, doing what you are supposed to do is unspectacular.

But I would argue the spectacular would never ever happen if the ‘supposed to do’ shit never happened.

In the end.

Great leaders are often judged by what you don’t see them doing. This also means great leaders are often judged by what they feel comfortable remaining silent about … by what they don’t say about what they are supposed to do and supposed to be.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out this is a little more difficult than it may appear.

It is a little more difficult because a great leader does have to have some ego and some higher level of confidence and, therefore, some positive affirmation kind of helps to put some well needed oxygen back into the confidence balloon.

It takes a awhile to learn you don’t have to ask for oxygen or even try and fill it yourself … well … at least good leaders learn that … the bad, insecure ones never do.

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

“At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst.”

—–

Aristotle

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

“We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker.

It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”

——

Ronald Reagan

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

Well.

If there is one thing the Trump administration does well, really well <great again even> … is to find some scrap of equivalency to suggest what they have done or said is “normal.”

In addition, they gird their normalizing arguments with “because he can” simplistic tripe.

This is the Trump business mantra applied to the presidency … ‘it is technically legal & norms are irrelevant’.

This is the lesson that Trump appears to have ignored, the one where parents teach every child “just because you can doesn’t mean you should.”

Look.

Presidents can pardon whoever they want convicted of a federal crime … not a state crime. Technically Trump was within his ‘technical rights’ to pardon Sherriff Joe Arpaio and, literally, he wins because “the left” and Republicans’ with any sense of norms will go ballistic.

But I would suggest society actually loses on this one <as does the American legal system>.

In a normal world this pardon may appear in the overall scheme of things as small potatoes … but it is not. With this president it edges onto the slippery slope of a new normal <which is not normal nor desired normal>. It edges into an undermining of the justice system.

Hear me out.

2 things make me say this.

How Trump gave the pardon verbally.

He suggested in his words that the Sheriff was just doing his job well. In other words … the laws were either wrong or the law of the land restricts people from doing their jobs. Uhm. And that the president is the judge of whether the laws are right or wrong, constricting or supportive.

The words matter just as much as the pardon itself. The words send a message with regard to how people should view laws and the legal system.

By the way … the words are as much Trump as anything we have ever seen … only he knows what laws are truly worthy and he rules his business that way. In his mind Trump is the sole arbiter of right versus wrong & legal versus ‘useless law.’

How Trump came to the pardon.

He offered the pardon without his Dept. of Justice. In other words … the DOJ and what they thought <or knew> was irrelevant. Process and legal minds are irrelevant … he is the law <a shiver went down my spine as I typed that>. It should be disconcerting to any and all that Trump appears to come to a conclusion about something, particularly what is legal and what isn’t, without seeking the legal process to back it up.

But.

At the root of the issue is that a “law & order” president just pardoned a ‘law & order employee’ who … well … not only flaunted the law but broke the law of rights. The fact is he is not a law abiding sheriff if he’s disobeying a court order <let us remind ourselves that this charming fellow was a convicted sheriff, who ran sweltering, punishing jails where inmates died and was accused of targeting Latino residents … AND … during the litigation that led to his conviction for criminal contempt, he hired a private detective to investigate the wife of a federal judge hearing a case against his office >.

And at the root of the Trump issue <as if there is just one rotten root> is, as USA Today points out, Arpaio didn’t meet the Justice Department guidelines for a pardon. His conviction wasn’t five years old, he hadn’t expressed remorse and he hadn’t even applied to the Office of Pardon Attorney.

The day before, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the president would follow a “thorough and standard process” in considering the pardon.

That process usually requires seven layers of review and an FBI background check.

That did not happen.

Past Bush ethics Chief counsel Richard Painter said:

—————–

Well, I don’t see how this would have made it through any normal process.

This sheriff has been known for lawless acts for many years. I don’t think he would have lasted one week as a sheriff in my home state of Minnesota. We are a law and order state. Many places are. We favor law and order in the United States.

When a judge tells a sheriff to do something, the sheriff does it. That’s what law and order is all about. And if you’re in contempt of court and you’re a law enforcement official, you’re abusing your power. You should not be pardoned by the President of the United States.

And the message here is very clear: the President likes sheriff Joe because he likes going after immigrants. He was going after minorities. And that’s the clear message here. And I think it’s really reprehensible and I wish that something could be done about it. We gotta think seriously about whether Donald Trump is fit to be President of the United States.

I’ve been a Republican for thirty years and we’ve got a lot of great people in the Republican Party. Who can serve honorably in this United States government and can serve this President of the United States.

This is just one more stick in the eye to the minority community and to those victimized by the very few people in law enforcement like sheriff Joe who choose to use their power abusively. And choose to ignore the orders of the judiciary. And that is lawlessness. And that should not be tolerated in the United States.

————————-

Sigh.

The legal system is degraded because it is politicized in the way that it looks like the president wants to do what he wants to do which, in the end, undermines the utility of the legal system overall.

But watch.

All the Trump surrogates will be flocking to the TV shows to start shaking their fists and defiantly spouting out some false equivalence to justify this non-normal presidential behavior.

They will use scraps of truth and facts to weave a story that suggest Trump is normal, thought normally and even acted normally.

This is not normal and there are few fair equivalences.

In the most harsh view … with the pardoning of Joe Arpaio … Trump has established his place in history alongside those who exercised the same executive and dictatorial rights such as Stalin of Russia, Mussolini of Italy and Hitler <as well as Erdogan, Putin and Duterte>. That does not mean he IS them just that he is utilizing some of the same tactics.

To be clear.

While I fear that Trump and Arpaio are bigots and nationalists and authoritarians … that doesn’t make them Nazis <so I wish some people would tone down some of the rhetoric>.

It just makes them bigoted, nationalistic authoritarians. That’s bad enough and I see little value in bringing up Nazis.

That is a false equivalency.

I have said this before and I will say it until I die … the Trump presidency nor the Trump behavior is normal and we need to stop suggesting it is normal. We should be seeking to explain and justify his uniqueness in behavior <and if we cannot then he should be penalized> but no one … and I mean no one … should be using scraps of normalcy to create a false equivalency of a larger whole normalcy to a non-normal president.

This is NOT normal in how we should be viewing our legal system and legal decisions.

Trump is certainly no Reagan but maybe we, all of us, should heed Reagan’s words in the age of Trump … we must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker.

===========

“To think is easy. To act is difficult. To act as one thinks is the most difficult.”

–

Johann Wolfgang Von Goeth

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

“But if these years have taught me anything it is this: you can never run away.

Not ever.

The only way out, is in.”

–

Junot Diaz

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

Well.

Almost every business I have ever crossed paths with has claimed they were running hard. Shit. I have never met a business that said “well, we don’t believe in running hard … we are walkers.”

Trust me when I say most businesses do not really run hard.

I know that because once you have <a> seen and experienced a company that runs hard everything else will look slow and <b> we have all ‘run hard’ in selected moments in our business career but 99% of those companies also say “it is not sustainable” and 99% of the time run at a lower gear.

That said.

When a company is running hard there is a slightly odd dynamic that almost always occurs … wondering whether it is worth it.

Yeah.

When a company is running hard, working hard and doing hard things daily it can be easy to wonder whether it is worth it. Wonder if you are reaching objectives fast enough, doing the right things and whether you are actually getting closer to where you want to be.

By the way … this wondering is often exacerbated by poor managers and management who constantly create a false sense of urgency and manage deadlines like a caffeinated rabbit.

Regardless.

I feel relatively confident most managers fuck up how they address the wondering.

This happens because we inherently want to show people they reached something … a goal, a milestone or some ‘finish destination’ when , in reality, progress is the value you should be showing them to show a causal relationship to the energy they are expending. They are running hard, you are asking the company to run hard … you want to show them a often as you can that they are actually making some progress.

We fuck it up because we just aren’t taught that it is okay to let them know … “well … we are lagging behind on some sales objectives, but this doesn’t mean someone is doing something wrong, or you aren’t working hard enough or that some competitor is doing some magical thing better than we are.”

We fuck it up because most of us do not know how to deliver that message well.  most of us make it sound like we are chasing some unrealistic goal, or maybe we throw in some false sense of optimism or maybe we actually create some ‘midway milestone’ which actually encourages people to maybe invest a little less hard, a little less running and a lot more ‘maybe that is enough.’

When your people are running hard you don’t want to tell them that it is … well … going to be hard and that is why you are actually running hard.

But you have to tell them.

Well.

You have to if you want them to keep running hard.

Tell them: You are asking people to change – and change is hard.

Most businesses aren’t just selling shit <something> they are asking a potential buyer to change – change current product, supplier or behavior. While change really is hard … we get better at explaining how this change we are asking them to do … is easier than they may perceive every day. Sometimes we have to weave our way through objections and sometimes we have to hammer our way through objections … but everyone, every sales person, service person, management, support staff and anyone who interacts with current and potential customers are doing their part today and doing even better the day after.

And while asking someone to change is hard actually implementing the change is harder. I sometimes believe most businesses are in the change management business more than anything else.

You have to tell them you know that no one is better at explaining why that change is good and how that change can occur.

The truth is when you are running hard, and not running simply for running sake, people get better at this every day.

The truth is we are not where we want to be but getting there … and getting better at getting there.

Next.

Tell them: You are asking people to believe what you already know – and educating is hard.

Even if your company is good, really good, and even if your company is the best, the leader, every company does have competition. People just don’t believe you just because you are the best or the leader – and most of your people know that <no matter how frustrating it is>. In today’s skeptical world people just don’t say “oh, okay.” And, frankly,  we don’t want someone to say “oh, okay” when one of our competitors makes a claim.  We shouldn’t, and don’t, expect our customers and potential customers to simply believe everything we say. This means we need to educate and consistently address each question and request as if each answer is THE one which will make them a partner of our company.

The truth is we are not where we want to be but getting there … and getting better at getting there.

——

“If in a company you change nothing, you are sure to fail.

 

If you change everything you are sure to fail as well.

 

So the art of winning resides in your capacity to draw the fine line between what should be changed and what should not.

 

=

Jean Marie-Dru

——

Look.

Running hard is not the same as running fast. But businesses are impatient, in general, and absolutely over-the-top impatient if they feel like they are running hard.

This means you have to tell them some truth about themselves and the company.

I doubt you will ever get to where you want to be as fast as you would want. I imagine every leader in every industry is always perpetually dissatisfied in this way. I imagine every adventurer, every explorer and every innovator is always perpetually dissatisfied in this way. I imagine this is partially what makes an average company great – you understand that tomorrow’s company will be a little bit better than the company today.

Our sales will come. They will never come as fast as you want but our company doesn’t just work hard, you work smart and success is ours whether it arrives in small steps or great leaps.

Anyway.

I have away said this — part of what makes a company great is that feeling of dissatisfaction.

A great company wants to be more agile, move faster, and retain that perpetual feeling that they can always do more and be better.

A great company has a spirit that drives them and gives everyone the sense that tomorrow is another opportunity to be better than today.

A great company, typically, does run hard but, maybe most importantly, has a leader who can breathe constant oxygen into the runners in a way that is neither false nor insincere.

Not everyone who says they are running hard are really running hard but if you are in a company who is … I can almost guarantee the organization will explode without good leadership and will be an Olympian marathoner with good leadership.

—-

President Donald Trump on Thursday denounced the removal of monuments to Confederate figures as “sad” and “so foolish:

“Sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart with the removal of our beautiful statues and monuments. You can’t change history, but you can learn from it.”

Uhm.

“Beautiful statues and monuments.”

He is referring to memorials to Confederate leaders as if they were lawn decorations which, if taken away, would make my perfectly coiffed yard seem a little ‘less than’ compared to my neighbor’s yard.

Please don’t take way my hand made gnomes!

This is horrible.

Simply horrible.

The lack of any intellectual awareness from Donald J Trump continues to be stunning no matter how often we are exposed to it.

Despite what our 140 character intellectual-in-chief may suggest not all the 1,500 symbols of the Confederacy in public spaces <source: SPLC> are created equal — 718 are monuments.

Look.

No sane person blames Trump for a divided country … although one could argue he is clearly exacerbating division on what used to be clearly what was right and what is wrong … and dark skinned people versus white people.

Okay. He is exacerbating divisive thinking.

However.

What he is being blamed for is not offering moral leadership in the discussion.

If anything he is stripping the conversation of any morality to suggest a naked choice. If only it were that simple. His vagueness begs people to fill in the hollowness with whatever nonsense they want to believe.  And then, to make it worse, he offers his own intellectually vapid nonsense.

This is not a vapid simple issue but I will still offer how Bruce would resolve this:

• This statue thing is not a democrat versus republican issue it is a country issue. We should celebrate soldiers who died fighting bravely for what they believed was right.

We should never celebrate the leaders who made bad decisions, no matter how much we want to justify their difficult personal choices, which created the deaths of individual brave soldiers. If I go to Europe and world war 1 battlefields I see memorials to dead soldiers on both sides … but I don’t see statues of German generals.

• oddly … in a world in which we throw around absurd words like ‘snowflakes’ and ‘politically correct’ and ‘erasing history’ far too often … we seem to forget there are winners and there are losers.

We should celebrate winners, particularly the ones who stood for something right, rather than celebrate losers <who stood for something wrong>.  I want statues of Abraham Lincoln … not Jefferson Davis.  I want statues of Grant not Lee.

• Statues dedicated to solders bravery stay up … no matter which side they were on.

Statues that celebrate leaders of the ‘wrong side’ should be in museums as ‘lessons in history.’  I could argue any confederate statue erected in the 1910’s & 1920’s should simply be destroyed because their intent was to celebrate segregation <and this would eliminate something like 50% of monuments>.

“Sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart with the removal of our beautiful statues and monuments.”

Trump is an idiot.

Okay.

He is stupid.

Yes. I just said stupid.

I say stupid in this case because not only is he intellectually hollow & amoral he also cannot seem to swim out of the shallow end of the thinking pool to see how he could appeal to the people who deemed him worthy of voting for him … and elevating them and their thinking.

He continues to miss opportunities to make a point with regard to what he suggested he stood for <the forgotten everyday schmuck>. In this situation if he stood up and was able to put any semblance of a thought together in his word salad way he would say “the everyday soldier who served bravely should never be dishonored by the flaws of their leaders. Families sent their sons and many paid the ultimate price bravely. Memorials should stand to honor their families, them and their choice to serve. Statues of their leaders, who led them for a cause which was not for what makes America great, deserve to only remain in museums so that we can learn the lessons of their mistakes.”  

While this is an incredibly complex issue, taking statues down isn’t about rewriting country history … it is about rewriting family choices and family history. If I pull them down indiscriminately I dishonor families who lost sons and take away a part of their personal history.

We need to separate the individual sacrifices made, honor them, and dishonor the larger cause and leaders who propagated it.

Sigh.

We will inevitably see hundreds of intellectual, and semi-intellectual, articles written about culture, the civil war and how a country faces its demons. People will spin this so many different ways trying to justify Trump words or demonize Trump lack of thinking you will get dizzy.

Stop spinning and take a deep breath and think with a little clarity.

I have stated ad nausea, this should be a debate of ideas and thinking because, in the end, the solution shouldn’t be some simplistic ‘take them down’ or ‘leave them up’ but rather an overall understanding and semi-alignment on the purpose of wherever we land decision-wise as a country.

And maybe that is my larger point today … Trump is not leading the discussion … he is offering the simplistic tripe of some guy on his 6^th beer at the corner of the bar.

Donald J Trump is not just a horrible president … he is a horrible man … a horrible leader … and I even, at times, think he is a horrible American.

Complex issues demand leaders to not offer simplistic tripe which appeals to one sliver of America.

Complex issues demand leaders to be their best and appeal to the better aspects of people … and America in this case.

In business … complex issues demand business leaders to develop solutions which unite an organization and show a way forward.

And let me use business leadership to head off my good friends who will send me notes about my ‘white guilt’ and ‘bleeding heart liberal inclinations.’

I am president of a 400 person company. I just told about 75 of my employees, me <an old white guy> told them, that they should lighten up and look at those statues as beautiful statements of our history blessing the appearance of our public parks.

“… start a conversation within their beautiful shadows.”

Uhm.

Seems to me about 75 of my employees may look at me and say “fuck you old white man” which doesn’t necessarily breed organizational unity.

Look.

I am an everyday schmuck. I think the last Confederate statue I can actually remember paying attention to was in New Orleans <which means I have most likely walked by a dozen others and never even noticed>. But that’s not the point … I am not a leader nor am I the leader of a 330 million person country.

Complex issues reside in the deep end of the intellectual pool and good leaders learn to swim well enough to venture to that end of the pool. Trump can only stand in the shallow end.

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

“At any other time it’s better.

You can do the things you feel you should; you’re an expert at going through the motions. Your handshakes with strangers are firm and your gaze never wavers; you think of steel and diamonds when you stare. In monotone you repeat the legendary words of long-dead lovers to those you claim to love; you take them into bed with you, and you mimic the rhythmic motions you’ve read of in manuals.

When protocol demands it you dutifully drop to your knees and pray to a god who no longer exists. But in this hour you must admit to yourself that this is not enough, that you are not good enough.

And when you knock your fist against your chest you hear a hollow ringing echo, and all your thoughts are accompanied by the ticks of clockwork spinning behind your eyes, and everything you eat and drink has the aftertaste of rust.”

―

Dexter Palmer

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

Well.

I am surprised at how often Trump and the Trump administration make me go back again and again to the post I wrote on November 13^th 2016: The Last Stand of the Old White Men.

It was within that post in which I posed the ultimate judgement we should apply to the new Trump administration …“the potential redemption of a generation.”

At that time I shared thoughts with regard to how a Trump presidency and his speculated band of merry old white men, his “band of brothers” <his cabinet and advisors>, would guide America to the next level of greatness despite the fact they had built their own personal empires on a variety of greater business acumen & business culture hollow attitudes & achievements.

Hollow?

It is my belief that, as a generalization because there are exceptions, old white men have hollowed out the business world in their quest for “winning at any cost” and “maximize win-to-cash” ratio.

Everyone should note that Trump is the poster child of this hollowness <and I will aggravatingly point it out over and over again> and I have pointed it out on the following topics already:

Capitalism.

Branding.

Profit.

Wealth dispersion.

Communication.

They hollowed them all out.

But this weekend I was reminded of another … a much simpler pragmatic crime than lack of morality … hollowness of behavior.

Now.

I hesitated to call this “the hollowing out of morality” mostly because that sounded a little harsh and I tend to believe the reality within this particular hollowness is more pragmatic. That said … it doesn’t make it any better just that I didn’t really want to get into a morality & ethical finger pointing game.

Behavior

Leadership is a complex mix of personal, professional and pragmatic.

When wielded well it is a beautiful tapestry of effectiveness, however, beauty is often in the eyes of the beholder when actual effectiveness becomes the measuring stick. As a reminder, old white men leadership grew up in a business of dictatorship leadership behavior or, at its best, benevolent dictatorship.

Old white men grew up in the hallowed halls of hollowed leadership management. This means that their ‘management twitch muscles’ inevitably provide reflexive business decision making based on this.

The easiest way to point this out is that businesses have developed a myriad of cultural initiatives and, yet, old white men leadership tends to simply treat them as “feel good politically correct” initiatives. They view them as “society dictated” thinking and not “business dictated” thinking. Therefore a hollowness was inherent in the organization between how the old white men leaders attitudinally approached the business, how they viewed behavior and how the organization actually behaved.

Old white men began talking longingly of straight talk, when people knew their place in business and ‘carrot & sticks.’  Old white men started looking at businesses in disdain as vehicles of political correctness and not stark effectiveness. The truth is that many of the old white men simply didn’t buy in to a better way of doing business and, therefore, when put in a corner & challenged revert back to the hollow management style of “do what I tell you to do and shut up.”

To be fair, old white men did not create this hollowness … they simply propagate it.

That is Trump in a nutshell.

Anyway.

To be clear, simplistically, old white business men behavior falls into one of two camps:

• Those who do something because they were shown something and thought “hmmmmmmmmm, this makes sense to do.”

• Those who do something because … well … they think they have to <but still believe it is stupid and that ‘the old way’ was better>.

The problem is that the latter group is incredibly good at pointing out how they are technically ‘hiring more women, promoting more women, giving opportunities to minorities, discouraging sexist and racist behavior in the office’ and everything else they would throw into the “mamby pamby politically correct business bullshit” bucket … all the while chafing under the true spirit of behavior.

I say all this because if you strip away all the horrible racist and incorrect moral equivalency rhetoric you will find an old white man who’s “make great again” is grounded in a pragmatically hollow view of behavior. There is no subtext nor is there any higher ground it is a simple black & white behavior analysis in which everyone’s behavior is viewed as a commodity and the only differentiation is ‘effectiveness’ or outcomes.

I say all this because while I pointed out the old white men have a chance at redemption we saw, in the spotlight and podium, one old white man not seeking any redemption nor showcasing any redemptive characteristics. I worry that this one man is beyond redemption.

And as I say that I remind everyone that the old white man Donald J Trump is surrounded by a crusty bunch of curmudgeonly old white men who we would hope we could find some level of pragmatic redemption.

I say that to point out the other piece I authored which continuously pops up as a reread – at this time, at this place, I will be defined.

I wrote it February 17^th 2017. In it I said:

In this moment, in this time and place, something is happening of which we really have to create nothing … but, instead, rather shape something. And, in doing this shaping, we are actually building something within the moments we elect to stand up and define ourselves … well … building “us” … okay … maybe it is building “me or I.”

This moment is different because it demands that we take a whole bunch of seemingly meaningless little moments … almost unrecognizable … that have got us to where we are attitudinally, intellectually and physically … and stop and speak out in some way that will be meaningful to us for the rest of our lives.

And.

In this moment … I would suggest that this is not the time to define yourself by standing against something but rather standing up & for something. This is not the moment to be “anti” something but rather “pro” something.  ‘Anti’ suggests you can turn, or stem, the tide of affairs when the reality of ‘affairs of men’ would most likely suggest a tide is a tide and affairs will be affairs and by being ‘pro’ it may be possible to show which harbor the tide should enter. Don’t define by what you are against … define by what you are for.

That said.

I could suggest that for many of us this is a “now or never” time.

Look.

I can point out all the issues with old white men and all their flaws which could potentially impact, negatively, the united states of America until I am blue in the face.

And I will continue to do so.

But inherent in pointing out hollowness is the unequivocal truth that hollowness begs to be filled with something. And in today’s world, in this time and in this place, it will inevitably filled by the decisions of each of us, one by one, on how we will choose to be defined.

Each of us will do this. That I believe. It may not be today. It may not be tomorrow. But at the end of this wretched situation we find ourselves in I believe everyone will have chosen where to stand and how to be defined.

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

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.

 

—

Shakespeare

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

….. white nationalist torch march in charlottesville ………

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

but Charlottesville sad!

President Trump tweet

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

“… disgusted, and everyone needs to do better than this infantile bullshit because I for one have had it with senseless hostility … it’s not activism, it’s not in support of anything, it’s nothing but sickness and cruelty. I’ve had it with people behaving like … animals.

Get it together and grow up.”

—-

Kat Timpf

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

Your opinion is not my reality.

–

Steve Maraboli

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

Ok.

The last couple of days in America have been sad days.

There are some real douchebags out there in the world and sometimes it seems like their little douchebag club is growing.

On the front lines of this douchebaggery are the ones who marched on Friday night <the “Unite The Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia> with torches.

On the front lines of is douchebaggery are the members of the KKK, neo-Nazis, and other armed militia groups who walked the Charlottesville streets on Saturday adorned with Confederate flags and in full Nazi regalia.

To me … these are people who want to see the world burn.

To me … these are people who don’t really give a damn about a larger sense of humanity but rather only seek dominance.

To me … these are the people who, quite disturbingly, showcase the trappings of 1930’s Nazi torch bearing marches and KKK torch bearing gatherings … in other words … they reflect the trappings of a miserable point in history and humanity.

Now.

It certainly doesn’t help that the President continues to showcase an extreme pettiness, an extreme lack of cultural & society insight and an extreme inability to articulate the most basic accepted norms of a civil society … which encourages douchebaggery.

All that said.

While I am a relentless critic with regard to President Trump’s lack of leadership skills I will not be today. Yesterday I just saw a man who is what he is and you just cannot ask more of someone who is just capable of who and what they are.

He will never be inspirational. He doesn’t have an inspirational bone in his body. And you know what? That’s okay.

It’s frustrating to watch <because I want more>.

It’s sad to watch <because I expect more>.

But what is most frustrating from a business guy’s perspective <me> are the missed opportunities. This administration misses opportunity after opportunity to … well … lead. They miss opportunity after opportunity to forward their own message in a ‘unity’ type way.

It is frustrating because while I don’t think Donald J has one inspirational bone in his body, that he is painfully transactional and his sweet spot is vague divisiveness … I do believe he could stand by his message and do so in a way that can … well … appeal to some of the greater aspects within America.

Sigh.

He is what he is. His ‘tone & message’ instincts are horrible.

He is much more comfortable, and better, at delivering a divisive message than he is offering a uniting, or unity, message <simply saying “unity” or “we should be united” is kind of cost of entry simplistic “sure … whatever” type verbiage>.

He is much more comfortable, and better, at delivering a self promoting message <what he has done, how good he is and hyperbole offered in a fantastically third person way>.

In general he is, 95% of the time, incoherent and rambling and, the worst of all, vague. Vague is horrible the majority of the time but in a moment which people seek clarity it is the worst because more often than not it falls on ears as platitudes and creates spaces in between for people to second guess and find what they want to hear.

When forced out of his ‘vagueness’ comfort zone he uses words like he is checking boxes.

I would argue that his most important speeches are a reflection of how he runs his businesses – technically within the lines. He uses many of the right words but they always seem to edge along the razor thin line of right versus wrong. One of Trump’s most effective defenders on TV, conservative Ben Ferguson, is spectacular in his technical defense. He takes Trump words and places them on a blank piece of paper and says “what is wrong with these words?” or “we should view these words literally.”

Well played on his part.

I have two words for him – Fresh Eggs.

Huh?

When I was at J Walter Thompson one of our most famous presentations was called Fresh Eggs. Client after client we would take a couple of minutes when discussing communication and how to effectively communicate thoughts to show them ‘Fresh Eggs.’

Simplistically … I can design the words ‘fresh eggs’ with some fancy font perfectly art directed on some computer graphics program and print it off … or I can take a battered piece of water stained cardboard and hand paint Fresh Eggs on it.

The same words placed in completely different context communicating two different ‘feelings.’

That is the difference between a Trump technical pragmatic delivery of some words and words well delivered.

It would behoove Ben, as well as Trump administration speechwriters & advisers, to think about that a second.

Regardless.

All that means is that Trump offers his speechwriters and advisors ‘negative space.’ Spaces in which you shouldn’t ask him to offer words or thoughts. That is okay. If it were me … I can deal with what I know and can see. It is the shit I don’t know and can’t see that kills me.

And this is where I focus my criticism. The speechwriters and advisers. They know the negative space and are intimately involved with it. In addition they know that there are certain “moments” which provide opportunities for the president. The opportunities don’t have a rhythm nor do they arise according to plan but opportunities are opportunities and you either seize them or lose them.

They need to recognize that Trump will instinctively gravitate to his ‘positive space’ any time he can. For example … in his Charlottesville ‘speech’ he gravitated to his positive space which is not only tone deaf but shows a complete lack of linkage to anything and everything he has said before:

The president, in his responses, bemoaned that the clashes were happening when “our country is doing so well in so many ways”, citing low unemployment and the renegotiation of trade deals. He noted: “We have so many incredible things happening in our country, so when I watch Charlottesville, to me it’s very, very sad.”

How could his advisors have missed he would naturally do this?

He has been the ‘carnage’ king. America is in a shithole and it is up to me to fix the shithole Obama put us in. He has been saying this for almost 2 years. Charlottesville was a perfect example of his self-proclaimed shithole that he, and only he, can pull us out of.

I would have given him some words <because I know this is his positive space> to exploit his whole shithole narrative.

Look.

I think Trump is a horrible hollow leader but even I need him to do well and I would give him words to do his job well because … well … country above any individual.

His advisors and speechwriters are failing him in that they seem to not be able to bridge what he is capable of doing to words which make America see what they are capable of.

Lastly.

Trump and Charlottesville are intertwined. I am not suggesting he is solely responsible for things like Charlottesville but I will suggest, as president, I want him to assume personal responsibility for Charlottesville.

———–

 “I think that what we are witnessing here has always been simmering beneath the surface, and now has been emboldened and enabled by the Trump administration’s politics and rhetoric.”

Steve Thomas, from Lynchburg, Virginia, who also protested against the far-right groups

—————-

He needs to understand that he is supposed to be the face of America and that what he says, or doesn’t say, reflects the … well … face of America. This is the burden of his responsibility. He needs to understand that his words really do matter and that:

• We seem to have no problem, as a country, condoning violence by black people.

• We seem to have no problem, as a country, condoning violence by Muslim people.

• We seem to struggle a bit, as a country, to condone violence by white people.

Anyway.

I know what Trump was trying to say but the way he said it made it sound like, in America, all ideologies are created equal. That neo-Nazis have as much right to exist as anyone else and it is only when they are violent that they become abhorrent.

I personally don’t think he, and his advisors, should act surprised that a lot of people find that unacceptable.

I am not a speechwriter but I do offer some words I believe he could have said which would have captured his empty platitude-like thinking with regard to America but still offered some real nods to real issues that we real everyday schmuck-like Americans should be thinking of.

—————–

<offered in as many Trump-like words I can stomach trying to offer>

Instead of offering what will now be referred to for history as the “many sides speech” I would have offered an “all lives smatter” speech.

——

I would like to take a minute and talk with Americans about Charlottesville because this is bigger than Charlottesville and it is not something we can ignore nor should we ignore it.

First.

Our constitution is a beautiful thing which should not be used for ugly things.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of violence.

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean the one who shouts the loudest or tries to ‘look the most powerful’ is the rightest or the ‘winner.’

Freedom of speech is freedom to use words, not fists and bottles and carrying shields and clubs.

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom to hate but freedom to listen, argue and find opportunities to love and unite despite disagreeing.

I condone freedom of speech but do not condone, in the strongest possible terms, violence and hate using freedom of speech as an excuse.

Second.

We lost 3 lives today.

One person using their freedom of speech and two people who were serving to protect freedom of speech.

I offer you three words today.

All lives matter.

That doesn’t mean black people do not have real issues we need to discuss.

That doesn’t mean white people do not have real issues we need to discuss.

That doesn’t mean any race, religion, gender do not have real issues we need to discuss.

No person should be forgotten and no issue should be forgotten.

We, as Americans, should be united if not simply because:

• All issues matter because all Americans matter.

• All issues are important because all Americans matter.

• And all issues should not be forgotten, should be heard and should be discussed … because all lives matter.

This weekend, what we saw in Charlottesville, is wrong. It is bad. Not just because there was violence, not just because there was bigotry and hatred but because it was an example of where it seems like everyone, American citizens forgot to understand and believe that America is great because Americans believe all lives matter.

We forgot all issues matter.

We forgot hatred has no place in what makes America great.

I stated on day one I would stand for the forgotten American. And today I stand in front of you to say that I will stand for the forgotten Americans, all Americans, and the forgotten & ignored issues … but I will not stand for violence, bigotry and hate.

As your president I will stand for all lives and all issues.

I say that as today we had gathered here in Maryland to discuss that all veterans lives matter and their issues mattered enough that we did something.

<something like that>

Note: this maybe took me 15 minutes to scribble out … it isn’t right but, surely, a professional speechwriter could offer the President something similar & right, don’t you think?

———————————————

This weekend watching Charlottesville was … well … just bad. Just as I stated when discussing some of the Trump campaign events … it isn’t what America s supposed to be. That doesn’t mean it isn’t what America is … but … I tend to believe it is not what we want to be.

I wanted someone to have the moral fortitude to stand up and say “America, stop. Starting today we need to stop violence and start talking civilly. Start admitting all colors, genders, races and religions have issue they want to discuss, and should be heard, and stop denying everyone has a voice at the table.”

Yes.

I am frustrated the Trump administration misses opportunity after opportunity to offer us not only the high road but the light to show us a better way.

But yesterday put a period on my belief that Trump is what he is … and we should stop expecting something that he is not.

It is what it is.

And now it is up to the people around him to accept he is what he is and provide him the proper tools, words & thoughts <which he cannot come up with on his own>, so that we will be … well … make America great.

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

“Developing our abilities to think more clearly, richly, fully — individually and collectively — is absolutely crucial [to solving world problems].”

——–

Adrian West, research director at the Edward de Bono Foundation U.K.

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

So.

I was asked the other day about what I believed the internet, and connectivity’s, greatest impact on business was.

After chuckling that there was no one thing and we didn’t have enough time to talk about all the aspects that have impacted us … I did suggest one thing we don’t talk about which has a larger ripple effect on the future of business – connectivity’s impact on decision making and how we teach decision making.

Simplistically, technological connectivity has killed maybe 90% of the delegation of critical thinking & decision making.

Yeah.

There are a couple of other sociological insidious things seeping into organizational culture – discouragement of risk taking, particularly among younger employees, ‘flat’ organizations which tend to only put the senior decision makers closer to actual tactical decisions and things like that.

But what connectivity has done is make the most experienced decision makers more available 24/7 and younger people more likely to “send them a quick text asking them what to do” or an email with the question at hand … so that the younger person doesn’t have to make the decision. This translates into less decision making experience, less real ‘outcome of decision experience’ as well as all the critical thinking that gets crammed into one’s head when forced to make some decision <which always takes on some extraordinary size & significance when younger and less experienced>.

I believe this is a real issue.

In fact … I believed it was so important I googled it to do some research for this post.

• ‘how connectivity has killed decision making’ … 0 results.

• how the internet has killed decision making’ … 0 results on the topic … most on ‘overthinking’ or ‘Information overload is killing our ability to make decisions’

I even tried ‘how the smartphone has killed decision making’ and got zilch other than some crap about how ‘smartphones are destroying a generation’ and shit like that.

Lets be clear.

This isn’t about ‘distractions’ or ‘short attention span’ this is about circumventing critical decision making skills through easy connectivity to someone who can make the decision <instead of you>.

And I found it extremely odd that there is nothing obvious in terms of the discussion online because society views technology through an extremely critical eye on perceptions of how it forms, or doesn’t form, critical thinking skills. And nowhere is the conflict more apparent than in the business world where in a seemingly non-stop 24/7 world where we deem “speed” as having some absurd value above anything else we force more and more decisions ‘up’ in an organization.

Let me tell you how it worked in a disconnected world.

As an old guy we had no smartphones and computers weren’t chugging out hundreds of emails between employees all the time.

My bosses sat with other bosses in some high falutin’ section of the office space <most often with doors and big desks> and I didn’t have easy access to my bosses because … well … they were not within shouting distance and they had their own shit to do.

I had team members, clients and other departments who always needed answers so they could do shit and make some progress <to meet deadlines that I had inevitably placed on them> and, when they needed a decision, 90+% of the time they didn’t want me hanging up the phone saying “I will get back to you after I speak to ‘x’ person.”

And many times I was out of town in meetings and … well … decisions had to be made.

In this disconnected world 25 year old Bruce had to make some decisions … hopefully some good ones.

This didn’t mean that afterwards I didn’t sit there going … “fuck me, was that the right thing to do?” … because I did.

So in that disconnected world I would have to get up when I had a free minute and track down my boss and walk them through what was going to happen because I had made some decision.

I could go to Pat, who would sometimes be laying on his back under his desk looking at a world map he had taped under his desk thinking <claiming it gave him a different view of the world>, who would 99% of the time asking me why I thought it was the right decision, what other things we could have considered and start tearing apart the decision to better understand it.

I could go to Charlie who would 99% of the time go ‘okay’ … and then in a burst of energy start talking about what we could do now, a kind of “what’s next attitude” now that the decision had been made.

I could go to Beth who would always, always, just listen … and then start talking about how we could follow up with some research, or data, or support so that <in her words> “the decision doesn’t get killed by someone else’s opinions.”

I could go to any number of other bosses throughout my younger years and discuss a decision that I had made after the fact.

In a disconnected world a less experienced person was demanded to assume some responsibility.

The bottom line it was my decision and I had to live with it. I didn’t have a shitload of bosses who tried to kill the decision but rather seemed to accept it, warts & all, and figure out how to move forward from it.

Now.

A shitload of people may argue that in a connected world better decisions are made <slightly> faster <assuming you can reach the decision maker in some timely fashion> therefore business has benefited.

They may be partially right.

But I would argue 3 things:

<1> Most decisions made at a lower more tactical, or less strategically influential, level are not really business killers nor are they even ‘not fixable’,

<2> by delegating responsibility for a decision ‘upwards’ … someone never learns the critical thinking necessary, sometimes under time duress, nor the burden of responsibility,

<3> and ability to bear burden of responsibility is actually an indicator of future leadership skills.

I have gone on ad nausea over the years with regard to our short term paranoia within the business world and how it is killing us … and this ‘delegate decisions upwards because connectivity permits it’ is just one additional example.

Look.

The people who have the most confidence in their decision making skills, unless they are narcissistic asshats, are the ones with most experience in making decisions. And examining decisions made by someone else <which is what a younger person does if a more senior person makes a decision> is not even close to the actual experience of running the mental gauntlet of making the decision yourself … and understanding he burden of responsibility you assume by doing so.

By outsourcing our decisions to more experienced people, or even the false ‘certainty’ in data, we cheat ourselves.

We are left responding rather than thinking creatively, critically and autonomously.

And maybe worse we don’t give ourselves the opportunity to unlearn what we believe we have learned <which truly can only happen through trial & error>.

Gut feelings, and instincts, or even data … are not the best tools for an uncertain world … they only offer the illusion of certainty.  The business world is a complex world with thousands of decisions and a relentless onslaught of uncertainty.

About the only thing to maneuver your way through all of this complexity & uncertainty is by using the skill of critical thinking.

When we deny people the challenge of thinking critically, evaluating situations, making your own decisions and bearing the burden of responsibility we are heading towards a future where future manager will lack the cognitive ability, and critical thinking skills, to effectively think and make good decisions.

While I have several worries with regard to what technology and connectivity is doing to our business world … this is one we do not discuss enough if we are truly interested in the next generation of business people to be better than us.

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

“Are you prattling about an instinct of self-preservation? An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess.

An ‘instinct’ in as unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even man’s desire to live is not automatic: your secret evil today is that that is the desire you do not hold. Your fear of death is not a love of life and will not give you the knowledge needed to keep it.

Man must obtain his knowledge and choose his actions by a process of thinking, which nature will not force him to perform.

Man has the power to act as his own destroyer–and that is the way he has acted through most of history.”

―

Ayn Rand

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

Ok.

Discussing business leadership is … well … interesting.

Its also <slightly> interesting I used an Ayn Rand quote to open a thought on business leadership.

Why?

Almost everything Rand espoused focused on the individual and self-interest … and leadership inherently focuses on the group and ‘making the tide rise higher for all … sometimes at the expense of a higher one.”

In addition … <simplistically> the central thesis of Rand’s philosophy is that unfettered self-interest is good and altruism is destructive.

I am no going invest a lot of time on Rand’s thinking <of which I have mixed feelings about> but because I speak to many business leaders the balance of ‘business democracy, organizational culture, and business autocracy, i.e., someone has to make a decision at some point and organizational consensus is most likely not the most effective way to generate good decisions, I will spend a moment on Rand.

In my eyes, far too often, Americans tie the Rand philosophy of ‘supreme self-reliance devoted to the pursuit of supreme self-interest’ to a simplistic version of core American ideals: individual freedoms & hard work. The whole premise is based on the promise a better world is available if people can simply pursue their own self-interest without regard to the impact of their actions on others. That thought is usually followed by “this works because everyone is simply pursuing their own self-interest as well.”

Unfortunately what this ignores is a successful organization’s ultimate mission: “e pluribus unim” <out of many one>.

Unfortunately what this ignores is successful cultures typically exhibit a ‘twitch muscle’ which automatically makes 95% of people to find greater satisfaction in contributing to ‘the team’ rather than solely finding individual success.

All of this matters when discussing business leadership and leading organizations.

Now.

That said.

I come back to a key line in the opening quote:  an ‘instinct’ in as unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct.

In a world in which we tend to want to oversimplify things far too often “business instincts” get stripped of any context or the rich & royal hues most typically associated with ‘good business instincts.’ We also strip leadership down to its barest and far too often suggest the importance of ‘’good business instincts’ as some superior skill <and instincts are not a skill but an attribute> inherent in good leadership.

I would suggest we would be much better off stripping leadership down to not one thing but rather discussing a backbone which makes leadership stand tall.

Look.

A shitload of people can lead.

An even larger shitload of people think they can lead.

And even smaller shitload of people can actually lead well.

And while there are a shitload of well written and thoughtful piece on business leadership characteristics I would suggest that all business leadership often comes down to your ‘backbone’ of actual skills with regard to three things: developing an effective vision, having a consistent business philosophy <business acumen> & instincts.

Many leaders have some skill in one of these three, some actually are good at two out of the three but the best leaders are good at all three <with some extraordinary skill at either the visionary or instincts>.

I point out the vision and instincts aspects because it is that ‘dance’ which … well … can make a business dance. Some people talk about strategy & tactics but this is a little different. This is kind of a step up from that.

This is kind of like being able to envision the 5 lane highway which leads to a destination you kind of envision and then actually have the instincts which enable you to instinctually shift lanes, shift speeds and avoid everyone else on the highway in the moments that matter.

Suffice it to say … working with someone who understands, and can manage to, vision and someone who has good instincts is fairly rare — and all three even rarer.

By the way, as I have written before … most people who vocally espouse the fact <belief> they have good instincts tend to have shitty instincts. In fact … I could generalize relatively safely by suggesting anyone who verbalizes they have good instincts … most likely, in reality, do not have good instincts <good instinctual leaders & decision makers tend to have the humility to have an innate sense to keep their mouths shut about any instinctual behavior and focus on verbalizing functional abilities to do shit in certain situations>.

Anyway.

Someone can actually be a pretty good leader and not be very good at all these things.

For example … one of my best bosses wasn’t particularly good at the vision aspect but had an incredibly strong sense of ‘right versus wrong’ with regard to business philosophy and excellent instincts which tended to permit a shitload of progress <if not particularly visionary progress>. I would note he was pretty good at hiring some people who were visionary and combined with what he was good at he had a nice ability <albeit sometimes a lite too pragmatic> to tighten some loose vision and … well … get shit done.

For example … one of my best bosses was an incredible visionary with an excellent ability to set everyone’s sights on the ‘horizon’ coupled with a strong business philosophy of “this is the kind of shit we will do and how we will conduct ourselves in doing it” he could get people focused and emotionally connected with what they had to do. However … his instincts were not so hot. I would note he had a nice ability to surround himself with people with good instincts <maybe not enough but some key people> which permitted him to pick out what to do from options resented by good instinctual managers rather than have to depend on his own instincts.

I imagine my point here is twofold <1> leaders who are good at all three of these things are not a dime a dozen and <2> the good leaders who are not good at all three of these things tend to recognize where they are a little weaker and are smart enough, and confident enough, to surround themselves with people who do have those skills.

I imagine the greater leadership philosophical point here is that good business leaders don’t really fight truth.

They see truth. Accept truth. And work within the parameters of truth.

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

 

“Stop opposing the truths.

The truth is truth no matter how you take it. It is not going to be changed for your inconvenience.”

―

Bikash Bhandari

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

I point out truth because, of all things, leadership is reliant on a leader being able to see truth … and not just what they want to see.

I point out truth because, of all things, vision and instincts are driven more by truth, knowledge and ‘learning’, than by any nebulous “I have good instincts.’

I point out truth because, of all things, people actually have a natural inclination to work for the mutual benefit of an organization … they like to cooperate and collaborate … and truth has an incredible ability to bond together the largest most disparate organization as well as offer the initial burst of energy which pushes organizations forward out of trouble and toward something better when a leader actually makes a decision.

Be wary of the verbose ‘I am good at this’ leader because … well … as with anything else in Life & business … leaders have to be ‘good’ at a number of things not just some simplistic self-interest driven accolade.

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

“More isn’t always better. Sometimes it’s just more.”

―

Barbara Benedek

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

“Our company? 

We have a change the world attitude. We don’t mind being disruptive as long as it is with the intent to create something new and better.  Smart disruption displaces the conventional and replaces it with an unconventional way to do things that actually meets what people want, need and expect. 

We call what we are doing ‘shaking the category etch a sketch.’ 

Visions should be lofty and grounded.

Simple yet reflective of a complex world.

Pragmatic & practical yet not the status quo.” 

—–

Bruce McTague

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

Ok.

I must get trapped in dozens of discussions & debates over innovative ideas, disruptive ideas and what is “new.” And thanks to Yale and some guy named Loewy  I have a tendency to toss around two phrases a shitload in the conversations — “Most Advanced Yet Acceptable” and optimal newness.

<note: <a> ‘optimal newness’ is a relatively new phrase which i have appropriated to replace some of my less eloquent phrases saying the same thought, <b> I have used ‘most advanced yet acceptable’ as a thought for years as it was offered to us by  ‘the father of industrial design’, Loewy, in the 1950’s but more recently highlighted in an Atlantic article>

I pull these phrases out of my thought bag of tricks because invariably these “let’s talk about new ideas” conversations get squeezed between two extreme bookends and the phrases help to unsqueeze the thinking.

One bookend is the highly caffeinated entrepreneurial ‘disruptors’ who are convinced they have an idea that no one has ever seen or done before and want to present it as “the coolest thing you have never seen before.”

The other bookend is the pragmatic risk averse “change agent” who proudly presents the same widget which was once painted taupe and is now painted flat black as “new, improved and contemporary.”

By the way. These bookends actually have names: neophilia, a curiosity about new things; and neophobia, a fear of anything too new. This conversational tug of war is a reflection of the basic human truth that we love, and actively seek, familiarity <safeness>… uhm … as well as the thrill of discovery <risk>.

We do this with … well … everything.

Therefore we are almost always torn, slightly or a lot, by these two opposing thoughts. This is the thinking that led that guy, Loewy, to articulate his industrial design attitude as “Most Advanced Yet Acceptable.”

He believed to sell something surprising, make it familiar; and to sell something familiar, make it surprising.

This thought is important. It is important because while an idea can, conservatively, die 101 different ways 2 of the most likely ways to die is <a> you have a surprising, possibly truly disruptive idea, and your inclination it is to make it look spectacularly surprisingly different – therefore scaring the shit out of most people and they do not attach themselves to it, and <b> you have a spectacularly unspectacular useful idea and … well … you undersell it because it is difficult to articulate beyond the familiarity – therefore boring everyone into believing it is not worthy of a ‘new’ label. And before you beat the crap out of me on all of this The Atlantic article offers a nice proof point to ponder:

In 2014, a team of researchers from Harvard University and Northeastern University wanted to know exactly what sorts of proposals were most likely to win funding from prestigious institutions such as the National Institutes of Health—safely familiar proposals, or extremely novel ones?

They prepared about 150 research proposals and gave each one a novelty score. Then they recruited 142 world-class scientists to evaluate the projects. The most-novel proposals got the worst ratings. Exceedingly familiar proposals fared a bit better, but they still received low scores. “Everyone dislikes novelty,” Karim Lakhani, a co-author, explained to me, and “experts tend to be overcritical of proposals in their own domain.” The highest evaluation scores went to submissions that were deemed slightly new.

I shared this research to show that even the dullest deserves some surprise & novelty while “new” has some limits when trying to communicate the pragmatic <both of which are important with regard to … well … almost everything>.

That said. I think the real point here is that you need to find the sweet spot … that there is an “optimal newness” for ideas or, well, how about we call it “advanced yet acceptable”.

So why do we always have this struggle? Well … in business the challenge seems to be the business world has put an incredibly high value on <perceived> innovation & disruption and a lesser, if not nonexistent, value on <real> functionality & highly pragmatic thinking & ideas. This out of whack valuation steers some business people to some extremely shallow misguided thinking and hollow ideation.

Nowhere is this found more often than when discussing “disruptive ideas” and innovation which are the two “phases that pay” when we talk about new.

We use these words to imply this idea will change the world <and more often than not it is just a nice idea which will make an impact in its own little universe … assuming it doesn’t die a quick death>, therefore, it becomes the only type of idea we should pay attention to.

In other words … if it’s not disruptive, its crap.

Well.

That’s crap (bullshit). The truth is that many, if not most, of the most foundational ‘innovative’ or new ideas the world has ever seen tend to be the most overlooked, unseen to the naked eye, unobtrusive ‘disruptors’ we have ever interacted with.

The truth is that most effective useful disruptive ideas are almost always leveraging off of something existing. You may turn everything upside down … but you are still using some existing pieces <some existing attitudes & behavior as well a ‘things’> from which your idea will end up tapping into. I say that with two thoughts in mind:

• something from nothing equals the same thing as nothing from nothing … nothing.

• smart, or intelligent, disrupting is always about something from something.

Ponder them <not too much because it will make your head hurt> … but everyone should keep these two thoughts in mind whenever seeking optimal newness – you cannot create something from nothing.

Anyway. In today’s business world “new” and “disruptive” are inextricably linked. This is a shame.

It does not benefit either concept or idea to do this. New is … well … new. No more and no less <although there are certainly degrees of new>.

Disruption actually means ‘to challenge.’ And, despite what many want you to believe, disruption is actually about creating something … not simply to destroy something. I would actually suggest that disruption, at its core, is about changing the way you think – creating new ways to think about something.

Think about it. Conventions train us to do the conventional. I say that because accepted beliefs <conventional thinking>, where everyone is thinking the same, usually means no one is really thinking.

Therefore, constructing new accepted beliefs may not mean destroying the old, the familiar, but rather creating a new way of thinking and creating a new familiar. All this becomes important as you consider what would be “optimal newness.” Because as we wander aimlessly between the hyperbole of disruptive and new … well … many new ideas are simply a fresh derivative of ‘familiarity.’

I say this to make a point.

Optimal newness, 95% of the time, leverages some familiarity … something existing … and it is grounded in some reality that people can grasp.

Therein lies a truth “optimal newness” never loses sight of. The biggest ideas with the biggest end impact on our lives typically have gained some momentum not because they were some huge ‘new, never seen before’ idea but rather because the innovated on some conventional thinking and shifted us into some different way of thinking about something.

Maybe we should think about it this way … if today’s innovators have been successful … have seen farther than others before … it is because they have stood on the shoulders of giants … well … maybe stood on the shoulders of something that already existed.

Regardless. I read somewhere in one of those bullshit pop psychology pieces that confident people are better than most people at seeking out small victories … they don’t necessarily need “big” ideas or maniacally pursue being called a ‘disruptor’ as they pursue success. I tend to believe confidence can reside in comfort within ‘optimal newness’ and the confident business people know that newness doesn’t have to be splashy nor hyperbole driven but rather surprising functionality.

And maybe that is the larger point with regard to ‘optimal newness’ and ‘most advanced yet acceptable.’ In business these days we seem to either believe “go big or go home” and therefore either overplay our hand or completely underplay it <because it isn’t big enough>. Just think about that last thought as you ponder the last dozen good ideas you have seen die before your eyes.

I will end by stating, unequivocally, that this is easier to write about then to put into practice.

Shit.

Finding the ‘optimal’ anything in business is hard. All I know is that every time I have this discussion with a sales group talking about selling, an innovations group talking about articulating an innovation or even a CEO about ‘organizational change management’, I get a lot of cocked heads  as they think about it a little.

That’s got to count for something.