===========

“We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another is entirely up to us. I believe that for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness, and that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us.”

—-

Barack Obama on January 12^th 2011

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

<written June 14, 2017 the day Republican politicians were shot on a softball field – but relevant today>

On a day which we are faced with someone who decided to take a gun and shoot politicians, and appear to target politicians, I am reminded of several things.

The first thing is the rhetoric.

The rhetoric of the citizenry, but mostly the rhetoric of our elected leaders. I say that because words have repercussions.

Yes.

I do believe in personal responsibility and choices are made by individuals.

But I also believe leaders lead with words <because most of us cannot view their actions>.

And if our elected leaders treat their words as if we will not remember them forever.

And if our elected leaders treat each other as if they are truly enemies <and even use that word on occasion>.

And if our elected leaders treat each other as if the opposite’s behavior is unfathomable behavior for sane, moral people.

And if our elected officials treat each other with verbal hyperbole as the standard rhetoric discourse … and the highest of the elected leaders, the president, tosses out the word ‘unity’ on occasion but 99% of the time does nothing verbally or behavior wise to unite … well … the electors will be tempted to do as leaders do.

We need to calm our rhetoric. We need to remind ourselves what we teach our children — that you don’t always get what you want and that most progress is made in mutual effort.

We all need to be speaking more calmly and acting more civilly, but we should be demanding our elected leaders do so. I get angry with how they act and what they say because it suggests to people that is behavior we should all embrace — and it is not.  Stop, and stop it now.

The second thing I am reminded of is one of the best speeches President Obama ever made.

To share my thoughts I will borrow <steal> liberally from a NY Times article written by Helene Cooper and Jeff Zelenyjan. The article was Obama Calls for a New Era of Civility in U.S. Politics and it shares the speech Obama gave on January 12^th 2011 in Tucson after the shooting of a US Congresswoman and the deaths of 6 other people.

Apparently Obama wrote much of the speech himself the day before. I suggest everyone read the speech, but today I will share highlights because it is a nice reminder on a day on which we need some reminders.

President Obama offered the nation’s condolences to the victims of the shootings, calling on Americans to draw a lesson from the lives of the fallen and the actions of the heroes, and to usher in a new era of civility in their honor. Obama directly confronted the political debate that erupted after the rampage, urging people of all beliefs not to use the tragedy to turn on one another. He did not cast blame on Republicans or Democrats, but asked people to “sharpen our instincts for empathy.”

It was one of the more powerful presentation of words & thoughts I have ever heard urging Americans “to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully” and to “remind ourselves of all the ways that our hopes and dreams are bound together.”

“At a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized, at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do,” he said, “it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.”

He eulogizing the six people who died and asked for prayers for the wounded, including Representative Gabrielle Giffords, who the authorities said was the target of an assassination attempt.

He warned against “simple explanations” and spoke of the unknowability of the thoughts that “lurked in the inner recesses of a violent man’s mind.”

He suggested that the events should force individuals to look inward, but also that they should prompt a collective response against reflexive ideological and social conflict.

While the tone and content were distinctly nonpolitical, there were clear political ramifications to the speech, giving Mr. Obama a chance, for an evening at least, to try to occupy a space outside of partisanship or agenda:

“If this tragedy prompts reflection and debate, as it should, let’s make sure it’s worthy of those we have lost,” Mr. Obama said. “Let’s make sure it’s not on the usual plane of politics and point scoring and pettiness that drifts away with the next news cycle.”

“If, as has been discussed in recent days, their deaths help usher in more civility in our public discourse,” Mr. Obama said, “let us remember that it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy — it did not — but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation, in a way that would make them proud.”

In the end.

No, I do not believe we will learn anything from today’s event <or the other shooting events that cost people’s lives today> but maybe, just maybe, we can start talking to each other like we don’t want to shoot the other person if given an opportunity. That is a good start.

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

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

Paulo Coelho

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

“When you start to suck, stop.”

Kristen Hersh

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uhm. This is hard. Really hard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

=========== 

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

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

Gayle Forman 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dave Grohl

<Foo Fighters>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sue Monk Kidd

==========

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

via concealthefeeling

===========

“We all suffer from dreams.”

Bernard Cornwell

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

Well. I am unequivocally a hope guy.

I believe leaders should be dealers of hope.

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

I believe no one should be empty of hope.

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

That said.

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

Ok. Actually a shitload of derivatives of false hope.

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

And then everything in between.

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

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

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

How does that most often happen?

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

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

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

Yeah. False hope is not always some fantasy.

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

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

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

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

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

Uhm. But what if they do figure it out?

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

Look. My point is hope is hope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do believe people want truth.

I do believe people want to feel safe.

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

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

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

And we all deserve hope.

===========

“People aren’t interested in the truth.

They’re interested in what keeps them safe.

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

Melina Marchetta

=====

originally published December 2016

=========

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

JM Juran

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

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

Dr Jason Fox

=========

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

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

Well crafted conceptual thinking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do i mean by that?

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

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

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

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

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

The challenge to the Conceptual Age (beyond time).

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

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

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

————–

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

Sara Gran

—————

The Conceptual Age.

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

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

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

Structural

Or

Transactional

———————

Pillars

Or

Opportunistic

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

Lastly.

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

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

In the end.

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

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

===

originally written Fall of 2018

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

“I am free and lost in this freedom

Do you know what I mean by that?”

Ingeborg Bachmann

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

Freedom, in and of itself, is quite possibly the most valuable privilege one can have in the world.

Freedom, in and of itself, may be one of the most misunderstood and least understood ideas in the world.

Freedom, in and of itself, may be one of the most appealing concepts in the world.

Freedom, in and of itself, once attained may be one of the most difficult concepts, as an individual, to manage in the world.

Freedom, once truly given, can be a scary prospect to wield responsibly and well.

Freedom is one of those things that should make you think long and hard about what, exactly, do you want? But, yet, many of us do not. And we should. We should because, at its core, freedom is about liberty of self and what you want. I believe it was John Stuart Mill who stated that the individual “is the person most interested in his own well-being,” and that the “ordinary man or woman has means of knowledge immeasurably surpassing those that can be possessed by any one else.”

What this suggests is that, while freedom may have some societal demands and constraints, the real ‘rule of freedom’ comes from within each individual and, well, responsibility.

Within?

No fences. No boundaries. Not even a public compass … just one that resides in yourself. Well. This would suggest it could become easy to get lost.

Look. I am not suggesting society would ever permit all of us to actually decide how we wanted to define freedom for our own lives and live our Life in that self-defined way without any repercussions <and there would have to be as each of us pursued ‘our own wellbeing’ to the possible detriment of the ‘greater we’>.

However. Because you can view from such a personal standpoint and a self interest standpoint, it can become incredibly easy to start seeing your own path as <a> the path everyone else should be walking on and <b> the path which reflects the best definition of how freedom should be viewed. In that, well, it can become incredibly easy to get lost within your own views of what is freedom and how you may choose to use your freedom.

I tend to believe freedom is freeing AND constricting at exactly the same time. In addition. The only way to enjoy freedom is to actually do something with it and not just talk about it or enjoy it.

Yeah.

The secret to not being suffocated by freedom is the ability to use that freedom to create something <not simply being free>. Please note I say ‘create’ not destroy. Anyway. I imagine another way of saying that is you can suffocate by not doing anything <or not choosing to choose to use your freedom>.

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

“The ability to convert ideas to things is the secret of outward success.”

Henry Ward Beecher

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

Ah. Therein lies the rub. Create from freedom.

Sometimes that can seem like creating something from nothing. Freedom encourages ideas and thinking but then … uh oh … Life kind of demands you convert your access to freedom into ‘something.’ It is within that ‘demand from Life’ where most people abuse freedom — people choose not to choose.

Now. We do this all the time – choose not to choose. Oddly enough, a shitload of people think this is actually exercising your freedom. Go figure. Not doing something is an expression of freedom.

<scratching my head here>

Some people argue this is an excellent way that we exercise our freedom and flex our choice-making muscles. Either we actually do not make a choice at all or we delegate the choice-making to someone else <sometimes an expert – doctor, banker, service provider> or we just delegate the choice making into the “to be done later” file. In general, we have good intentions. We do this because we do not want to invest the energy and  time to make a ‘right decision’ <this actually becomes ‘not choosing’, or using your freedom, because of fear of not making the right choice … or using your freedom properly>. And, yes, it is ‘good intentions’ to intentionally avoid making a bad decision.

Sure. Using the overall excuse of “I am too busy” choosing not to choose can often seem to be the best choice because it can sometimes appear to then free us up to do something else. Personally I call bullshit on this type of thinking.

Freedom kind of has two levers or maybe an “on/off” switch … opt in or opt out. Either use your freedom or don’t use it. You either value your choice or you don’t. There really isn’t a lot of room in-between. And, yeah, people will argue with me on this, but I am stating it this way because while freedom can far too often look abstract, in reality, in practice, it is anything but abstract.

Doing, action, is at the core of freedom itself.

I have traveled the world and seen freedom and no freedom.

I have traveled the world and seen the arguments and debates and fights over freedom itself <my freedom versus your freedom>.

But here is the deal.

The opportunity to choose is not all that matters. I say that because far too many people who actually have the opportunity <a> do not exercise their freedoms or <b> get bogged down on the debate & conflict of my freedom versus your freedom. Choosing is what matters where freedom is concerned.

That said. As I have said before, surprisingly, freedom is tough. And it is even tougher because you may never really know if you have used your freedom well or wisely.

But here is what I do know.

It will be how you use your freedom which will be immortalized. And, yes, everyone is immortalized. Either through your forgetfulness or lack of memorability or lack of choice or doing something or how you cannot be forgotten or memorability through how you used your freedom and the choices you made. I say that because immortality will be the stories that are told about what you did with your freedom. That will be the final judge. Ponder that <because I think it is important>.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm … maybe that is why we get both lost and free within freedom. Given freedom we tend to hug tightly to any boundaries we find for fear of getting lost. But, assuming we actually ‘do shit’ and make choices using our freedom more and more we start to get a feel for those boundaries and begin pushing them out. Simplistically we push them further and further away from ourselves. At some point if we push them far enough it will feel like there are no boundaries and yet we do not feel lost.

I imagine that is what some people would call “freedom.” Seeing boundaries yet pushing against them to stretch what can “be”. And, yes, I also imagine that it feels good. So. Ponder this: If you have freedom, use it wisely.

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

“When you do something noble and beautiful and nobody notices, do not be sad.

For the sun every morning is a beautiful spectacle and yet most of the audience still sleeps.”

John Lennon

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

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

“It was the in-between time, before day leaves and night comes, a time I’ve never been partial to because of the sadness that lingers in the space between going and coming.”

Sue Monk Kidd

—— 

“Ambiguity of language is philosophy’s main source of problems.

That is why it is of the utmost importance to examine attentively the very words we use.”  

Giuseppe Peano

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

Fear of being misunderstood. If you type that into google you get about 159,000,000 results in 0.42 seconds and only one, yes, one result is about the version I am talking about. The version today is not being misunderstood as a person, but, literally, not being understood when speaking or communicating something. That said. I did find the term ambiguphobia which is applied to the pathological fear of being misunderstood. It has the same word root as “ambiguous.”

Ambiguity.

If you elect to believe the world is often ambiguous, complex not simple, that cause & effect (98% of the time) is nonexistent, and truth is more often conditional not absolute, you are doomed to have a fear of being misunderstood. This fear may be constant or intermittent or maybe even like a flux capacitor, but it exists in some form or fashion.

I thought about this after listening to a Jason Fox podcast where he kind of flippantly mentioned he had a fear of being misunderstood and read a piece he linked to at Ribbon Farm “The Tragicomic Exasperations of Expertise.”

Here is what I believe.

If you elect to believe the world is complex and simplicity is elusive, you spend a lot of time in the wretched hollow between:

Certainty versus uncertainty

Absolute truths versus contingent truths

Pragmatism versus dreams

Short term versus long term

Safety versus risk

Old beliefs versus new understandings

Fixed versus unfixed

Fluid versus solid

If you reside in the complex universe, you will find your cozy cottage resides in this windswept, stormy grassy hollow. And I would suggest you also spend a lot of time in the kitchen of the cottage mixing ingredients seeking the perfect potion to make the complex understood. I would also suggest this is the wretched hollow – continual experimentation of ingredients.

“<things> get better when exposed to external stressors and change.”

Dr. Jason Fox

That said. If you elect to believe the world is complex, let me suggest two thoughts for you to ponder about this wretched hollow in terms of ‘fear of being misunderstood’:

Wretched hollow version 1: where ideas go to die

If you have decided to reside in the complex universe, suffice it to say you have decided to be in the thinking & ideas business. While your skillset may have some aspects of ‘doing’ and results, you have put a stake in the ground that progress is dependent upon people thinking about shit and in that thinking will better navigate a way toward success.

In other words you have inextricably linked thinking to progress. This is important because in this version of the wretched hollow this is where ideas go to die if you are misunderstood.

In other words. You are in the thinking and ideas business (a version of the ‘Progress Business’) and if you are not understood your thinking and ideas die. Uhm. No more business and certainly no progress (or at least your version of it).

This is a pragmatic fear of being misunderstood. The product you want to sell, not being understood, is not bought.

I will note here this is where I believe business people, experience, has an advantage over academics & thought leaders. In business if you cannot make uncertainty certain enough or the invisible esoteric thinking visible enough, you die. You become a superfluous thinker who doesn’t know how to get things done or, in general, no one knows what to do with what you say & think. You are simply mental masturbation.

Wretched hollow version 2: where ‘self’ goes to die

Doubt, Imposter Syndrome, confidence, even arrogance wander in this wretched hollow. Fear of being misunderstood haunts not just your ideas and thinking, but you. This is the world you have elected to be in. Others have chosen detail, you have chosen definitions.

By choosing the path of definitions, versus details, you have, psychologically, purposefully placed yourself in a constant tug of war between all of the things I just stated. Your only real contribution to the tug of war is to continuously eat up more and more knowledge in the attempt to put more weight on the positive side of the tug of war. Unfortunately, knowledge weighs less, proportionately, than doubt/uncertainty, or even ignorance, so even as you become more smart, wiser, & better at articulating the Sumo wrestler sized doubts (the actual fear of being misunderstood) never lose any weight and keep tugging.

My point here is that electing to reside in the complex universe and making your business the business of thinking & ideas is a non-stop, never-ending tug of war. So. You are in the game or you are not. And if you are worth half a shit you will find that you never lose the tug of war, the other side just tugs a little harder on occasion. But. And this is a big but. The moment you stop pulling the fear of being misunderstood changes to death of the universe you have elected to live in and even the business you have elected to be in. I know that sounds harsh, but ‘self’ has some pretty dark places and if you give up the rope it is really really hard to not only climb back out of the darkness, but also get a new strong grip on the rope in the tug of war. Just ponder because even if you do not agree with me in totality on this point even at a lesser degree it has repercussions to fear of being misunderstood.

Let me end this version of wretched hollow by pointing out that if you have elected to make thinking & ideas your business, and you struggle to make people understand your thinking & ideas, you will inevitably start questioning the value & meaning you provide. Period. Full stop.

“Aiming at brevity, I become obscure.”

Horace

Lastly.

Mixing the formula.

That’s the deal, isn’t it? Finding the right amount of certainty, tangible understanding, to freedom (uncertainty) ratio? It’s the proportionate amount of traction points (I call them lily pads of certainty) to provide structure to hold up the uncertain, freedom and adaptability of thinking, in people’s minds (leading to them actually doing something). I say that because that’s where the fear of being misunderstood centers itself – will I mix the right formula this time?

This is where Life gets tricky.

All people inherently need some successes or, well, you go into some pretty dark places. So your natural instincts arc toward ‘being understood.’ That means offering up simplicity, maybe some tasty soundbites and, often, some fairly vapid generalizations attempting to tap into some common perceptions. That means you incrementally shave away at complexity which, inherently, shaves away truths and impact/effectiveness <you have slipped down the slippery slope of the bastardization of occam>. That means, while you have elected to reside in the universe of complexity, you are selling out the value of that universe (I would argue that diminishes self but that’s not my point today).

I will say (part 1) the people in this space with the most success not only constantly gain knowledge, but use it in a ‘play, pause, rewind, fast forward’ way. What I mean by that is the formula cannot be rushed and neither can complexity understanding be completed in a formulaic way. In other words it not only takes an ability to assemble the right fragments, but do so with pacing to engage cognitively.

“Be still amidst the chaos and active in repose.”

Indira Ghandi

I will say (part 2) that the tricksters, and ignorant, who casually ease round simplistic pegs into uneven hexagon complex holes exponentially outnumber the experts. And you know what? People, in general, like round pegs.  Smooth, simple and easy to grasp. This does not mean people are stupid just that tricksters are masters of the illusion, and delusion, of progress and the doyens of detail. In general, they thrive on detail cloaked in fortune cookie wisdom. It’s simplistic, not simple, and its horrible for us, society and business.

And maybe that is where I should end. The fear of being misunderstood is really about knowing, in your heart of hearts, you have chosen the rockier path as two roads diverge and, well:

I shall be telling this with a sigh

Somewhere ages and ages hence:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

Fear of being misunderstood is all about fear of choices – have I made the right one, or ones, and in doing so have I made myself clear of why the roads are what the roads are and why as they diverge we should walk on this one today.

Fear of being misunderstood is all about making the choice to making the complex understood.

Fear of being misunderstood is all about the choice that progress is actually made through the complex rather than simplicity.

Fear of being misunderstood is all about fear people do not understand the choice you made.

Regardless. There is a positive side.

Progress is not a linear process. Mastering complexity or at least wrangling complexity insures not only progress, but antifragile progress and progress with value. I will never suggest fear is a good thing, but I will say that when you get it right, when you share the thinking and ideas and it is understood, and your fear of being misunderstood is absolved for at least that moment – it is a great feeling. And it’s a great feeling not because you have been understood, but rather because by being understood energy has been created, or traction provided, for progress to occur. Ponder.

===========

“I totally remember what it felt like to be so full …full of promise, full of dreams, full of shit.

Mostly just full of yourself.

So full you’re bursting.

And then you get out into the world, and people empty you out, little by little, like air from a balloon. You try like hell to fill yourself up with fresh air, from you and from other people.

But back then … it was so damn effortless to feel full, you know?

All you had to do was breathe. “

Jonathan Tropper

=========

There is certainly a point in most of our lives when we feel full. I don’t have a specific age to point to. I cannot even point to a specific time in Life <and someone is lying if they try and tell you something specific>.

For some it is 6.

For some it is 16.

For some it is 26.

For some it is 36.

But. Suffice it to say that there is a point in almost everyone’s life where you are full to bursting and you burst out into Life.

The amazing thing is up to that point it most likely didn’t take any work. Yeah. As natural as breathing you were inflated. You are full of everything & anything that suggested ‘possibilities.’

Uhm. And it is just about at the point you are at bursting, you begin deflating.

From that point on it is almost a battle of attrition with regard to how you view your possibilities. Shit. I could argue that from that point on it is a battle of attrition with regard to your esteem, meaning & sense of self. 

And here is where I really thought the quote nailed this thought.

People.

It is People who empty you little by little.

Not Life, ‘people.’

That is the truth <the truth many of us just don’t think about>. We far too often say Life is the enemy of possibilities and that it relentlessly attacks us or relentlessly places obstacles to what we want & desire.

But it isn’t Life.

It is always people who deflate.
To be fair, people can inflate, but more often than not people deflate. And deflating doesn’t have to be mean spirited or even well thought out attacks on what is ready to burst out from you.

It can be the pinprick of a ‘no.’

It can be the pinprick of a question.

It can be the pinprick of ‘are you sure?’

Well. The pinpricks that deflate are so numerous that … well … deflating is the pinprick version of a ‘death of a thousand cuts.’

Here is where it gets really tough. What got you inflated does you absolutely no good in defending deflation. Because you are doomed if all you do is try to re-inflate. A pinprick remains and you end up working harder and harder to try to not only re-inflate, but simply to maintain your buoyancy.

It is a fool’s errand to try and re-inflate.

Okay.

Maybe it is foolish only until you have mended some of the pinpricks and patched them up <mentally & psychologically>.

Now. I could suggest you try and eliminate the people with the fucking pins, but that is also a fool’s errand. It is foolish because there are more of them then there are of you. There is a relentless onslaught of prick people <sorry … I just wanted to type that>.

What I suggest is, first, recognize how you are slowly being deflated.

Acceptance is the first step.

What I suggest second is to build an internal mending kit. Accept the fact you are gonna get pricked, accept the fact that you cannot build an exterior which will turn away the pins <because that means you will be a hardened asshole oblivious to constructive criticism or real input> and accept the fact you simply have to mend yourself. Continuously.

You may be reading this and think I am full of shit.

To those people I suggest you sit back and think a moment. Think about what it felt like to be so full … full of promise, full of dreams, full of shit.

Don’t think about when that was <because that is irrelevant>.

Just think about how it felt.

I bet it felt fucking awesome.

I also bet you don’t feel that way now or anymore.

And, if I am right, don’t run off trying to re-inflate yourself, just start mending the small pin prick holes today. Cause if you do that … well … you are back on the path to bursting with promise, dreams and shit. Ok. Maybe not all the way to that, but certainly reinflating some possibilities.

Ponder.

=======

“A story is not like a road to follow … it’s more like a house. You go inside and stay there for a while, wandering back and forth and settling where you like and discovering how the room and corridors relate to each other, how the world outside is altered by being viewed from these windows. And you, the visitor, the reader, are altered as well by being in this enclosed space, whether it is ample and easy or full of crooked turns, or sparsely or opulently furnished. You can go back again and again, and the house, the story, always contains more than you saw the last time. It also has a sturdy sense of itself of being built out of its own necessity, not just to shelter or beguile you.”

Alice Munro

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

My house is my story. And it is always on fire.

“We all live in a house on fire – no fire department to call, no way out. Just the upstairs window to look out of while the fire burns the house down with us trapped in it.”

Tennessee Williams

Well. If my story is my house, well, I tend to believe we all live in a house on fire. For years I have debated what the Williams quote really meant to me and then I found the ‘house is my story’ quote and I had my answer. Now. I am no literary expert nor am I particularly insightful with regard to inner meanings, therefore, my thoughts are tainted <or skewed> by my attitude toward Life and living.

That said. Me? We don’t need no water, let the motherfucker burn.

Oops. My attitude … my thoughts.

Well. I actually think a couple thoughts.  Inner fire. Outer fire. In other words. Our story is surrounded by fire. Within and without.

The inner fire.

This fire is inner curiosity.  A passion for something. A spirit and capacity for something  — it doesn’t have to be something big … just something. And it is always burning, uhm, and it can burn you up if you don’t set it free. It is a restless fire. I will make a generalization here, but, suffice it to say that we all know bitter people. People who have strong opinions, but are fairly close minded. They are burning up from the inside out. In the close mindedness they have squeezed the fire of life so tightly it fries them. The rooms in the house are burning and they have no place to go.

That’s why I rarely get angry with close minded people or bitter people I know that most of them are simply burning up from an inner fire that curiosity just hasn’t set free.

By the way, as a corollary, this also means that I don’t really believe the inner spark goes out in most people.

Why? The people that have lost that inner fire have simply lost hope <maybe I am naïve but I hope that they are few and far between>.

—

“Do not let your fire go out, sparked by irreplaceable spark. And the hopeless swamps of the not quite, the not yet, and the not at all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish.

And lonely frustration for the life you deserved but never been able to reach.  The world you desire can be won. It exists.  It is real. It is possible.

And it is yours.”

Lucas Scott on One Tree Hill

—

I think the inner spark always burns. That there is a fire within everyone.

Uhm. Yeah.

Everyone.

That inner fire is burning all the time, some people get burned up, others spread the fire, but that fire is there always awaiting to be rekindled if it is diminished.

“In everyone’s life, at some time, our inner fire goes out. It is then burst into flame by an encounter with another human being. We should all be thankful for those people who rekindle the inner spirit.”

Albert Schweitzer

Ok.

The outer fire.

This would be the house we live in burning down around us.

I believe the house we live in, Life, burns all the time. Because our story lives within a forest always burning.

Life isn’t easy.

People live.

People die.

And in-between the fire always burns.

Here is the challenge with your story being your house and the thought it is always burning. Sometimes in the comfort, the safety, of our home our story feels safe …  and we don’t even feel we are getting burned.

This is dangerous because in the end we kind of helplessly watch the fire slowly consume us.

I use safe and comfort and suggest stagnancy or standing still within the walls of what you know as an example of how you can be consumed by the fire.

Well. Because comfortable complacency does not mean you are safe.

Why? Well. The house is burning for gods sake. The fact is that this fire never goes out.

We can never stamp out this fire. It rages off and on, but is always burning. Safety within the home of what you know is temporary. Inevitably the fire will consume you by squeezing out what make life interesting and worthwhile. As a counterpoint to inner fire, it suffocates the fire within with the fire coming from without.

Your story burns. Your story ends up being a burned out shell with everything within extinguished. Just ashes where a raging story once stood.

Anyway.

I admit. I like the thought of my story being my house and that it is always on fire.

And while I am not a woman the following point resonates with me:

—

She lives her life like a flame; a dance of purposeful chaos … her enchanting light can guide you and quell your fears … she’s hot; warming those who respect her and burning those who don’t.

She is a flame with an unforgettable glow. A weak man will try to dim her luminance… but her soul mate will take pleasure in fanning the blaze.“

Steve Maraboli

—

A flame with an unforgettable glow. Whew. What a story that would be.

Therefore. Let it rage <I say>.

Story.

House.

Fire.

It is a life truth that we make choices that resonate throughout our lives … but how your story is told … and maybe how it dies … may be the biggest truth.

Aw. That’s too deep for today.

All I am fairly sure of is that the Life is burning around us. And what about your house?

Well. It may not be burning.

And me? I think of words from Julianna Hatfield:

“I wrote and wrote like the house was on fire, like words and chords and melodies were going to burn up and disintegrate into the air if didn’t capture them fast enough.”

Juliana Hatfield

I love that thought.

I will write my story like the house was on fire.

I will think thoughts before they disintegrate into ash.

I will live life like the house is burning around me.

I will hope I have a fire never quenched.

“Some men, like a tiled house, are long before they take fire, but once on flame there is no coming near to quench them.”

Thomas Fuller

Because if our Life is constantly on fire … whew … what a view we have from that upstairs window as it all burns.

My story.

My house.

My fire.

“The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire. We don’t need no water, let the motherf–ker burn.”

<“Tear the Roof off the Sucker” – chant often blended with ‘The Roof Is on Fire’ by Rockmaster Scott & The Dynamic Three>

My story. My house.

Let the motherfucker burn.

Now there’s an attitude to live by.

What’s your story?

Ponder.

=====

note: Imagine this was a ‘personal branding’ article. Whew. That would blow up some personal branding experts.

—————————————-

“Some people are born mediocre, some people achieve mediocrity, and some people have mediocrity thrust upon them.”

Joseph Heller

—————

“We must overcome the notion that we must be regular…it robs you of the chance to be extraordinary and leads you to the mediocre.”

Uta Hagen

——————

Ok. One of the things that consistently amazes me in the business world is mediocrity.

Ok. Maybe better said business’s “comfort in mediocrity.”

I am exponentially amazed because if you were to interview 100 different business leaders about their organization and company vision nowhere within that entire interview would you hear “we seek mediocrity.” In fact I can almost guarantee there will be words like extraordinary, innovative, best, new and bla … bla … bla.

That said … mediocrity is a stellar example that you cannot believe what people say and what people say and what they do are often two completely different things. It makes you wonder a little that if everyone’s attitude is so expansive why is their actual behavior so minimal/restrictive?

One writer suggested the reason is ‘vainglory.’

“Vainglory,” an anachronistic term meaning an unjustified and excessive pride in one’s own achievements or abilities is one of the primary forces animating and shaping contemporary culture.

Yeah. I buy that theory.

Probably because I have seen it run rampant among successful entrepreneurs who now run their own companies.  Well.  Let me qualify that by saying they may represent the biggest ‘vainglory’ offenders (because large companies get mired in mediocrity too).

Ok.

To be fair (to those mired in mediocrity) it is possible the true effect of transparency in the business world is the creation of the ‘being safe’ attitude versus smart risk taking attitude & behavior. To be clear … I am not sure it’s transparency’s fault, but I am trying to be fair.

Regardless.

Companies beware. The truth is that death resides in the zone of mediocrity. Interestingly I think companies do beware.  It’s the leaders who are failing the companies.

So.

Maybe I should say … Leaders beware. Be fearful of mediocrity. And be fearful of playing it safe.

At the root of mediocrity?

Try this on for size. Criticism seems to have replaced oppositional debate as a form of business acumen. Inherent in criticism is diminishing without enhancement. Oppositional debate is contrarianism with the intent to enhance. And, frankly, I don’t have too much to offer here on why that is happening. If it were a generation thing I may have an idea but the people criticizing (leaders) typically grew up in an oppositional debate business world.  So I am not sure what is breeding this attitude & behavior.

But. Regardless. It’s happening.

And leaders are consistently permitting their organizations to get sucked into the world of mediocrity regardless of the criticism/debate thing I brought up. To me .. the worst is when a company with all the potential to succeed gets sucked into the zone mediocrity.  It is frustrating to see. And painful to watch as they continue in a doom loop of mediocrity.  Or maybe call it unfulfilled potential.

I can even identify some key characteristics of a company mired in mediocrity.

1. High churn of leader low-senior people (the ones who ache to not be mediocre and seek to take the calculated risks to break out).

They get frustrated. And they leave for greener grass when frustrated.

2. Low churn of low-senior people with middle age kids.

Oh.  They will bitch. Make some noises.

But they know if they feed the mediocre machine (and get a small win here or there) they will never get fired. So they don’t take the day to day risks it often takes to rise above the zone of mediocrity. Worse? They learn to live within it.

3. High churn of young people. Especially the good ones.

The ones who have some ambition or maybe not a lot of ambition but want to learn stuff.  They max out fast in the zone and hit a level of dissatisfaction quickly. These really hurt an organization because this group dials up the company culture of miserableness in a sneaky way. They aren’t really grumbling.  It’s worse than grumbling. They simply ask questions among themselves. The “why” question.  Why are we this way?  Why aren’t we growing?  Why wasn’t that idea discussed instead of the one that was?  Why, why, why and why again.  They sense that something is off kilter but they don’t know the answer.

They just keep asking the question.

And when all of that has swirled around long enough. When the repetition of mediocrity is solidly in place. After some time all groups and all employees and all people will get lulled into a sense of helplessness. They start believing they cannot fight ‘the man’ (it can be identified specifically as the leader or simply the organization as a whole) and so they lose sight, or the desire to actually sight, for a something better than mediocrity because of complacency.

In the end.

Being in the zone of mediocrity in the workplace is odd. A little strange. Something feels off, some in-office rhythm is missing, something is off kilter, off balance, out of place.

Its something you cannot really quite put a finger on.

And with all that it becomes … well … it becomes easy to get sucked into the zone of mediocrity. So what can you do? (other than bitch & moan & be mediocre).

If you are a leader? Lead. (but most people aren’t in leader positions).

If you are the rest of the world? Well. I cannot guarantee this will get you out of the zone all the time but you will feel better about yourself and more fulfilled as a person (and possibly be better armed to battle mediocrity).

Never stop learning.

The corollary to this is ‘never stop challenging the norm.’ And at this idea’s foundation is something called commitment. Never stop learning takes commitment. Because in the zone of mediocrity life is much much easier if you go with the flow and accept ‘that is the way it is done.’  Be committed to never stop learning.  From anyone.  From any place. At any time.

Develop a interest for something.

There is nothing like interest to create day-to-day energy <**note: I purposefully do not use passion because passion, generally speaking, is not sustainable>. This is much much bigger than ‘overcoming fear of failure’ or learning from mistakes or any kind of crap like that. This is about positively moving toward some unseen objective – fueled by an internal interest.  The best example I found was about Thomas Edison. It stated: Thomas Edison and the lightbulb. He failed more than 10,000 times. When he was asked what kept him going after so many failures, he said that he had not failed at all. What he had done was to find 10,000 ways that did not work.

Now. I will talk about resiliency next … but for now? That is high interest in something. Find something to rally around. It’s easier to fight the good fight if you care.

No quit.

This is possibly better defined as “character resiliency.”  This has nothing to do with trying and doing and day in and day out grinding it out.  This is bigger picture stuff. This is about not giving up on what you dream or imagine. Mediocrity of almost all things in life takes a boatload of resiliency to face and defeat. I threw in character but at its core this is resiliency.  Mediocrity is relentless and patient and sneaky. You cannot quit, ever, in your battle against mediocrity.

Ok. So. What happens if you don’t attempt the three things I suggest (or anything to get out of the mediocrity zone)?

Well.

If you don’t do this (and reside in the hellish zone of mediocrity), I have one word for you. Regret. Regrets are almost always about missed opportunities – failing to take the risks that could have led to a more fulfilling outcome.

Mediocrity is numbingly subtle.

Company leaders have to believe they are called to something bold and amazing. Even if it is simply engineering the best toilet.  I read somewhere three keys to fighting your way out of this mediocrity malaise:

1. I believe we each hold within us a vast reservoir of courage.
2. I believe in doing something every day that scares the shit out of me.
3. I believe in burning my ships and declaring myself all in.

Love it.

Leaders should have it up on their wall. Breaking out of mediocrity means being courageous, scared shitless sometimes and being “all in” when making a decision.

Ok.

But before anyone thinks this is some wacky uncomfortable hi-risk leadership point of view. Let me say it takes all those things as well as some blending. Yeah. A blend. Blending risk and safety is the key to success. Too much of either is just not good stewardship.  Foolish risk taking is as bad as mediocrity.  Somewhere in the middle is the zone of success.

All that said. I am coming to the close on this topic.

Mediocrity is a simple thing to identify (if you are honest with yourself). Mediocrity is driven by inertia. So, saying that, mediocrity ends up actually being a choice (it doesn’t come naturally).

I will try and end this by explaining the zone of mediocrity and that choice I just mentioned by using Yeats:

“Turning and turning in the widening gyre/ The falcon cannot hear the falconer.”

(note: gyre – a vortex, a circular or spiral motion, especially in ocean currents)

Yeats suggests that at any moment forces are raveling and unraveling, forming and disintegrating in polarity (or, as one writer explained, “gyres” superimposed on each other with the apex or narrowest point of one at the center of the other’s base). Therefore moments of opportunity occur when time shifts from the outer to the inner gyre – somewhere within the constantly raveling & unraveling.

Leaders are always a focal point for a company’s constantly spinning gyre of ambition and desires. So that leader has to recognize the possibilities inherent in change and the accompanying risks. No change, or progress, occurs in the face of all this raveling & unraveling only through the choice to be mediocre – and not make change (or worse … not take advantage of the forming opportunities).

Their excuse for mediocrity? (if there is an excuse at all). Mediocrity occurs because the problem is that unraveling/raveling is rarely neat and the leader risks losing what is most important – the center.  Or as

Yeats suggests:

“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold”

And there in lies the true foundation of the zone of mediocrity.

Those in leadership positions of power and authority who foresee the possibility of ‘things falling part’ remain frozen in models that no longer function, or adapt, in a new environment.  They fear losing what is at the center (which is certainly the closest to their soul & well being &, uhm, their comfort). So they refuse to embrace change and instead embrace mediocrity.

And in that, my friends, we end up in the infamous zone of mediocrity.

Do what you can to avoid it.

Do what you can to break out of it.

Do what you can to find leaders who seek to stay out of it.

Ponder.

“Circumstances do not determine your state of being.”

The observation: How often businesses get trapped in the “but how about?” type discussions. Note. “But how about this?” is just another version of “why shouldn’t we build/service/do this?”

The rant: It is amazing how often the question is generated by one of two things:

1. A new trend or fad or publicized widget need that someone in a flash of brilliance says “hey we can do that!”

… or

2. It is represented as an opportunity with the appearance of possible sales (possible profits but that is another discussion that still amazes me).

Well. Point 1 is particularly dangerous because chasing trends/fads is like chasing the Roadrunner <and you are Wile Coyote>. You won’t catch it. Oh. And if you do, your plan won’t most likely work anyway.

Point 2 is particularly complex because product extensions, innovations and a whole mess of internal twister-like maneuvers shouldn’t <in general> be dictated by external stimulus.

Regardless. Constantly bringing up the question is wasted energy <the majority of the time>.

In my opinion, here is the core issue at hand.

Too often businesses struggle to find their sense of self. And it’s kind of nuts because, with regard to this discussion, business is actually pretty easy. Decide who you are and what you are good at. Oh. And that doesn’t mean saying “we are a nice company with values and we are good at everything.” My main issue with this topic is that if I can set up guardrails, or, at minimum, recognize that direction guardrails are important, why can’t businesses?  Its nuts.

Look. I am going to use myself as an example because, as noted above, I don’t easily deal with guardrails, in fact, I often find them constricting. Yet. I get paid more often than not for simply saying “no” to “how about?” Yeah. I get paid to stay within guardrails <go figure>. And I am not smarter than the average bear.

Look. I think my strength is identifying and creating creative solutions to challenges-problems. I can do it in my sleep. Any time. Any business. Any where. What that means is my weakness is staying the course – staying on mission-vision-whatever you want to call it.

(Note: No one is strong at everything. If you have a strength identify it and you can always identify the related weakness. Don’t worry. You can always compensate for it.)

I envision, using hindsight, that because that was my strength when I was younger I probably went out of my way to constantly seek challenges/problems to solve (which most likely drove some of my groups nuts). This didn’t mean I created work, but rather sifted through a lot to uncover a ‘situation/problem’ to solve. Probably out of dumb luck I discovered some viable issues to pursue and inevitably my groups were known for proactive innovative thinking.

Anyway.  In recognizing my weakness I compensate by having a strong process for identifying the core positioning-mission-core competency. By doing that I can leave my strength – solving this issue – unfettered. It revolves around the process, but the solution is not driven by the process. Now. My process may allow a little more latitude than some others (think of it as designing a five lane autobahn versus a one lane drag race track), but it sets up guardrails.

And that is what is frustrating.

Because, once again, I can set up guardrails, or, at minimum, recognize that direction guardrails are important, why can’t businesses?  <fill in your own answer here because I don’t have one>. And then because businesses cannot figure out this sense of self then some brand-voodoo-magicians <i.e., consultants or charlatans> come along and use sleight of hand bullshit that only confuses businesses.

Thought for everyone. Don’t be confused. It is relatively simple.

A company owns its character, core competency and crap they sell. Consumer owns the brand. Therefore, as a business you focus on what you can control. It’s the guardrail thing I mentioned. I promise companies if they stay within their guardrails that buyers will inevitably forge a brand that is within the guardrails. And dealing with “how abouts?” becomes incredibly easy because while some bonehead is presenting a whizbang prezi presentation (with augmented reality to really wow you) outlining all the sales reasons a company should do something it comes down to the guardrails. Because if the dollars and cents reside outside the guardrails, it becomes a gamble. It becomes the Kentucky derby of business decisions.  Which sucks because most companies don’t breed racing horses.

Anyway. Having been around the block a couple of times here is why I believe a sense of self keeps getting missed:

1. Lazy thinking. “We are good with retail business” is a prime example. Lazy, lazy, lazy thinking. Because not all retail is the same. A franchise retail is different than a corporate retail. A grocer retail is very different from a cellular retail. A one location retail is different from a 1500 location retail.  The list goes on. Anyone can select a big bucket to sit your ass in … and it is a waste of time in terms of actually being meaningful in terms of truly understanding your ‘self.’

2. Everything to everyone. Well. Ok. Not trying to be everything, but rather in self reflection believing you are capable of everything. This is the infamous “We can figure it out when it happens. We always have.” Yeah. Well. Maybe. But probably not. The truth is if you really really think about it the business is actually good at something. There is something within the shit you pulled off (sometimes by the hair on your chinny chin chin) that provides a commonality that you should invest the time in figuring out.

Yup. It will actually help you do better in the future. And will help you hire better people (ok … it just may make you better at hiring the right people).

3. “I am going to miss something” (or the “moving sense of self” syndrome). Uh oh. As soon as you put a stake in the ground … it means someone will not want to plant themselves next to you on that ground. Why? They may not realize it immediately, but the more they review the landscape they realize that they don’t want to plant their butts there. <Hint: that is okay.>

Next. A fact: it bugs the shit out of the ‘stake placer’ to be spurned (even if it is a bad match). As soon as spurning happens this company wants to pull up its stake and run around looking for a place to put the stake that would be appealing to the ‘spurner’ (i.e., for that one business opportunity).

The conclusion: Beyond some silly business misdirection I imagine it, at its worst, could come down to 2 things (primarily):

– not defining the guardrails in the first place

– not believing in the guardrails that were established.

Both are quite solvable, but that’s not what this post is about. It’s about the fact that the majority of businesses fall into 1 or 2 and invest a shitload of energy in “how about?”

So … how about this? That’s stupid.

In the end.

Beyond the stupidity comment I could start a ‘who’s who’ list of companies who seemingly get seduced into discussing dreams or ‘what ifs’ with regard to who they are <as a company> rather than insuring they know what they do and who they currently are. It is not only wasted energy but, even more importantly, potentially disastrous.

Oh. And please do not confuse this questioning with “whats next?’ because that question is usually a reflection of someone who is standing on some solid “this is who I am and what I do well” discussing what they want to do next.

I am amazed on how many of all businesses fall into this discussion category.

Oh. The profit thing. I usually cut to the chase pretty fast on this one. Yes. Someone certainly knows how to make money on ‘x’ because they are doing it (and it appears they are making money). No. That does not mean we know how to do it and make money. There are a lot of business people who just say “we will figure it out if we actually get the opportunity.”. Well it doesn’t work that way. Or. Maybe better said it is more difficult than that simplistic point of view. Some things can be figured out (some not). Some things can be figured out but take time to do so (and what do you do in the interim?).  But. A company needs to figure it out. A wise man once said this:

“Most agencies are in the same boat — from big ones to two man shops. They’re in it for the money and they’re scared. Scared the client’s going to walk. And because they are afraid they compromise their principles. They are so scared of losing the business they give the customer what they think they want rather than what they know he needs. And sometimes it works — for a while. But in the end it always backfires. You lose the business anyway and you wake up one day to find you’re a prostitute. So, in the end, stick to your principles. ‘to thine ownself be true.’ 0ver 200 years old but still good advice.”

Stephen Hawley Martin (founder of The Martin Agency)

Ok. Just to be sure my rant wasn’t too far off base I did find a study from Prophet <who I sometimes respect>.

New Prophet Study: Execs Understand That Customer Engagement Is Pressuring Brands To Perform Better — But Many Don’t Think Their Marketers Can Handle the Challenge

“The majority (55 percent) of participating senior executives in general management and marketing said that supporting business growth through a well-differentiated and relevant brand positioning was their most pressing concern.” Mike Leiser, Prophet senior partner.

• Targeting customers in this environment is problematic; three-fourths of respondents said they’re not doing it effectively. Over 90 percent are targeting more than one segment, and over half of these do so with multiple positionings of a single brand. Importantly, however, those multiple positionings are similar – what’s different among most in this group are the tactics used in bring them to life.

“Adjusting to this changing landscape will be a process,” Leiser said. “Our findings show that marketers must adapt a more visionary orientation to more effectively guide their organizations through it.”

So. Gosh. Maybe I am not as dumb as I look.