==========

“There’s nothing worse in the world than thinking you have a chance when you really don’t.”

–

Meredith Grey

========

Ok. This is mostly about business <but certainly offers some Life thoughts>. This is about motivation, risk and discerning reality from wishful thinking (which is actually a management skill).

First.

I do believe if you ‘play’ … you should play to win.

Second.

I also realize that sometimes in Life, and in business, we play … and play knowing we don’t have a chance in hell of winning.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Someone will point out the times where someone was given no chance and they won. I will then point out that it is just like the ‘poor to rich’ examples — they are exceptions. Few & far between. Unfortunately, the majority of time if you have no chance (seriously: you really do not).

Now. For some reason when someone starts talking about ‘no chance’ the phrase “playing to win or playing not to lose” rears its ugly head. And while it sounds good to say “you’re playing to win” in your business, what exactly does that really mean?

We can dance on the head of this pin all day long if you are not careful.

Some suggest playing to win means playing all out, as in, going for it all and holding nothing back.

Some suggest that playing not to lose means holding something back, at its worst ‘being conservative’, and at its most prudent ‘making sure if you don’t win you have something left’ <or minimize losses>.

First of all.

Every good business person does both. Playing to win isn’t always about resources … it’s more often about effort & attitude.

Think about it. I can hold reserves back and tell the ones attacking to ‘go for broke’ and they actually play harder because they know there are reserves if they falter. Technically that puts you in the ‘playing not to lose’ category and technically that is shit.

Regardless. This is where ‘no chance’ comes into play.

There may be nothing worse in business than thinking you have a chance when you don’t have an ice cube’s chance in hell. This mostly sucks because at the conclusion, for the leader, it makes you second guess whether you are a good judge of ‘chance’ or if you are a shitty leader or it makes you second guess your people <”are they good enough? … because we sure as hell had a chance”>.

This can suck the life out of a manager.

For at the conclusion, for the worker people, who tend to be thinking in general on most projects and initiatives “why the hell are we doing this because it has no chance of working” anyway … it simply becomes confirmation that most initiatives have no chance.

This can suck the life out of an organization.

Look. Thinking you have a chance is normal. In fact, it is so natural to think it you almost have to convince yourself that there is no chance. Society, and crappy managers, are constantly seeking ways to convince you that the latter is simply signs of pessimism or lack of ‘positive thinking.’

In addition, we all ache to not be mediocre and for some reason ‘not having a chance’ is directly linked to ‘not good enough’ and can very quickly, and very stealthily, slip into thoughts of mediocrity.

Well. That is shit too. No chance is … well … no chance. It doesn’t necessarily mean not good enough nor does it have to suggest mediocrity.

Simply: no chance is no chance.

In fact, I would suggest a sliver of a chance is still no chance. Note: this always reminds me of Dumb & Dumber:

—–

Lloyd Christmas: What do you think the chances are of a guy like you and a girl like me … ending up together?

Mary Swanson: Well, Lloyd, that’s difficult to say. I mean, we don’t really …

Lloyd Christmas: Hit me with it! Just give it to me straight! I came a long way just to see you, Mary. The least you can do is level with me.

What are my chances?

Mary Swanson: Not good.

Lloyd Christmas: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?

Mary Swanson: I’d say more like one out of a million.

[pause]

Lloyd Christmas: So you’re telling me there’s a chance… YEAH!

—-

Yeah, yeah, yeah … once again … people are gonna come out of the woodwork to point out the times the sliver of a chance became reality.

But.

Life, and in particular, Business is about making choices on where to invest energy. Investing energy in ‘no chance’ situations and initiatives are a drain — individually & organizationally.

In addition, those incredibly rare ‘no chance wins’ take on a Life of their own which most leaders and managers mismanage by encouraging overall belief rather than encouraging ‘we beat the odds which is an exception <which creates exceptional moments>’. Managers need to teach & coach employees to honestly assess chance.

Shit. Managers need to get better at ‘not thinking there is a chance’ assessment.

Shit. Businesses, in general, just need to admit they have no chance when they literally have no chance.

I am certainly not suggesting this is easy. Having been in dozens of painful business meetings where everyone fights to NOT admit we don’t have a chance because, well, it absolutely sucks to have no chance let alone admit you have no chance. While I noted earlier it is bullshit to associate this thinking with mediocrity we all inevitably dance with this ugly feeling at some point in this discussion.

But what sucks more? Thinking you actually have a chance when you do not.

In the end I believe what I am suggesting is that a successful life, personally and in business, incorporates some pragmatism. I say that as an unequivocal “hope” guy. But hope needs to be treated well in order to treat you well … abuse it and you lose it.

So … remember.

Hoping you have a chance is significantly different than thinking you have a chance. And maybe it is within that distinction that most of us just suck at thinking.

But we should all take solace that even in our suckedness there is good. It is good that everyone hopes they have a chance and it is good that all of us dance on the thought of having a chance. It is a beautiful heartening uplifting soul sweeping dance which all of us should learn the steps to.

That said.

We should just know when to leave the dance floor.

==========

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

(Latin) “after this, therefore because of this” is a logical fallacy that states “Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X.”

The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection.

===========

“I believe all suffering is caused by ignorance.

People inflict pain on others in the selfish pursuit of their happiness or satisfaction.”

—-

Dalai Lama

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

Human behavior, natural inclinations and how bad leaders manipulate what many people naturally feel.

I thought about this because every time some terrorist does something, particularly if they are Muslim, it stimulates a response. That is the basic stimulus response reaction we all have.

The basic response we have is actually twofold … there is the Reptilian knee jerk response and then there is the more thoughtful responsible response.

By the way, both are viable thoughts <which everyone should think about before they call someone’s response silly, naive or stupid>.

One is basic reflexive survival instinct. One is filtered through reasoned response. And, as with almost anything in Life, truth in the proper response resides in the balance. But while balance is the desired objective for most of us  that doesn’t mean if someone shouts something out in the aftermath of some conflict or event that appeals to our Reptilian instincts we will not pay attention.

In fact, whether someone admits it or not, that initial knee jerk reaction sounds legitimate and worthy of consideration because it appeals to our “flee or fight” instincts.

Now. Far too often everyday people, in today’s world, suggest the Reptilian response is the ‘common sense’ response. And, as so often true, there is a big grain of truth within that thought. The trouble is that while stimulus response is a linear truth <in a brain way> … in the real world cause and effect is not always linear … and, yet, is still true.

A terrorist act is not a larger reflection of danger to overall safety & security <we are more likely to be killed by a fellow citizen than a Muslim or a refugee or an immigrant>.

A terrorist act is not a larger reflection of some majority ideological danger <this is a small small minority acting upon a sliver of a truth>.

A terrorist act is actually a reflection of how a significant small minority can impact a significant large majority of an opposite view <this is also called the minority majority paradox>.

And, yet, asshats like Trump actually respond to the events, and our Reptilian brain, almost in sinc with the Islamist terrorist fanatics themselves.

They feed off each other in a Reptilian way.

Their knee jerk responses focus on vindicating the initial Reptilian brain reflexive response. And, unfortunately, it does vindicate what many, maybe most, people feel initially.

That is how our brain works and that is what these assholes play to.

====

After the Bataclan atrocity his captors would be scanning social media and celebrating: “‘We are winning’, they’d say. They will be heartened by every sign of overreaction, of division, of fear, of racism, of xenophobia; they will be drawn to any examples of ugliness on social media.”

Words from Nicolas Hénin, a Frenchman who survived being taken hostage by Isis

====

Our Reptilian brain wants exactly what a terrorist wants. Attention and reflexive action; not responsive action.

Uhm.

But there is a reason we do not live our lives solely by following our Reptilian brain.

Any marketing person will tell you activating the Reptilian brain is powerful, but people desire more. Most of us do not succumb to our Reptilian brain or ignore the cortex and limbic system because most of us understand nuanced responses tend to mesh better to reality than simplistic ‘fight or flee’ responses. In fact. While a Reptilian response feels good <instant gratification>, the greater value <sustained gratification> is more often found in thoughtful responses.

====

The Brain Response Mechanism:

• Cortex: handles learning, abstract thought, imagination
• Limbic system: deals with emotions (structures between birth to 5yrs old)
• Reptilian brain (brain stem/cerebellum): instinctive, needed for survival and reproduction

 ====

Now. The American Reptilian brain is a little different than other country’s citizens. It gets driven by what Clotaire Rapaille called “the American Culture Code.” Using the words of Nike one can boil the American agenda down to three simple words: “Just do it.” Our champions are athletes, entrepreneurs, police officers, firefighters, and soldiers – all people who take action. Americans celebrate work and turn successful business people into celebrities. Donald Trump and Bill Gates are celebrities. Stephen T. Covey, Jack Welch, and Lee Iacocca are mega-selling authors. Our best-sellers include The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People and Good to Great.

We may respect thinkers, but we don’t celebrate them nearly as much as we do our action figures.

When our forefathers came to America and discovered a huge undeveloped land, their first thought wasn’t “let’s have some tea” … it was “let’s get to work.”

In fact. The American Culture Code for work is WHO YOU ARE. We seek much our personal, and country, meaning in our jobs & work <note: this is not particularly healthy & has some societal issues>.

That said.

That means when a terrorist event happens, well, we want to go to work. We want to be champions and ‘just do it.’

That is our Reptilian brain kicking in.

So. Why did I decide to share this?

Well. Because when Trump or any populist sends out a tweet <and media amplifies it on air> he is appealing to our Reptilian Brain <which we all have>. He encourages us to think our natural reptilian instinct, our reflex action, is the right thing to think. Luckily, most of us slowly slide by the Reptilian reflex and shift into a more thoughtful response.

But a significant minority stays right there in the Reptilian thought and, well, shout common sense! And I can live with that <although I will do everything in my power to explain why it is not>.

What may aggravate me even more is that people smart enough to know that isn’t the answer start suggesting the Reptilian reflexive response is the smartest most common sense response. There is no excuse for that … or them.

To be clear. There is a time & a place for reflexive Reptilian behavior, but you cannot, and should not, live your Life that way 100%.

And maybe that is my gripe with Trump <beyond some of his divisive ideas>. He seems to live in a 100% Reptilian world themselves and want to demand the general population to live the same way.

Uhm. That is no way to live.

That is assuming basic survival is the best level and not the ground level. He seems to be suggesting one of the simplest mistakes almost every one of us does which is to look at an outcome as an outcome of a sequential list of events.

And, well, that is the fallacy of if this then this.

Life is rarely that simple. The world is certainly not that simple. And I seriously doubt a terrorist act is that simple. Terrorism, and the roots of terrorism, is not a linear problem nor will solving it require a linear solution.  We will not find simple cause & effect reasons nor will we isolate the desired ‘if this then that’ which would explain everything easily.

Look. Once again I am trying to share some fake pseudo intellectual argument that while it is tempting to think of someone like Trump’s rhetoric with regard to immigrants, refuges and Muslims <criminals and terrorists> because it appeals to our Reptilian brain – we are better than that.

Smarter than that.

We can ‘survive’ smartly.

We can ‘survive’ without being devoid of values to our fellow humankind.

We can ‘survive’ without sacrificing some of the founding freedoms which we offer to anyone who elects to come to our country.

We can ‘survive’ by maintaining one of the core distinct differences USA has versus other countries — “innocent until proven guilty.”

<which, to date as far as I can tell, has not undermined our country by being overrun by criminals and terrorists>.

Of course we should be vigilant.

Of course we should take smart proactive steps to address radicalization.

Of course we should aggressively prosecute those who are truly guilty.

But assuming guilt simply because Reptilian brain suggests it?

C’mon. We know better than that.

Let the asshats speculate. Sometimes they will be right and sometimes they will be wrong.

The rest of us should await the facts and in doing so will always be 100% right.

“… we are raising a generation of precious little wimps, prissypusses who have never heard a bad word, have always had their gut full of food, have had cellphones and laptops at an age where we rode bikes and climbed trees, and have always had the heater on at 80 in the winter and the airconditioning on at 60 in the summer, have had their game cancelled because it rained, and at the age of 15 are still being driven everywhere instead of making it anywhere on their own.

Protected from the big bad world and indulged in every which way.

It will be a rude awakening when the real world comes calling.”

=

DolleDolf

———————-

Ok. This is a rant <and rambling observation> on the wacky labeling of generations. Millennials, Boomers, Z, whatever. go on LinkedIn or read some wacky marketing piece in some business journal and you will see some overly simplified bullshit.

That said. I will say discussing attitudes and generations can make your head hurt.

I have a love/hate relationship with generation discussions. As a 4th Turning  generations <Strauss & Howe> advocate I an delighted when drawn into a discussion about different generations and their attitudes over years & history. On the other hand I hate the labeling and generalizations and the overall fact once you apply a label it almost enters into pop culture as ‘fact for everyone.’

Look. Every generation has its own attitudes, values and even quirks. Frankly, it is almost like discussing a person <just a shitload of persons … and now called a cohort or generation>. And, exactly as we discuss individuals and feel comfortable ‘slotting a person in our mind’, once you gain a label, once you gain some ‘reputation’ <deserved or not>, once you gain some perceptions, it seems like it takes an act of God to shed it.

Even with regard to generations.

In addition. There is a sometimes wacky belief that a generation which acquires an attitude in youth carries it through their entire life.

Attitudes like …

They are risk averse because they were sheltered.

They are entitled because they were pampered.

They are x because of y.

<pick your poison on this one>

Well. Let’s be clear. That’s bullshit.

Generations do not stay stagnant attitudinally as they mature <and gain new Life and societal experiences>.

A generation may maintain an overall cohort personality trend <which implies attitudes will follow a change pattern as they age>, but that’s it.

On that last point I will admit that despite the fact it may seem an oversimplification dividing and defining people by their birth years I don’t mind labeling generations or cohorts because, in general, they do travel together thru time based on mutual life event arching experiences.

However. People sometimes simplistically label a generation attitudinally from birth to death. They attach some of the wrong ‘carry over’ characteristics.

That’s nuts.

Attitudes are not like tattoos.

Just as youth tends to make you more risk acceptable, maturity brings on some risk adversity. Lots of attitudes ebb and flow as you age and the world provides more and more experiences. Lots of attributes ebb and flow as the world changes <this is sometimes called ‘environmental context‘>.

I say all this because it is a fairly rare situation for an attitude to be carried year after year despite running the gauntlet of experiences and aging. Mostly because as we learn we, well, unlearn.

And, yet, we label a generation over & over again.

We always think the young are doomed <because of the way they act and think now>.

We always think the middle aged are … well … caught in the middle <too old for the young and too irresponsible for the old>.

We always think the older generation are doomed in their stagnancy & refusal to let go of what was.

I believe we tend to do this simplistic labeling as a filter to real attitudes because it is easier to have a ‘go to’ response for ‘it is what it is and they are what they are’ <always have been and always will>. I also believe we do this because we confuse attitudes with maybe some personal ‘character’ type attributes.

For example.

As a generalization I am not a huge believer that ‘age broadens or brings wisdom’ with regard to personal character. I tend to believe character is character. The truth actually appears to be that time, aging, actually makes people grow more like … well … themselves. Become just a ‘more version’ of who and what you were in your youth.

If you are lazy in youth, you are lazy in adulthood <napping & Tv behavior simply stretches across the years>. If you are a workaholic in youth, you are a workaholic in adulthood <and all the behavior flaws/trade offs that come with that>. Stuff like that. But those are personal characteristics residing within an overall generational attitude cohort.

Attitudes change.

Behavior changes.

Character ? … well … that may not so easily change. And this applies to not only individuals … but also generation cohorts.

You kind of have to believe this … if you think about it in its broadest sense … such as with “good and bad behavior.”

We know people are not often wholly good or bad.

Those of the worst behavior are capable of redemption.

Those of the best behavior are capable of making bad mistakes.

The world, and generations, is a reflection of a quirky complex mix of characters & thoughts & beliefs. Sometimes meshing and sometimes conflicting. And within the moments of meshing, as well as the moments of conflict, attitudes change.

Simply put … what you used to think you no longer think.

Look. There are all sorts of people in the world and the more you become exposed to all of them the less you rely on opinion, innuendo, and prejudice. The more you get exposed to new people the more you encounter new words and ideas. Your vocabulary and mind and thinking expands <contrary to opinion – it never shrinks into solid unmoving opinions & prejudices when exposed to a variety of fresh thinking people who are not trying to convince you of anything – just exposing you to new & different things> and inevitably you come to realize that adults have issues greater than nice <being nice> and not nice <not being nice> to contend with.

You realize that attitudes vary beyond the world beyond home, school and neighborhood.

You realize there is a mix of people with good and bad motivations and that appearances, impressions and labels can be deceiving.

You will realize that throughout the world, throughout generations, there are characters you like and dislike and that gives you much better critical thinking skills stretching beyond what you accept … or what you think is unacceptable.

Flexibility and active curiosity are essential to changing attitudes. Shielding yourself, or cocooning in some way,  limits exposure to the unknown which might be the spark that motivates someone to not only think differently but maybe to pursue an ambition or dream differently.

Sure. Not everyone is flexible nor interested in ‘investigation’ of new ideas, but not everyone has to be <and clearly within a generation there are more who are than those who are not> and everyone <or 99%> are at least exposed to the changing world around them.

Inevitably, whether someone is flexible or not, some change seeps in to who you are and how you think.

The world is constantly changing and has never been 100% right. Nor is the world 100% wrong.

And, whether we like that or not, it will continue to be that way. But that will not mean that as we age we won’t push back against the right versus wrong in a variety of ways.

For example:

===

Growing up, Gen Xers had notoriously poor diets, and as adults have been swept up in every diet craze that has come along.

Now, as parents, they question the industrial food system that failed them.
Many Xers challenge where their food comes from and want to understand the potential impact of food on the well-­‐being of their kids.

Coupled with emerging research on connections between sugar, wheat, etc. to ADD, autism, etc., the next generation is being raised to understand exactly what they are putting in their mouths. 86% of Moms turn to multivitamins as a ‘one stop shop’ to provide nutrition they fear to be lacking in regular diets.

===

Anyway. I got a little philosophical with all of that because how we label generations is part of this ‘opening ourselves up to new thinking.’

I do hope that not only do we stop the silly childish lazy ‘labeling’ of generations but also that we don’t raise another generation of people who are constantly offended all the time.

By the way.

This is a ying & yang thought.

Labeling makes people assume they SHOULD think some way <and therefore they are more likely to be offended in a variety of ways>. Avoid the silly labeling and I tend to believe we will be offended less.

Regardless. We waste so much time on nonsense issues & discussion while there’s so much work to be done in making the world a better place. We should worry more about raising a generation not only with a desire to be better than us but also with a true belief they WILL be better than us.

Bottom line? People need to get over simple generational labeling. And people need to get over themselves.

I sometimes think we are all suffering from a form of chronophobia – this is the fear that time is moving so fast you’ll never be able to catch up.

I don’t care what generation cohort you are, I don’t care when you were born, everyone at any time in history has felt like time is moving so fast it is next to impossible to not only keep up … but catch up. Some of the generational bitching <about other generations’ attitudes> is clearly a reflection of our overall angst with regard to a changing world.

Its natural. And it’s natural for us to want to label a generation with an attitude.

Uhm.

Natural or not we older people need to get our natural heads out of our asses and realize that attitudes change and that we can actually impact attitude change.

We either become champions of attitude change or we become a detriment to societal & cultural change.

As we cast dispersions against another generation we should look in the mirror and be sure that it isn’t them … it’s us.

“If you’re nervous, it means you give a damn.”

=

thatkindofwoman tumblr

—

Ok. I almost called this ‘giving a damn’ , but, this is about the relationship between nervousness and giving a shit about something. Here is the basic equation <logic flow>:

==

–      Giving a damn means you are thinking about something <because you can’t give a damn about something you aren’t thinking about>.

—

–      Thinking is good <especially if it is on something you give a damn about>.

–

–      Being nervous CAN be good <but pretty much all of us get nervous when we give a damn about something>.

==

Bottom line on being nervous and nervousness.

All are aspects of giving a shit.

All of which are also aspects of worrying.

Yup. Worrying.

Worrying about being good enough or ‘having enough’ or just ‘doing as well as I can.’

Ok. Here is a Life truth <beyond the fact everyone gets nervous>. Despite what you may think about yourself … and despite the fact you worry, the truth is, more often than not, you do a lot of ‘right’ <right things, right decisions and right thoughts>.

Despite that Life truth we do a lot of navel-gazing <and worrying> when it comes to thinking and ‘having enough’ when it matters.

Oh. About that ‘what matters’ and when we get nervous about having enough thought.

To me it often feels like we’re having too many conversations about things that don’t matter and not enough about things that do. This translates into getting nervous, if not even investing energy, towards a lot of things that just do not matter.

We have gobs of incredibly smart, resourceful, creative thinking people in today’s world and, frankly, I wish we would spend more of our precious attention, energy, and ideation skills solving meaningful things that mattered.

In addition. I also wish more people accepted they had ‘enough’ to deal with all the shit that matters. This also means we just need to accept that being nervous is just part of the gig.

Anyway. Let me share two aspects of nervous and giving a shit.

First.

Nervousness is just a reflection of the fact you recognize that there is something to lose when you care.

Now. This isn’t ‘caring about losing’, but more about ‘losing if I care.’ Some people have this equation out of whack in that they simply believe losing any time is bad. It is out of whack because, simplistically, we care about some things more than others. The winning or losing isn’t, and shouldn’t be, tied to the outcome but rather the ‘level of caring.’

==

“The more you care, the more you have to lose.”

Harry Potter

==

In my mind your nervousness should be used more often as a platform for discussion or thinking or even level of caring. But, please, … please … don’t make nervousness based on some fear of doing the ‘wrong things.’

Just figure out what you care about, and, accept the fact that if you care that the outcome matters more, and, accept that if it matters more you will be nervous.

<this equation is quite effective in deductive thinking about yourself and things about yourself>

Second.

Nervousness and anger. Beyond being tied to caring or level of caring … nervousness is absolutely tied to anger.

===

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

The Sky So Heavy by Claire Zorn

==

Nervousness always has a direction.

That is why I get aggravated when someone says ‘I just don’t know why I’m nervous.’

Well. Being nervous always contains an aspect of some … well … anger. You get angry that a world demands so much of you and you get nervous that you cannot <or may not> meet what the world demands.

This doesn’t mean that you are not capable nor does it mean that in some form or fashion you do not enjoy rising to the occasion. What it means is that you get a little angry just being put in the position <that makes you nervous>. Just think of it this way … your anger coils inside you and comes out externally as nervousness.

But … you know what? Some anger is quite productive.

Some anger motivates you to action and stepping up rather than stepping back <or not stepping at all>. But this also means that some anger translates into being nervous.

Anyway.

I am fairly sure everyone gets nervous about things <in general>. But I am absolutely positive everyone gets nervous about the things that matter to them.

I imagine I wrote this because people just don’t like being nervous.

They don’t like the feeling.

And my fear is that maybe in avoiding being nervous … maybe they avoid things that matter.

Look.

Accept the burden of nervousness.

You have to.

If you don’t, then most of the things you do will … well … not matter. Suffice it to say that Life is too short to not do things that matter so, go ahead, be nervous.

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

“It is perhaps the misfortune of my life that I am interested in far too much but not decisively in any one thing; all my interests are not subordinated in one but stand on an equal footing.”

–

Søren Kierkegaard

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

“I wasn’t much of a petty thief. I wanted the whole world or nothing.”

–

Charles Bukowski

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

So. Last night I had a little time before I shut down my computer to scrounge around some of my favorite websites for some thoughts, quotes and images. I don’t really believe in serendipity but within 15 minutes on three different sites I gathered the three quotes that anchor this piece.

………… restless thinking one big adventure ……..

I sat back after copying them and I realized, well, it is perhaps the misfortune of my Life that I am interested in far too much.

My misfortune is that I am incessantly curious, a relentless contrarian to existing thought & thinking and a restless thinker in general. My misfortune is that I see restless thinking as one big adventure.

I sat back after copying them and I realized I am not satisfied being a petty thief … I want the whole world.

And as I sat back I also thought a little about how I got to this place.

Growing up I remember hearing a lot of “maybe you should be more realistic” type advice. I remember it chafing.

It made me think … well … I should think smaller.

That chafed.

I am sure the ‘safer’ aspect … aiming toward more achievable things and not stretching too far possibly felt okay … but I chafed on the whole thought of not getting what I thought could be achieved or what could be done.

Shit.

I still do.

Going small just seems … well … small to me.

And, yes, there is a price to pay for thinking this way.

Ok. I will point out two prices you pay.

The first price is restlessness.

Oh. And restlessness can make people feel uneasy. It makes them uneasy because you are not easily slotted. People want you to present them with a peg and they can put it in some hole and thinking about it and look at it.

People, like me, who have the misfortune of being interested in anything and everything and not satisfied with one thing are more of a box. And while boxes represent some symmetry and some tangible aspect for people to grasp, at the same time, … sigh … it is not a peg

The second price is wins … as in quantity of wins.

Even I, probably a more pragmatic aspirationalist, don’t aim toward some truly realistic things on occasion. That means not getting done what you want to get done, not getting where you want to get to and not getting, in general, the largeness you desired. In other words you didn’t get a win while someone who aimed lower or accepted something smaller did get a win.

Does that matter? I mean life doesn’t really give out trophies, people do.

Yeah. It does matter. Watching others win when you don’t does matter to some extent. And you would be lying if you didn’t admit that.

Aiming for it all, or something bigger <more broad> than something smaller <more focused>, and not getting it can make you start thinking smaller. And why do you do that? You want a frickin’ win.

And that, well, that can affect how you think and what you do.

It does so because many of us are willing to compromise some fairly important things to win on occasion.

Shit. Even more of us are willing to compromise a lot of fairly important things <which they hadn’t even tangibly decided were important to them> in order to win on occasion.

Oh. I bring up the second group because they are the ones who don’t get the ones who have the misfortune of wanting bigger things. It’s like a petty thief most likely scoffs at the master thief.

Uhm.

But those people may just call this reality <and, therefore, kind of suggesting those who have the misfortune of wanting to know everything about everything are not realistic>.

Whew. Yeah.

It is quite likely that my reality, and those whose reality is similar, fights reality itself – I mean society & culture creates lines of reality of which we get boxed in by with regard to expectations.

Umberto Eco is the one who suggested life has “lines of resistance.” This was his version of reality.

These ‘lines of resistance’ are established mostly so that we cannot say or do whatever we like with impunity. The problem with that is they also bring along some baggage … baggage like … uhm … what is viewed as pragmatic & realistic <smaller versions of shit that are achievable by many rather than few>.

Oh.

Yeah.

But, thankfully, the lines of resistance can shift.

But, thankfully, some can reach across the lines of resistance and gain access to some bigger shit which lies outside the lines of resistance.

All that said. Life, and these lines of resistance, encourage some people … mostly those who have the misfortune to be interested in far too much but not decisively in any one thing to shrink them … encourage them to think smaller and, inevitably, maybe be smaller than what they should be.

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

“Most of my life has been spent trying to shrink myself.

Trying to become smaller. Quieter. Less sensitive. Less opinionated. Less needy. Less me.  

Because I didn’t want to be a burden.

I didn’t want to be too much or push people away. I wanted people to like me. I wanted to be cared for and valued. I wanted to be wanted. So for years, I sacrificed myself for the sake of making other people happy. And for years, I suffered.

But I’m tired of suffering, and I’m done shrinking. It’s not my job to change who I am in order to become someone else’s idea of a worthwhile human being.  

I am worthwhile. Not because other people think I am, but because I exist, and therefore I matter. My thoughts matter. My feelings matter. My voice matters. And with or without anyone’s permission or approval, I will continue to be who I am and speak my truth.

Even if it makes people angry. Even if it makes them uncomfortable. Even if they choose to leave. I refuse to shrink. I choose to take up space. I choose to honour my feelings. I choose to give myself permission to get my needs met. I choose to make self-care a priority.

I choose me.”

Daniell Koepke

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

Let me be clear.

Smaller is safer. Smaller can actually be very satisfying. Smaller, in some ways, can actually permit you to live a fuller Life <although I would argue it’s not really a bigger Life>. And while small, in this case, could be construed as bad or lesser than … it is not. It is simply a viable choice for people with regard t their Life and how they want to live it.

Just as those who have the misfortune to want the whole world, well, that is their choice.

And I would argue that whatever your choice we are all aiming toward the same place … lets call it our “home.” That home within. The place within you that either sits on the favorite Barcalounger safe & sound in a Life lived well in smaller aspects or the one who wanders forever restlessly over hill & thru the dale seeking the next interest or learning or new thing.

Personally, I am the latter. I am a nomad thinker.  I want to know it all. And when I know something I want to know more. But that topic is for another day.

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

“All of life is a coming home.

Salesmen, secretaries, coal miners, beekeepers, sword swallowers, all of us.  All the restless hearts of the world, all trying to find a way home.” 

Patch Adams 

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

Today I would suggest whether you have the misfortune of wanting to know it all or whether you believe in something bigger than you or simply believe there is something bigger within you to be found by not wanting it all … your compass & your map resides within … not some external place or location which may appear to fulfill some aspect of ‘home.’

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

so far out to sea <‘restless’>

so far out to sea

     standing on impassive intensity

                     of restless possibilities

oh,

     push back the curtain

of slumbering elements

      of disordered solitude.

stir up a peace of

       desolate despair

                       drowning out a cacophony

       of restless disinterested

                           distant thoughts.

restless sun

               reflects upon the path chosen,

                      stand frozen,

      restless mind

                    wander the waves roaming

so far out to sea

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

Ok. In concept this is a simple idea, but fraught with peril in implementation.

The concept.

If your reason for being is big enough you will get noticed.

I will state the obvious behind this thought just to get it out of the way. If your reason for being is big enough there is …

–        no need to stand in the middle of a room and shout for attention.

–        no need to do cartwheels in the middle of a mall.

–        no need to run naked in the middle of a soccer match (thank god).

–        no need to wear a clown suit (unless you are a clown for a living).

And best of all …

–        no need for a dozen jelly donuts (or bagels) or any food bribery when you go to meetings.

If all that interests you then keep reading.

Let me begin by defining ‘reason for being.’

I mean what you stand for and what you say and what you do day in and day out.

I mean what you want to be seen as and ultimately known for (not something tangible … something intangible).

And while this could be about companies and business (and I may try a word replace just to see if that is true) I am gonna keep this one focused on you and I and us (as individuals).

Ok. Whether we admit it or not, we all want to be noticed.

We don’t want to be overlooked or underappreciated (for either a talent or just as a person). That is normal. And has nothing to do with ego or ‘humbleness’ or any of that type of stuff. This is just good ole self esteem and such.  This is just about receiving some confirmation that your existence matters (in normal words: ‘you matter’) and some positive reinforcement for self being.

That said. While I hate (abhor) the things on the ‘no need’ list I typed I also believe getting noticed is one of the biggest challenges people face. It is a fact that not being noticed is an obstacle to a lot of things that truly matter.

It makes it harder to communicate what you want to say.

It makes it more difficult to make an impact.

It makes it nearly impossible to change the world (change meaning small, medium, large or extra large in impact).

I say this to make the point that getting noticed does matter. And it matters a shitload.

Look, once again, getting noticed (in the right way) has never been about being outrageous. Getting noticed, like any other incredibly difficult challenge, is all about who you are.

It’s about your attitude.

It’s about becoming some color when everything else is black & white.

Its about finding your own way of being distinct.

And mostly it is about finding out what you are good at and being comfortable with who you are as a person.

And if you do all of that I can almost guarantee you that people will naturally gravitate to you (the corollary to that is if people do not gravitate to you then rather than bitch about why they don’t maybe you should begin to reflect upon yourself first).

So. Some thoughts about being comfortable with who you are (the core to being distinct individually and ultimately noticed the ‘right way’):

– Be comfortable doing what everyone else thinks is wrong.

Now.  I don’t mean all of the time.  I simply mean on things that matter. Why? Because accomplishing anything that truly matters starts with the belief that you may have to be different and its okay to be different. Oh. And not just “shades of gray” different. You have to be completely different.

Yup. Sometimes for people to know that something new is occurring (and want to be involved) you have to commit as a person to capture the essence of the ‘difference’ in what you say and how you present yourself. Oh. And “new” most often comes to life by having the ability to point out things that make people feel uncomfortable (because you are debating the status quo).

In the business world this is called ‘disruption.’ BUT.  At its core disruption only is effective if it is relevant. Being different for different sake is wrong.  That is making an empty statement. Be comfortable in insightful relevant disruption.

– Be candid. Be truthful.

There are ridiculous things happening everywhere. People’s behavior, attitudes and perceptions. It is easy to overlook the important things because … well … it is easier to focus on the ridiculous (and it is ridiculous). If you want to change the conversation and get people talking with you (as well as about you), start talking about all this ridiculous stuff.  Spend the time to create intellectual arguments that get people thinking.

– Understand effort matters.

Oh. And, in particular, effort for the moments that really matter … well … really matter.

Get it in your head now (no ifs, and or buts) that there are truly no easy get rich schemes. Believe it deep in your soul. Etch it somewhere on your body if you have to. One of the most debilitating things that can happen is a choice to make personal investments in shortcuts. No shortcut can replace effort. The same thing applies to vision and how you manage details. There is nothing to do but “DO”. That’s the attitude that you need to have. And if by expending massive amounts of effort on things that matter you happen to gain success, then absolutely enjoy it. You will get noticed for the effort on what matters.

Is this true all the time? Nope.

But consistency wins this particular game. You will be tempted by the short cuts (we all are) but deliver the effort on the things that truly matter on a consistent basis and you will get noticed.  I guarantee it. And you will be noticed for the right reasons.

– embrace (some) vulnerability.

This is the last one and the most difficult one.

Maybe I could have just written, “be human” but vulnerability is a much more powerful concept. And it takes some real kahones to embrace this one.

Why is this important to getting noticed? Well. People are flawed.  And people like people who are flawed.  Perfection scares people. And, honestly, no one is perfect.

We all have things that impact us so emotionally they, well, bring us to tears. And those are things that you need to be talking about. You need to be passionate. You need to show you actually care about something.  Care so much that you are open to getting hurt. Care so much you become vulnerable in some way. It shows that you live your life, willing to get hurt on things that matter, and are honest about what matters most to you.

So. In the end?

It all starts with you.

If your reason is big enough, your cause worth it enough, being noticed will be the least of your worries.

========

“Contagion will seep through almost any coordinated collection of people.”

——

Social Intelligence Daniel Goleman

=======

A ripple effect is a situation in which, like ripples expanding across the water when an object is dropped into it, an effect from an initial state can be followed outwards incrementally. Ripple effect is often used colloquially to mean a multiplier (economics)

=========

This is about how attitudes, behavior & culture spreads. With all the discussion about the impact of social media psychologically and behaviorally, and the impact (positives & negatives) of influencers, I am slightly surprised we don’t talk more about the 100 Monkey Theory.

I thought about this when I recently read an article called “how culture makes us smarter” which shared an idea called ‘cumulative culture.” It immediately made me think of the 100 Monkey Theory and how the internet has amplified the theory.

Then:  Islands of attitudes and behaviors

The 100 Monkey theory:

—–

In 1952, on the Japanese island of Koshima, a monkey named Imo washed a sweet potato before she ate it.  She and her fellow, Macaca Fuscata monkeys were given sweet potatoes by the scientists who studied them.  The monkeys like the taste of the potatoes, yet did not like the dirt.  Imo taught her mother and the other monkeys she came into contact with and over time more and more monkeys were washing their potatoes.

Imo’s practice catches on.

Well, the interesting observation is that after a significant minority (let’s say 100 monkeys to use a number) of the monkeys were washing their potatoes, the scientists observed that very quickly after this, all the monkeys were washing their potatoes.  Like a critical mass had been reached and now all the monkeys were able to access this knowledge somehow even if they did not come into contact with Imo and her friends.  More interesting is that scientists observed that at the same time, on other islands monkeys were also washing their potatoes.

It appears that when 99 monkeys were washing potatoes and one more joined, a critical mass was achieved and this awareness was now available to everyone (please don’t get hung up on the exact 99 or 100 numbers).

This is known as the 100 Monkey Theory.

———-

So. The foundation of the theory is when a certain critical number achieves an awareness of “something” (an attitude or behavior) that this new awareness may be communicated from mind to mind. A derivative of this idea has been called “the Cumulative Advantage.” The interesting aspect of this is the ‘island to island’ aspect.

These monkeys didn’t have internet.

Nor a classroom.

Nor any physical content.

This theory suggests that, although the exact number may vary, this 100 Monkey Phenomenon means that when only a limited number of people know a new behavior it may subconsciously reside as the conscious property of the collective people.

I actually believe it has nothing to do with subconscious, but rather that minds tend to evolve at equal paces and when a critical mass of brains accepts something as a good idea or a mode of behavior that idea is likely to be thought of & adopted elsewhere. I will suggest the internet leverages cumulative advantages like contagion.

Now. I really do not want to get hung up on the actual numbers it is fascinating to think that there is a point at which if only one more person absorbs the new attitude and changes its behavior that somehow this awareness is picked up by almost everyone. 100 monkeys (or any individuals with brains) is enough critical mass to ensure either extensive collaborative thinking or the presence of a superior individual innovative mind.  Either way the group attains the same objective – an innovative idea.

The group dynamic

The other aspect of this (with internet repercussions) is individual reason versus group reasoning. It is in The Enigma of Reason in which they posit individuals reason (but that is inherently biased and lazy), but when ‘reasons’ are encountered socially, in a group dynamic, reasoning expands.

In my own words I call this a ‘Ripple effect.’

Now: islands of information

—–

“Contagion will seep through almost any coordinated collection of people.”

Social Intelligence Daniel Goleman

—–

The internet redefines what islands are. It changes islands from physical to virtual amplifying the overall effects of learning –both useful & non-useful. In the past learning, as a result of the print revolution, was seen as an individual process shared by word of mouth and handing books from one to another. Learning as a result of the Internet revolution is an active process of communication between connected people. This can be shallow (soundbites) or it can be of substance (in-depth pieces, multiple sources).

However. Conceptually the 100 monkey ripple effect is exactly the same, just exponentially faster once traction occurs.

Which leads me to the concept of echo chambers. An article discussing internet echo chambers recently discussed the fact it is the content, not the echo chamber, that matters. I would argue it is a combination. Nothing of one thing is good – even knowledge and facts. Facts becomes stronger the more they are forged by conflict with other facts, lies, & perspective.

generational islands of behaviors

Now. There is an interesting subset of the study in which the ‘older monkeys remained steadfastly ignorant of the new behavior”:

———-

By March, 1958, 15 of the 19 young monkeys (aged two to seven years} and 2 of the 11 adults were washing sweet potatoes. Up to this time, the propagation of the innovative behavior was on an individual basis, along family lines and playmate relationships. Most of the young monkeys began to wash the potatoes when they were one to two and a half years old. Males older than 4 years, who had little contact with the young monkeys, did not acquire the behavior. The older monkeys remained steadfastly ignorant of the new behavior. (source: Elaine Myers)

———–

Adoption of new ideas is the real echo chamber. This suggests there is a resistance to new behavior the more steeped existing behavior is within an individual. Its possible connection between individuals increases adoption across generations, but the internet does not permit that experience – virtual experience is easier to ignore than physical experience.

Conceptually this suggests islands of similarly aged people. Conceptually this also hearkens back to The Enigma of Reason in that if the older individual monkeys do not interact with the younger monkeys their thinking remains biased & lazy (retaining the status quo).

Conclusion:

Trying to explain behavioral transition from specific tactics is very difficult – and it aggravates me when people try to associate specific expenditures or activity to create behavioral activity. This whole idea with 100 Monkeys is about doing things, real behavior, creating enough critical mass so that it gets recognized and absorbed in some subconscious way which inevitably creates the behavioral change desired.

I believe any one even remotely interested in creating cultural change should invest some time thinking about this theory. Instead of needing dollars to create change or wacky ideas to affect attitudes or investing energy trying to create “a wave of change” someone can focus on “the 100.” Creating change by focusing the few. Gosh.  Sure would make life a little simpler huh? (some people, like me for an example, call this creating an influencer base to influence mass behavior).

—————

“Where religious values might be relative, intellectual values fleeting, moral values ambiguous, and aesthetic values dependent upon an observer, the existence of any thing is infinite.”

John Gardner

———–

The last aspect is the lack of limit identification.

100 Monkeys clearly outlines the genesis. But what about the limits? Is contagion finite (beyond the age/generational aspect)? Or is contagion theoretically limitless? Is the existence of any thing truly infinite?

I would argue an idea, psychologically, has few limits. I would also argue behavior does have limits. In other words, anyone can think about doing something but not everyone can, or will, do something. it is within that discussion in which a business discerns the true potential of an idea.

Regardless.

You may not buy it.

You may not think people are related to monkeys.

You may think 100 isn’t enough (on islands or the internet).

But you should think about this because idea & thinking traction is pretty unpredictable but what I do know is that all ideas & behavior don’t arise from nowhere so 100 monkeys, and people, seems like a good place to begin.

==

“Out of clutter, find simplicity, from discard, find harmony, in the middle of difficulty lies opportunity.”

——————

Albert Einstein

==

Let’s talk Chaos.

Controlled chaos.

Disciplined Chaos.

I love them all. Go ahead. Pick one. It will not matter. I can guarantee any one of them will make people nervous. Why? Because chaos equals difficulty <as Albert suggests>.

So, chaos (or what may look like chaos but it’s not).

Ah. Where to start.

Me? I begin with why I am comfortable with the concept of some chaos in business. I figure, the bigger the possible mistake looks, the better chance I’ll have to do something really meaningful and, well, live. ‘Live’ meaning … getting the heart pumping type stuff. And chaos provides massive opportunities for mistakes … because … well … it is difficult … and, well, <as a corollary> also provides opportunities for some really neat successes.

The biggest success opportunities?

(a)    Organizing the chaos

(b)   Getting through the chaos unscathed

Ok. Here is a great visual metaphor example. Days of Thunder.  The movie <gosh … I have just been frickin’ waiting to use that movie as an example for something …>. There is a scene where the Robert Duvall character suggests that the way to get through the on-track wreck as a driver is to aim right for the middle of it … aim for the middle of all the chaos and movement and unplanned activity.  Sheer chaos.  And aim for the smack dab middle. And if you do so you get through the chaos unscathed … and ahead. How awesome is that? And how counter intuitive is that for most of us?

<Days of Thunder scene>

Anyway. Great advice. Ok. Excellent advice.

The thought that while everything is evolving and falling apart you can take advantage of the chaos by aiming right at it. Go into it with a vision in mind.

Anyway. Here is a truth to chew on. Almost all our real opportunities and discoveries, personal or professional, come from chaos. Opportunities arise by going to a place that looks chaotically wrong, stupid or foolish <or all of the above>.

And while I love the concept of chaos ultimately creating order I tend to believe in less random things than chaos … and, just to be clear, believe history is cyclical and stimulus-response (or cause & effect) and all these non-chaos logical semi-linear type thought process type things which seem counter to me liking chaos.

But while I don’t like chaos for its ‘un-orderliness’, I admit, I love the opportunities chaos creates.

So knowing what I know what I think about chaos I looked up some definitions or descriptions before I wrote <what I already knew in my pea like brain>:

There are two fundamental interdependent characterizations of chaos:

1. exponential sensitivity to small perturbations (also known as the Butterfly Effect), and
2. complex orbit structure (I think this is called Symbolic Dynamics).

And then there is this whole discussion/description of things they call “chaos control methods.”

Well. Yikes. Ok. Double yikes. Butterfly and symbolic and complex orbits and well … whatever. In general I don’t believe in this type of chaos in business.

(but I do love the fact someone came up with all these theory names)

I guess I think about the business concept of chaos as actually a big <or small> tangled ball of string.

In general I think things just get all tangled up <and people call it chaos>. So its not really chaos … it is just something non-chaotic tangled up for some reason <maybe that will make it more palatable to people?>. And it isn’t really chaos because to get tangled up people tend to have some objective in mind even just to get started.

It may not be well thought out.

It may actually even be impulsive behavior type actions <kind of like a series of knee jerk reactions and actions>.

It may even be misguided or ignorant action.

But. Somewhere in that tangle is a common thread. And therein lies the opportunities.

The opportunities are found in the trick of being patient and locating that piece of string to tug out of the mess and tease it out and then the whole mess unravels and becomes untangled and chaos is averted. That metaphor relates to organizational, ideation and creativity. Just think about it before you reject it.

Now. This is going to sound like a contradiction.

Averting chaos is in my nature. Yeah. This means I thrive in inserting myself in a chaotic <tangled> moment.

Translation?

Unraveling the tangled <chaos> is what floats my boat <which in some weird way almost suggests I thrive on chaos>. I really do not believe I am that different from people in the creative business or even some business “solvers of problems.’

Maybe it would help if I suggested some people simply thrive on chaos for bad reasons <because the lack of structure permits them to avoid making decisions or being responsible for things> and people like me thrive on chaos for good reasons <I see opportunities within as well as the satisfaction in solving or averting total chaos>.

Doesn’t mean I like thinking about it this way but I imagine <looking in the mirror> I do have a larger sense of self worth because chaos exists.  Maybe even self esteem <and certainly self actualization … just to close out all the Maslow stuff>. And I admit it does sound exciting to me to throw caution to the wind and dive right into the middle of a chaos situation.

Ironically, I believe I have some ability at spotting the order in what seems chaos to others <something sometimes referred to as pattern recognition>. And because I seem to put myself in these types of situations here are some things about enjoying ‘chaos solutions’ that I have seen:

seeing the whole more than the parts.

Pieces are pieces and parts are parts.

This is the “Days of Thunder” example. Gotta look at the horizon and focus because if you don’t … well … you can get smashed by the parts. In business this translates into seeing how the whole is different than the sum of its parts. Huh? Well. The truth is that parts can be put together in multiple ways to create an effective ‘whole.’ Once you recognize that you can keep fairly sane in some relatively insane chaotic moments.

a detachment from things.

Things are a part of the details, and therefore not something to which you can afford to become attached. Nuf said.

a frustration when details keep from advancing the big picture.

This one can really bite me in the ass every once in awhile. This is probably a corollary to the first thing I said. If you get stuck on what seems like a minor (but necessary) detail <lets call it parts> it can not only keep you from making any major advances on the big picture but you also increase the risk of getting smacked around by parts like in Days of Thunder. Mobility is key to success in a chaotic environment. Static means you get blindsided by something. Frankly, I don’t like getting smacked by some parts I know I could have avoided if I had been moving. So I like to keep moving. Regardless. Its gets frustrating when you get bogged down in details.

step by step plans can be frustrating.

Chaos is called chaos for a reason. Shit is swirling around everywhere. A step by step plan doesn’t always get you where you want … and often not quick enough to avert disaster <getting smacked by those damn moving parts> within chaos. Some people can’t function that way. They need step by step plans for everything. Me? I don’t get it. A famous general <Moltke> said “No plan of battle ever survives contact with the enemy.” Yeah. Well. People who need step by step plans? They don’t work well in chaos. I guess the corollary to that is I don’t work well with them in chaos.

Oh. And, from a personal perspective, chaos management is ALL about energy management. If you must create long-term goals you have to break them down as soon as you can and assign tasks. If you don’t … you expend wasted energy trying to envision a long term goal that, frankly, is difficult to envision through the massive swirling chaos in front of you.

You know you need to get somewhere.

You know you should get there as quickly as possible.

Some people don’t like to call it ‘gut’ <combined with some good experience> but there you go. The best at averting chaos just seem to know where to go.

And when you get there? Sure. Tell everyone that was the goal.  Who cares. You got there.

Next (and last).

You against the world … is … well … not possible <in general and with chaos>. Success in a chaotic world <or environment> is often defined by who your companions <partners in crime> are.

You need to have partners (in business or personal) who are more orderly than you and, maybe more importantly, are comfortable in your comfort in chaos.

That’s it. Chaos can be good.

All the time? Nope. Because, well, that is chaos. And chaos doesn’t move forward, it just swirls. But sometimes chaos can swirl around parts and they can be put back together again in a different way and that is good. Oh. And don’t forget … chaos well managed creates opportunities & generates energy.

Originally posted March 2012

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

“We’re in a time of rapidly expanding insights about human motivation and connection, but meanwhile our companies continue to be run with a perspective on human psychology and sociology circa 1970.”

Stowe Boyd

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

My quick response to the “No Boss, no Thanks” piece. I believe there is some misguided thinking (central authority is necessary, buck stops somewhere dependent upon one person, democratic decision making is inefficient/slow), but it was this particular part that galled me:

“Third, while technological miracles such as the internet, cheap and reliable wireless communication, Moore’s law, miniaturisation and information markets have induced sweeping changes in manufacturing, retail, transportation and communication, the laws of economics are still the laws of economics. And human nature hasn’t changed. The basic problem of management and business – how to assemble, organise and motivate groups of people and resources to produce goods and services that consumers want – is still the same. Since the industrial revolution, entrepreneurs have been organising extremely complex activities in firms that are neither completely centralised nor completely flat. Imagine the complexity involved in operating a national railroad, a steel mill or an automobile assembly plant in the 19th and early 20th centuries. These were all ‘knowledge-based activities’ and were conducted in teams organised in various structures. Are things so different today?”

First.

Yes. Things are ‘so different’. The uthors have completely missed what is the same and what is different about today’s business. I would suggest they read my piece, Distribution Revolution,  on what I believe is functionally the same and it also outlines what I believe is different.

Second.

I would highly recommend the authors pick up a copy of Toffler Future Shock, Third Wave and even Powershift, if they have the time, because they would find the answer to “are things so different today?” in books written in 1970 & 1980 if they cared to look. In fact. Part of my whole aggravation with this article is I feel like we have been debating the same ideas Toffler offered us since 1970.

Anyway.

If you ignore everything else I write, pay attention to this. Maximizing people’s potential doesn’t mean doing away with managers; it just means you maximize the potential of people AS managers. I am not naïve enough to believe we will do away with titles and experience based ‘management’. But. People are managers and managers are people. Period.

Anyway.

Let me use some Toffler to point out where the authors of the article went wrong.

context: accelerated world

Solving business challenges can be complicated, but business itself is complex (& always has been). Business people cannot afford to confuse complicated and complex. Now. What technology did is accelerate the complexity. The business atoms were placed into a supercollider. In fact, it accelerated business dynamics beyond the structure of a hierarchy or even centralized “buck stops somewhere” managers. That said. I think we confuse speed and acceleration all the time to the detriment of organizational design and behavior. Organizational design almost seems to inherently have a desire to decelerate to permit some sense of “its okay, you can feel comfortable with the speed of business” where I think we would be better off addressing the larger issue Toffler outlined: overstimulation. Acceleration tests our attention, cognitive skills and ability to discern what is important and what is not – which is actually a ‘speed’ versus velocity discussion. The article, by suggesting the basic business world is the same, ignores that, in a grander context, it is not. In fact, the article is incredibly misguided because it would appear to encourage insular cocooning rather than suggesting the challenge is to fully engage & manage overstimulation. I am not suggesting acceleration & overstimulation is not an issue, but I will suggest it is a reality and hierarchies (centralizing overstimulation) is not the way to increase the likelihood of business success. If I were to choose one aspect I wish organizational psychology would address, this is it.

Which leads me to connectedness.

everything is connected with everything

When I read simplistic tripe like “The basic problem of management and business – how to assemble, organise and motivate groups of people and resources to produce goods and services that consumers want” I can understand how hierarchies have been so resilient to a better way of doing things. In the past it was arranging lego blocks, now it is arranging molecules. Toffler discussed this in a variety of ways, but the most interesting was “porous organizations” in which teams assembled, and reassembled, in order to meet specific challenges. He outlined this in 1970. Nowhere in that concept did he discuss no bosses, but he did suggest in 1990 (Powershift) that the biggest challenge to this idea would be power. The new business normal faces two dynamics: power & interconnectedness. Needless to say, they are connected.

Which leads me to connecting.

the world as a merry go round

We seem to ‘design’ organizations on the playground then demand it to jump on the merry go round. Or, worse, leave it on the playground and suggest business is about plucking opportunities as they spin ‘round the merry go round. The best organizations will jump on the merry go round with the resources they have on hand and meet the demands of the business. The truth is the centrifugal force of the accelerated merry go round demands different configurations at different times. This will demand a variety of ‘bosses’ (albeit I dislike that word). Management is contextual. Unless you happen to have a Swiss army knife person (they exist but are fewer than most businesses have) this means everyone will lead & manage at some point. If the authors don’t understand this I fear they don’t understand today’s business world.

Which leads me to untidiness.

discomfort with untidiness

Businesses inherently love tidiness and hate untidiness. They associate predictability & certainty with being tidy and inefficiency & failures/mistakes with untidiness. Unfortunately, for business, mediocrity (or even slippery slope to irrelevance) resides in tidiness and spectacular success resides in untidiness.

While we like to think of organizations as a ship sailing into a tumultuous sea it is actually a fleet of smaller ships being pushed & shoved by tides and waves through storm & calm all trying to go in one direction together <without crashing into each other>. Each smaller ship has a captain and a crew <often skilled in managing that particular ship if needed>.

The ‘No Boss’ authors seem to associate ‘building a dynamic organization’ or even ‘motivating employees’ by inevitably suggesting one big ship making progress in some direction (although they give a head nod to a matrix organization). If you don’t like that metaphor just accept this: the “No Boss” authors seek tidiness. They are wrong.

I say all that because you invariably need to grow your business unevenly. Yup. Sorry. A business isn’t, probably shouldn’t be and most likely cannot be <and be successful> ‘even.’ Or smooth. Or without any ragged edges. It needs to be grown unevenly <which is actually a natural growth rather than some manufactured growth>.

“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.”

—–

Claire DeWitt

Which leads me to freedom.

discomfort with freedom

Business, for decades & thru hierarchy, has always been built around selective freedoms – maybe ‘controlled freedom.’ Business people, in general, are much more comfortable building stop signs than they are highways.  Toffler spent almost an entire book outlining how technology will create a freedom ‘shock’ (Future Shock) and an entire book on the shock to the power structures (Powershift).

“No Boss” reflects a fear of freedom & loss of power. Period.

Which leads me to belief.

belief.

Unfettered freedom CAN lead to chaos. So we come up with a number of behavioral & motivational tricks to attach to versions & steps to implement aspects of distributed leadership mostly because we ignore what we know about individual behavior and we have a healthy skepticism toward managers & management in general.

Gamification, carrots & sticks, incentives, milestones are all derivatives of hierarchy thinking trying to adapt to a relentlessly uncertain world. They are attempts to build in some certainty. Yet. Behaviorally we know the most powerful motivation has nothing to do with ‘defeating’ a system/objective/goal, but rather it’s about ‘belief.’ Defeating is someone wins, someone loses. Belief is like hope. It draws people toward it.

That said. It’s a twofold belief challenge.

Business owners, managers as such, need to believe in people. They need to believe if given the opportunity to make choices, do the right things, the arc of people behavior (driven by intentions) will bend toward productivity & profitability. Note. This means business community needs to embrace a lack of output smoothness (a perception & reality challenge in & of itself).

========

“I don’t exactly know what I mean by that, but I mean it.”

The Catcher in the Rye

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

As a corollary. People need to believe in people (themselves). While we may innately know we can make decisions, assume responsibility & do the right things, the business world has not encouraged people to think that way. In fact. It has often penalized us for thinking that way. Many people almost don’t believe they should have responsibility or that they will not benefit by doing the right things. If we can align belief, than construct, as it currently exists, falls apart naturally (as not conducive to the belief) & people will inherently access their potential because barriers to believing they have that potential are stripped away.

Yes. Some of the ‘tricks’ may be useful but looking at the gobs of absurd articles & books with regard to organizational psychology it appears we have missed they are all means to an end and maybe we should seek to identify the end and encourage managers and people to believe in the power of belief.

I ended with Belief because at the core of “No Boss” is a belief that control, in some dimension, is necessary. I wrote in my “Purpose of Business is to benefit People” piece   that this is a reflection of not believing in people. I don’t blame the authors here because, well, there are a shitload of business thought leaders who not only do not believe in people but don’t believe “belief” is enough to guide people.

In the end.

The “No Boss” article is exactly what I hear from 50somethings holding onto the existing business construct with ragged claws.

Self-governing organizations are nothing new, even the Greeks were big fans, and Toffler began the vague outlines of how technology would widen the cracks in what we already knew – hierarchies were standardization models and people, and business, tend to thrive when non standardized. All that said. “No Boss, No Thanks” is tripe. Business drivel. Stowe Boyd called it “misunderstanding the nature of management” ; I call it just another example of fear of freedom couched in some poisoned fortune cookie wisdom. It ignores the most basic principles laid out in Toffler’s Future Shock & Third Wave that business normal was being shaken like an etch a sketch. And, in particular, it ignores Toffler’s third book, Powershift, by thinking power will always reside within some aspect of centralization & centralized thinking. It will not. They confuse centralized thinking with coalesced thinking. Centralized is inside out and coalesced is outside in where it is a reflection of, as Stowe suggests, ‘everyone is management.’

I’m certainly not as smart & insightful as Alvin Toffler, or Stowe Boyd, but even I know this “No Boss” article reflects not only a misunderstanding of distributed leadership but, more concerning, a misunderstanding of ‘business normal’ as it exists today.

Postscript:

I encourage everyone to revisit the Toffler trilogy. He shares a number of interesting thoughts:

• The Electronic Cottage: where remote work force becomes integral part of organizations
• The New Worker: where responsibilities become agile & diverse

 ===

    “Beware the barrenness of a busy life.”

    –

Socrates

===

Well. We are constantly cramming stuff into our lives … personal and business.

And sometimes we need to assess our cramming or at least report upon it.

I thought about this as I helped a young man fine tune his resume.

Now.

This isn’t about how to list all the stuff you do and have done <and assessing it>.

This isn’t about trying to get more done in less time. This isn’t even about ways to do more stuff.  Because, suffice it to say, most of us cram a lot of stuff into our daily lives without even thinking about it.

This isn’t even about ‘are we doing anything truly meaningful with our lives” because I believe “meaningful” has been bastardized to such a point where we have lost sight of reality. What do I mean? I would argue that in the moment most of us would judge our actions as “meaningful” in some degree.

I am either fulfilling a responsibility <my job description for example> or doing something I have chosen to do. These choices are usually not flippant they are a reflection of judging what is most meaningful to needs & wants in the moment.

Where it gets bastardized is in reflection.

Most of our stuff is unglamorous and much of it is the day in and day out unsexy, slow, going hard won steps we take in moving our life and career forward. Most of it represents overwhelming piles of a bunch of stuff crammed on top of whatever your greater mission is <which is most likely making your Life & career better> and therefore in the rear view mirror looks like a boring two lane highway stretching back as far as the eye can see <or a big pile of meaningless stinky stuff>.

But. Here is the truth. Most of us cram a lot of stuff into our lives. And a lot of good useful meaningful stuff. Yes. My stuff will be different than your stuff, but realistically it is pretty stupid to compare my stuff to your stuff because “stuff” can come in a variety of sizes, shapes, colors and quantities.

And that is where this young man’s resume helped me think about this.

“Look at what I crammed into my 6 year professional Life.”

That’s what a resume reflects. Mine is “look at what I crammed into my 25+ year professional Life.” My life resume would be “look at what I crammed into my 50something Life.”

Unfortunately other people will ‘judge’ your stuff based on ‘meaningful’ but I imagine, whether we believe it is our responsibility or not, it is up to you to explain why the stuff mattered. Because it did.

In fact … it ALL did.

It may not look that meaningful on paper or on some screen and you may feel your shoulders sag a little thinking “jesus, is this all I did in my Life/career”. But you should take a close look. Not at the stuff on the paper but at what that stuff represented in the context of the moment and the choices made, and not made, and what resulted from that ‘stuff choice’ as you crammed another thing in.

Sure. In a resume or even in discussion on “what have you done in your Life” you have to take a moment and understand that someone is going to judge the stuff you crammed into your Life.

That’s just part of Life <and business>

I think what I am suggesting, though, is that instead of focusing on “what keywords I need to put in my resume’ or ‘what purpose does my Life serve” when trying to explain yourself that you frame your thinking around “well, I have to assume I am not an oblivious idiot and that when I was doing stuff, in general, I assume I was choosing to do what I believed was most meaningful in that time & place.”

And explain the meaningful.

I could very easily argue that someone who has maintained one job in their entire Life has crammed the same amount <quantity> of stuff into their Life, and career, as someone who has had 12 jobs in 12 different cities.

I could also very easily argue that in both of those scenarios both of those someones have done a lot of meaningful stuff.

I could also very easily argue that both someones have a lot to offer.

They would just have different stuff crammed in and most likely offer some different things because of the stuff they crammed in. some stuff leads to focused expertise and some stuff leads to broad generalist perspective and some stuff affects your life/work balance and some stuff affects your overall attitudes and behaviors.

But all the stuff we cram into our Life & career matters.

Oh. But that last point said.

I could also very easily argue that cramming stuff into Life and career isn’t about judging ‘good choice versus bad choices’ <or even regrets> because, well, I will end where I began — we cram a lot of stuff into Life. No one’s life, no matter how busy or non busy it is, is barren. And it is silly to suggest that. Sure. We may lose sight of some important things on occasion but that does not constitute ‘barren.’

In fact, it cannot be barren because, well, we cram our Life & career with a lot of stuff <most of it meaningful when done>.