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

fearlessly-fiona:

“I’m an adult” I whisper as I try not to panic while I’m filling in all those forms that I don’t understand.

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

“Liminal” means “relating to a transitional stage” or “occupying a position at both sides of a boundary.”

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

Ok.

First. Liminal spaces are real spaces.

Liminal spaces are throughways from one space to the next. Places like rest stops, stairwells, trains, parking lots, waiting rooms, airports feel weird when you’re in them because their existence is not about themselves, but the things before and after them. They have no definitive place outside of their relationship to the spaces you are coming from and going to. Reality feels altered here because we’re not really supposed to be in them for a long time for think about them as their own entities, and when we do they seem odd and out of place.

Second. I plan on discussing liminal spaces as intangible mental spaces.

If you feel that you are anxiously floating in the inbetween perhaps you are in The Liminal Space. The word “liminal” comes from the Latin word limens, which means, “threshold.”

“… it is when you have left the tried and true, but have not yet been able to replace it with anything else.

Okay.

Mentally this in-between is a space in which we have lost context and, uhm, uh oh, our brains love context <and hate lack of context>. This ‘hate’ translates into discomfort, maybe some anxiety and absolutely an innate mental desire to get the hell out of that space and into some space where we can reengage some context.

Rationally we know these spaces are irrational and we can mentally stifle the anxiety … for a while. Because no matter how good we are at stifling it there will always be an underlying sense of uneasiness. In business you either figure out how to manage the anxiety or you are never gonna make it in the business world.

Why? Because a career is riddled with these moments and spaces.

All that said.

I think we, as people, enter liminal spaces in our heads all the time. I don’t mean every minute I just mean on a fairly consistent basis we lose some context and enter into some wretched mental in-between space where, well, we feel uncomfortable. We feel uncomfortable because we are mentally in some transition space from which we cannot envision what will be there <outside this wretched space> when we actually find the exit we can leave the space by.

Yeah.

Unfortunately, while we seek an exit to get out of the liminal space we also feel uncomfortable because <insert a ‘shit’ here mentally> the next step may actually place us into a tangible “unknown” place.

Not only does that suck, but we do not like that it sucks. It is a weird combination of tangible and intangible and  shitload of unknown.

It feels tangible as in you walk in some blank-ish vanilla type room and actually exit by some door which appear at some point. That part we may not like but we can semi-understand.

And, yet, at the same time this space is truly 100% intangible <lacking context> which creates a sense of instability and warped perception space. I imagine a lot of people flail about a bit in this space trying to not only find context or something tangible to hold onto, but also a frickin’ door to get out of this wretched liminal space. All the while we flail about in a space which naturally encourages some confusion and a lot of “things seem off” feelings. I would argue part of our angst is we seek some one-dimensionality in this space. What i mean by that is our natural inclination is to seek some linear path <this & that> to get us from what feels like it should be “here to there.” But the truth is liminal spaces, in their vastness, are multidimensional spaces in which the really important doors open up not on some simplistic one-dimensional pathway but rather as a combination of dimensional fragments put together in some way that unlocks an unseen door.

Which leads me to ‘Worse’. It not only feels wrong, but feels like something is going to go wrong. You cannot really put your finger on it <although most of us try desperately to try to put a finger on something> and it increases anxiety.

Sometimes that anxiety is high and sometimes it is just a bothersome niggling in the head, but it is anxiety nonetheless <and it is uncomfortable>. The anxiety occurs because reality is not really being altered, but it appears slightly warped. It is kind of like looking through an imperfect piece of glass – where things can look a little fuzzy or odd. Its kind of like time has warped a little and you are coming and going at the exact same time where in the blur of the transition your brain is suggesting “this is not good … this is not normal” and you desperately want to move on, but cannot find that frickin’ exit.

All that sounds horrible.

Oh. And it sounds particularly horrible if we are talking about the business world. The fact is that business people are more often than not judged on how well, and how quickly, they can navigate the mental liminal space.  We, in business, don’t really talk about it much but a lot of the shit we do is transitioning from the known to some version of known/unknown. That’s kind of what managers and leaders do. And it is certainly a main component of shifting from a young less-responsible employee to an older more experienced responsible employee/manager. Heck. Its change management 101.

Along the way the stepping stones are actually lily pads with differing expanses, dimensions & depths of water in between. You either navigate the transitions or drown in the liminal space.

Oh. And, yet, liminal spaces are also throughways to places of the imagination – kind of the construction sites of “what will be.”

We like that kind of shit. That’s ‘future’ and ‘hope of something better’ type stuff.

That thought helps us out a little. It helps because this isn’t the kind of stuff that gives any tangible context, but it does give us some fortitude to get through this space.

Anyway.

I admit. I love the whole concept of a liminal space and I do believe if more people not only learned to manage the anxiety & angst of a liminal space AND embraced the fact it was a valuable transitional space … well … we would be much more efficient & effective in business and in Life in gaining the more valuable “what could be’s” — which are what we all live for anyway.

Ponder.

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

“Capitalism is the only engine credible enough to generate mass wealth. I think it’s imperfect, but we’re stuck with it. And thank God we have that in the toolbox. But if you don’t manage it in some way that incorporates all of society, if everybody’s not benefiting on some level and you don’t have a sense of shared purpose, national purpose, then it’s just a pyramid scheme.”

David Simon

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

“It’s not personal. It’s strictly business”

The Godfather

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

I do not get (understand) investing, VC evaluation and startup support in general. Ok. I get it, it just confuses me. And I say that having:

• Been on both the good and the bad side of a VC takeover: buying out a profitable business seeing an opportunity to make it more profitable by running it better & buying out a business to break it apart to make money
• Been in multiple startup incubators (B2B & consumer) and seen a wide range of technology to non-technology startup ideas (good and bad)

All that said. Don’t ask me to explain how startups get funding, how VCs evaluate & invest nor how some ‘successful’ startups continue to get money <although this piece, “What I wish someone had told me about Venture Capitalists‘, does a nice job>. No matter how many times I’ve been involved in the process or been asked to evaluate businesses, I seem to be on the wrong side of the evaluation ‘brain.’ Why? Well. That has an easy answer. I like businesses that make money as in ‘profit’, not revenue, as my main criteria. Doesn’t mean I don’t care about revenue or the bullshit buzzword of the day, ‘scale’ (which is simply another bullshitty way of saying ‘growth’), but I like to stack profit dollars on top of profit dollars rather than cross my finger a business will cross the ‘making lots of unprofitable revenue’ Rubicon to the ‘hey, all this revenue is now profitable’ side.

** note: the exception would be what I call the ‘enabler idea products.’ These are the products which I usually call, in my non-startup pea like brain, the engine part ideas. They see the world as an engine and they develop parts which can replace existing parts or be inserted into the engine to make it run more efficiently or effectively – software ideas often fit this criteria.

What I will say is that the startup industry has become a master pyramid scheme in which the investors hope that one of the pyramid scheme bets pays for all the other bad bets. And you know what? Sometimes they do. And you know what? More often they do not. They have made capitalism a pyramid scheme. They encourage us to view business, all business and the economy, as one big gambler’s bet. And because they do they have reshaped the larger economy (forcing larger businesses to view innovation as a gambler’s bet too – if not their own business).

You may think I may be misguided or even wrong. But play a game. How many well known ‘successful’ technology startup like businesses are making a profit? Amazon? Kind of. Uber? Nope. Wework? Nope. Shit. Go into the best startup incubators, maybe even audit Techstars (who I like and admire). How many are making a profit (but showcase revenue)? Zero (okay … not many). It’s a gambler’s game. American capitalism has become a pyramid scheme. Can big business benefit? Sure. They can look at the gamblers and then buy the winners and absorb them. It limits their innovation ROI risk, but costs them in the purchase.

** note: I would suggest that many larger businesses are actually more well positioned to develop these more successful ideas but they tend to either (a) have a poor new idea evaluation process or (b) do not approach ‘startup idea innovation’ in a way that enables the focus & investment needed to make it successful.

To be clear. Companies like Techstar basically serves as the big business ‘brain’ that a small startup cannot afford.

That said. Even the exceptions I highlighted, the enabler idea products, are a gamblers game.

Here is where this version of pyramid scheme has an even darker underbelly. Conflicting interests. This new model of capitalism is an attempt to get around inefficiencies and costs imposed by larger business, but creates an ambiguous allocation of rights, and ownership as well as an ambiguous business model. Simplistically, everyone is in to get their money (let’s call it at its worst: greed). Even if the founder/owner truly isn’t overcome with a greed muscle and simply is in it for the idea, there is a dilution of control (under the guise of ‘freedom to innovate that engages a market that doesn’t yet exist’). This is nuts. Fringe business malpractice, but, simplistically, nuts. As I have noted most of the most successful businesses, and profitable ones, aren’t particularly disruptive at their onset nor do they ‘think outside the box’, but rather see the box and reconfigure it. And they make money.

I call this lazy capitalism (when I am being generous) and pyramid scheme capitalism (when I am not being generous).

** note: this pyramid scheme has a variety of bloodsuckers. For example, I have sat in on or eavesdropped on dozens of business people looking to pick the pockets of founders – the social media structuralists, the PR scale people, the ‘organic growth’ disruptors, the brand builders, the startup marketing futurists – who slither their way into founder’s (investors) wallets.

Look. I am all for startups with appealing ideas and driven founders getting the expertise they need quickly and the funding necessary to give them some traction that they may otherwise would have no access to. But over 80% of startups fail because, uhm, there is no market for their idea. and, no, this isn’t because they see a future no one else can see (i.e., they are visionaries), but rather because THERE IS NO MARKET FOR THAT IDEA.

** note: I have never seen an angel investor or any investor sit in on those ‘pick pocket presentations’ I mentioned in my last note. If they did, they would not only hear how stupid (nonexistent possible success, i.e., ‘no real market for that idea’) some ideas they have invested in, but would also watch a pick pocket in action.

The flow of money into the startup world is absurd. I look at that money and can only dream about what it could do if invested elsewhere. But it will not stop. Why? Greed. That’s what pyramid schemes work in the first place. Greed. Easy money. All that bullshit.

There has to be a better way – and there is. Startups have a place in the world and investing in them in which dreams turn into viable businesses is actually good for capitalism. It’s a funded Schumpeter Creative Destruction and I love that. Family companies have, and should have, a new lease on life. Public companies SHOULD be challenged as they try and squeeze out more profits through their operations in a variety of misguided ways. Short term mentality, archaic hierarchies, status quo onerous non-digital business models should be gamed out. All that said. A pyramid scheme non profitable lazy capitalism startup investment model is not the way to do it. An insurgent economy should be a hybrid of smart idea, money making, startups and large public company smart non-standardization (I hesitate to call it agile so let’s say adaptable, antifragile) money-making longer-term business sense making.

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

“A job is the ultimate pyramid scheme.”

Ken Poirot

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

I believe we are seeing a shift in the underpinnings of the business world. I may not agree with all the “its about culture” people or the “purpose over profit” people, but I do believe, and have for quite some time, business is transitioning from an outcome only mentality to more of a “business is more than just business” mentality. I do believe technology is playing a role and while not in the ‘digital transformation’ camp I believe augmenting humans and thinking-conceptually-sensemaking is edging its way into the ‘way we do business.’ Someone said awhile back that business is learning that to ‘outbehave’ is the path to better performance. Within that idea is part technology and part people. Within that idea is where the startup world may find its most fruitful investments – ideas that outbehave created by a mindset that seeks to outbehave the status quo (ethically & service). Ponder.

=======

“Aesthetics is the shop window, ultimately, if there’s nothing in that shop, it has no longevity, do you know what I mean?”

Geri Halliwell

———————-

Well. Of all people in the world I never thought I would read ex-Spice Girl Geri Halliwell <Ginger Spice?> saying something relevant to business and actually use it to write something.

Anyone who has ever worked with me has heard me use the “fluff and fold” reference.

Fluff is the aesthetics.

Fold is the value.

Fluff is puffery.

Fold is the substance.

Look. We like the aesthetics. Maybe even love it, adore it and bond with it. But without the fold, the value and functionality, we end up disappointed in the aesthetics and will inevitably move on to the next thing to adore. In other words, we just see the fluff.

And, while I have never articulated this thought like Geri, I have tried to say it over and over and over again in meeting after meeting after, well, meeting. Perception is not reality. Reality is reality and if your aesthetics don’t match reality you are screwed.

I do know it is one of the most consistent discussions in business positioning, selling and marketing. And it will continue to do so because there is a natural tension between “fluffers” and “folders.”

While the most strident of each wish it would be 100% at the exclusion of their kindred enemy, most of everyone fall into a natural 80/20 versus 20/80 Pareto rule.

A fluffer understands that substance is necessary, just maybe as a period at the end of the interesting fluff.

The folder grudgingly accepts that aesthetics are necessary, just maybe as a “once upon a time” entrée to the main story of substance.

It really doesn’t matter which side you fall on in this discussion the debate revolves around the same issues time and time again:

• If they are not interested <sometimes confused with ‘entertained’> they will not pay attention
• Everybody is stressed for time and if you don’t engage them in the first 10 seconds you have lost them <a hyperbole statement at best>
• People are tired of bullshit and just want you to cut to the chase <flawed logic because this assumes substance/rational sell itself>

But regardless of how often all of us fall into this tired argument, this is where most trains go off the tracks.

Suffice it to say, businesses get mesmerized by aesthetics.

If I hear one more quote about “first impressions count” or “they have to like you before they can enter into a brand dialogue” or, well, any of the semi-intellectual strategic crap that flippantly gets tossed around like the newest office toy sitting on the conference room table … I will puke.

In the simplistic dialogues that take place you inevitably find people debating what is more important — when it isn’t a matter of importance; it is a matter of balance <or proportion>. And, yet, while I sense we all know that balance is the answer we seem to consistently slide down the slippery slope of fluff under the guise of “the substance is complex and we need to simplify!”

Huh?

Everyone wants ‘the one thing.’

Everyone wants ‘the formula.’

Nuts.

That is what I say to that.

Nuts.

Substance is substance. I am not suggesting you have to serve it up in some complex unpalatable way, but substance, more often than not, is not simple. And if we try and simplify substance too much, uh oh, it becomes … uhm … fluff.

In the end.

You cannot just have fluff.

You cannot just have fold.

You have to have both in some form or fashion. And more often than not there is no formula, but <I have to tell ya> if you can balance your fluff and fold in a quasi-50/50 split <maybe 40% fluff & 60% fold> you have a very good chance of delivering relevant information in a palatable way.

Oh. That word may get me in trouble … “palatable.”

Look. I am clearly in the substance <fold> camp.

While I enjoy the fluff I find that it maddeningly takes up an excessive amount of energy and focus away from substance <fold> which is inevitably what represents the effectiveness of whatever idea you are sharing.

But I have also learned, and have the scars to show, that ideas, even great bigly ideas, do not explain themselves, do not sell themselves and are often not attractive in their black & whiteness. I have learned that, while starkness has its time & place, businesses <and people in general> engage with things that have a more rich & royal hue.

I imagine all us business folk should remember the famous words of that ex-Spice Girl Geri:

Aesthetics matter … but … if there is nothing in that shop … well … there is no longevity … is there?

Stick with the Spice Girl advice and you may actually do well.

===========

“The advantage of the incomprehensible is that it never loses its freshness.”

Paul Valéry

==========

“The moment you decide an event is impossible and therefore stop directing your attention to it is the moment when it will take place.”

General Petro Grigorenko

========

“This may be the most important proposition revealed by history: ‘At the time, no one knew what was coming.”

Haruki Murakami

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

Well. I have lots of discussions about the future with people and it continuously surprises me on how confident people are with regard to what will, or will not, happen. In fact, I find it slightly incomprehensible until I remember that the incomprehensible, in all its forms, has a certain allure.

The incomprehensible has a certain freshness of inevitable believability that some people are addicted to <and blind to the possibility it will never happen>.

Uh oh.

The incomprehensible has a certain inevitable un-believability that some people are married to (and blind to the possibility it could actually occur>. The incomprehensible appeals to both those convinced it will never happen and to those who are convince it will happen.

Now. That said. We attack the incomprehensible in a variety of ways trying to comprehend it.

Research/experimenting

Innovation methodology: stage gating as an example

Pick your “assessing likelihood of incomprehensible” methodology but, well, 90% of new businesses fail, over 60% of new products fail and The Law of Unintended Consequences guarantees the unforeseen is almost more likely to happen than the foreseen. Yet. Even all that knowledge doesn’t slow us down one bit with our love/hate relationship with the unknown, i.e., the incomprehensible. We love the thought of finding something that seemed incomprehensible. We love that ‘holy shit’ feeling.

Here is the weird thing. Despite our love of the incomprehensible we plan our days to the minute, plan projects and tasks in excruciating detail and ‘plan out’ to eliminate any risk and uncertainty and, well, incomprehensible we can feasibly plan out. I would point out that all this really does is foster the timeless tradition of second guessing and seeking blame as soon as the incomprehensible occurs.

Regardless.

The incomprehensible always remains fresh because, as a Life truth, it consistently confirms to us that at no time no one knew what was coming.

Yup.

You can be pessimistic <and be proven right … or wrong>.

You can be optimistic <and be proven right … or wrong>.

But, in general, before being proven anything, you are guessing. Sure. You can make an educated guess, and the odds may be higher or lower based on what you decide to do, but someone is lying if they say “I knew it was going to end up that way” or “we should have seen that coming.”

That’s bullshit. We do not know. We often guess <sometimes well, sometimes not so well> under the guise of planning. Maybe worse is we often guess under the guise of ‘scrutinizing history.’

Uh oh. A fact.

‘History teaches by analogy, not identity.’

Henry Kissinger

People tend to mistake a study of history, or a historical moment, for proof of what is to come and, in fact, it sure does look like a frickin’ smart thing to do when going backwards in time and connecting dots <even when the connection is tenuous at best>. But, just a reminder about what Hank said: History teaches by analogy, not identity. This means that the lessons of history are never automatic or formulas for the future. The truth is that they can be apprehended only by admitting a range of multidimensional factors <unique context matters>, assessing the significance of each factor <individually and in combinations – I believe that is called “complimentarity”> and that the answers we obtain will never be better than the questions we pose.

————————–

“From this, one can make a deduction which is quite certainly the ultimate truth of jigsaw puzzles: despite appearances, puzzling is not a solitary game: every move the puzzler makes, the puzzlemaker has made before; every piece the puzzler picks up, and picks up again, and studies and strokes, every combination he tries, and tries a second time, every blunder and every insight, each hope and each discouragement have all been designed, calculated, and decided by the other.”

Georges Perec, Life A User’s Manual

=======

Like it or not situations exist in time more than in space. At any given moment a moment is but a collection of individuals and things bringing to bear all their collective experiences and things. Reassembling that multi-dimension of ‘collective’ is next to impossible. What this means is that when viewing the past incomprehensible, trying to make it comprehensible, you will find it is contingent to a unique set of factors.

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

“For the lessons of historical experience, as of personal experience, are contingent.

They teach the consequences of certain actions, but they cannot force recognition of comparable situations.

Henry Kissinger

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

Uhm. Cannot force recognition of comparable situations.  This is why I scratch my head when some people are so sure on the future. If the incomprehensible is contingent upon a unique set of factors than you would have to be able to look into some crystal ball which unravels what will BE unique (that is impossible isn’t it?) to see what the future configuration of contingent factors is.

Well. That’s nuts. No one can do that.

In the end.

I believe all of us would probably like to have a better sense of how to plan for the future and to better understand the best and proper actions to take to maximize the future in some form or fashion.

Therefore we do the best we can, most often that means examining the past to assess actions affecting the future, trying to understand consequences for our decisions yet to be made. The intent is good and true.

However. We should never confuse honest intent with ‘what is right.’

We simply hear the echoes of footsteps but never meet their owners until they actually enter our lives. And, frankly, you cannot control all that ‘are coming by and by into our lives.’ At each point in time no one knew what was coming, therefore, no one can truly know what is coming. I imagine it is helpful for us to remind ourselves on occasion that just when we are absolutely positively 100% sure that something is impossible or incomprehensible — it occurs.

Just remember this about the incomprehensible. We don’t know what we don’t know AND we don’t know half of what we really do know. It is difficult to accept the fact that today, in the moment, in the middle of change, no one … let me repeat … NO ONE has the right answer. We are simply asking the right questions at the moment and doing our best to adapt as we learn.

And therein maybe lies the greatest lesson about the incomprehensible – change is about adapting.

Sure. Having a vision is good and there are multiple ways to reach the ‘end game. But, in the end, change is change and the incomprehensible is the incomprehensible. Plus. If we knew exactly what the change was and what was needed and what was truly incomprehensible and what wasn’t, well, we would be really smart sonuvabitches, wouldn’t we ? Almost incomprehensible to think that though. Ponder.

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

Prouver que j’ai raison serait accorder que je puis avoir tort. -Pierre Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais

“Proving that I am right would be admitting that I could be wrong.”

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

“No enterprise can exist for itself alone.

It ministers to some great need, it performs some great service, not for itself, but for others…or failing therein, it ceases to be profitable and ceases to exist.”

Calvin Coolidge

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

“Let’s be honest. There’s not a business anywhere that is without problems. Business is complicated and imperfect. Every business everywhere is staffed with imperfect human beings and exists by providing a product or service to other imperfect human beings.”

Bob Parsons

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

Originally posted in 2017

Let me take a minute and discuss “fraternite” in business.

Just a reminder but “fraternite” is one of the  French values of Liberté, Fraternité and Egalité (“liberty, equality, fraternity/brotherhood” the national motto of France).

Anyway. Business. Inevitably a great organization exhibits both efficient AND effective progress. What typically creates that combination is part discipline, part structure (systems), part leadership, all glued together by “fraternité”. That ‘glue’ is most often discussed in the American business world as ‘a vision’ or maybe ‘a purpose’ or even ‘culture.’ We do so because we Americans hate any kind of lack of specificity. But the truth is that the most common bond of a great organization is a more nebulous concept, i.e., one of “fraternité”.

Or.

“Any man aspires to liberty, to equality, but he cannot achieve it without the assistance of other men, without fraternity.”

Napoleon

Oddly enough, while this sounds like relatively common sense, I kind of feel like business itself needs a revolution to overturn the current thinking to accommodate what should be common sense.

What do I mean? Current business is kind of in a wacky spot. It talks a lot about vision and purpose and culture as if they are “things” — like maybe a lighthouse anyone can see as they bob around the chaotic sea of business life to find a way home. By the way, I would argue that is a very individualistic thought — “I can find my way home” type thought – and not really a team thought <but that could quite easily be debated>.

Regardless. Fraternity is more like “everyone not only knowing what they need to do to keep the ship afloat but actually pitching in whether needed or not because they love the ship itself.” That may sound like some wacky nuance, but I have to warn people that revolutions can kind of gain some momentum off of some fairly wacky things on occasion. By the way, this thought is a more nebulous “I feel this way” aspect of organizational culture and, as noted many times, if it cannot be measured or indexed or scored.

** note: most older leaders into today’s business just don’t like that kind of shit – things they cannot measure or score.

Anyway. Not to beat this metaphor to death, but I do believe we need a semi-revolution in the way business organizations are created and run and managed. I think we may need that revolution because “fraternité” as a core principle just ain’t the way business is run today. And, yes, it should be viewed as a “core” principle because … uhm … when discipline falls apart, when structure falls apart, when leadership falls apart what keeps you on the battlefield and fighting is … yeah … “fraternité.” Yeah, yeah, yeah. A lot of people talk about a “community” or “company team” or some other nice sounding platitude which sounds a lot like “fraternité”, but its mostly lip service. Its lip service because fraternité is a ‘collective’ thought and most businesses reward and incentivize individuals.

Anyway. On a bigger organizational level I worry about how an idea like this is getting suffocated by generational issues <younger people desire something and older people think they know the best> and maybe an outcome-is-the-only-thing-that-matters worldview versus a belief business should incorporate altruistic aspects. Both of those conflicts are HUGE issues. I have written about in 1200+ word thought pieces on both of these but, on the former, the best piece I can share is from Corporate Rebels “Cut The Crap: The Made-Up Nonsense About Generations At Work” which states all people want meaning at work (regardless of age or generational label).

I actually believe we need some revolutionary thinking on the latter. To me we have a bunch of people who look at business and turn away to non-profit because … well … I fear that they only believe they can change the world through more altruistic pursuits and not traditional business. And, yes, they are important and good pursuits but, from a larger perspective, business drives the world. Business makes shit that makes lives easier and healthier and impacts the home and life in ways that it is difficult to imagine let alone outline in a few words <and the business office/working groups creates behavioral cues which ripple out into culture>.

Somehow … someway … we need to insert the ‘believers of principles and principled behavior’ into the business world with all of their ambition and hope and remind them, empower them and enable them that they can change the world.

That they can make the world a better place. They can make society and people and lives better. And they can do it in and through business, not just altruistic career opportunities. If we do that, and do that well, I tend to believe we will build more organizations driven at its core by a sense of “fraternité” rather than a bunch of documents setting out some guiding or shared values, vision and purpose which everyone says “okay … let’s do that.”

What I do know is that … well … read the following quote:

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

“I have found no greater satisfaction than achieving success through honest dealing and strict adherence to the view that, for you to gain, those you deal with should gain as well.”

Alan Greenspan

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

I do believe we need to be drawing some lines in business. And I don’t mean company handbook type lines or even some well-crafted ‘lines’ in “how we conduct our business” or “who we are” but maybe they are more lines with regard to some unwritten principles.

I say that because when you can gather a group of people together who share a strong set of principles they will walk straight into a hail of bullets to not only survive, but to get good shit done.

==========

“Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace.

Oscar Wilde

===========

Now. Business absolutely makes dealing with your principles a constant struggle. It can kind of suffocate your principles in between the pragmatic aspects of getting shit done <discipline & structure> and how that shit is designed to meet specific objectives/results and the faux burden of some vision or grander purpose which “you know is important to us therefore it should be important to you”, i.e., extrinsic importance not intrinsic importance. Frankly, when suffocated by these bookends you don’t have a lot of elbow room for any type of true, intangible, unsolicited camaraderie.

The fraternité is more forced than natural. Obviously, when it is not natural it is not as strong.

In the end.

Fraternité in business. I believe we have forgotten this. And while I do believe many of us have forgotten how to draw lines with regard to our principles I tend to believe business, in general, has simply decided to just draw lines <in a box in fact> and say “there you go”, i.e., there are your principles and rules for camaraderie.

That is kind of whack.

Look. I can honestly tell you that being a senior leader in a business and organization you like <you do not have to love> may be one of the greatest experiences anyone can ever have. What makes that experience truly great is when you are fortunate enough to foster something intangible, something that really cannot be measured, and something which doesn’t earn you some performance bonus at the end of the year … it is when you stumble upon the sense of fraternité.

I am sure some organizational guru will send me a link to “steps to build a fraternité organization” and … well … good for them. I tend to believe this is one of those intangible things that is created less by some “how to” guide or some formula and more by simple good intentions combined with some good discipline, construct and leadership. To steal another word from the motto, by creating a fraternité organization you inevitably create liberté for the organization to be the best version of what it can be.

This is what I thought about today and “liberty, equality, fraternity <brotherhood>”. With that I imagine I should end with where I began … no enterprise can exist for itself alone. That is the foundation for a fraternité organization. Ponder.

=====

“If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up people together to collect wood and don’t assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea.”

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

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

“The problem today is not lack of proper resources, but lack of proper distribution.”

Mahatma Gandhi

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

We gussy up organizational discussions with teams, networks, communities, but, at the core of every business organization is “distribution” — distribution of people, resources, ideas, skills, talent, energy, time, etc.

Unfortunately, hierarchy isn’t particularly conducive to effective, let alone efficient, distribution of any of these things. Most organizations don’t ‘distribute’ these things, they allocate them. The organic distribution of anything is an anathema to a business.

That said.

Here’s what I’m thinking.

Can technology, specifically algorithms, instead of forcing team collaboration (or ‘network teams’) extract skills/talents so friction is decreased and potential (company and individual) be optimized?

First. Extracting is a derivative of cross functional.

Cross functional teams is not a new idea. Toffler called it “poly malleable” organizations in 1970.

The issue is the idea is excellent in concept, a bitch in practice. Business has become contortion artists in applying “collaboration” in organizations (kind of their answer to cross functional and malleable).

Personally, when individuals interact in groups, I do not believe long-term commitment is necessary to build a real team, therefore, extracting talents can be situational and be quite effective.

“Collaboration is a cultural construct, but also a coordinative one.”

Mike Walsh

However. Just as collaboration needs to be consciously coordinated, so would extracting talents & skills. My thought is rather than have some person (who may, or may not be, effective at assessing submerged, non obvious, skills & talents) coordinate, why not have algorithms monitor activity & behavior and pluck out submerged potential as needed?

Second. Technology as a force for positive ‘human’ progress.

The pace of technological progress is accelerating, bringing significant opportunities to create value providing opportunities to reinvent the way we live, work, and organize.

Far too often, when speaking of people, we speak of this acceleration in bad terms – loss of focus, distraction, non productivity – while, with organizations/business we tend to speak of it in glowing terms – faster revenue growth, improve profit margins & innovation.  There is no reason technology cannot accelerate people potential if not optimize an organization by having technology augment people.

Harnessing algorithmic capabilities, computing capacity and data should enable human competencies (beyond their obvious role) and a new generation of system level innovation & productivity.

Third. People are not wholes, but rather a sum of parts.

Sum of parts? Let’s call it ‘the potential within Fragmentary interests’. I was tempted to discuss this as “distribution revolution of interest and knowledge.” It’s a deeper dimension to Drucker’s knowledge worker in that each knowledge worker contains fragments of knowledge – some fragments bigger, and more well developed than others, but fragments. Therefore potential doesn’t reside in optimizing one skill or fragment of knowledge but rather optimizing the fragmented interests residing in each individual.

—–

“The key to individual parts coming together to create an emergent whole is coordination, and that means a sharing of information between parts in the system.”

Gideon Rosenblatt

—–

Now. interestingly the technology exists (in some form) and it called ‘Digital twin’.

Therefore we would be seeking to optimize our digital twin. I will note this thought may also be a derivative of ‘semantic web’ but I am focused on algorithms with this idea.

fourth. Meaningfulness distribution

I hesitate to suggest distributing meaningfulness (it sounds to productivity purposeful) but at the core of this thought is what I stated in Distribution Revolution  that all transactions are dependent upon distribution. And while it may sound harsh a business makes transactions with its employees – one of which is quite possibly “I will give you opportunities to optimize your potential & you will find meaningfulness in the process.”

Regardless. Transaction aside, is there a way to better enable meaning in traditional organizations – which tends to distance people from any meaning in work.

Meaning. No one defines meaning better than Alain de Botton (The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work): “meaning is simply ‘making someone or something better.’” it is all about contributing to helping in some way (in small, grande or venti dimension).

I would argue that when humans are at the center of the molecule of all business activity, all connections gain value (even with digital & work) and the person gains intrinsic self-value because, well, everything augments them & their potential. That is scaling potential & meaningfulness.

“Your business is only as strong as your least scalable component.”

Mike Walsh

(part 1). I say that because we often say powerful forces are changing the business world but we rarely speak about how the powerful forces of people within an organization can radically change the business itself. Because of connectedness the loci of productivity and dynamism resides in movements in people, information and idea within a company. This is like a value chain which evolves based on the context of the need which reshapes to amplify the potential & knowledge of the team. Using algorithms thru the entire organization focuses skills, talents and people based on the situation at hand. These forces may morph in some unexpected ways and combining ideas & skills to create even greater impacts than we expected. And while we may discuss ‘greater impact’ in terms of productivity & return, the largest impact will be found in meaningfulness.

Think about it this way – company value chains become more knowledge-intensive and reliant on multi-skill labor.

Look.

(part 2). I think we are all beginning to realize we are all contributing to the blurring of life and work. Realizing that distractions and attention isn’t what is around us about what is within us.

At the same time realizing that festina lente matters. Not suggesting this is easy and we will not get it right but the more we practice it, the more an algorithm does it, the better we will all get at it.

But do we quit at the first failure?

People are rediscovering they matter in a business system that has talked about how people matter, but has actually done everything it can to squeeze out natural untidiness and compel conformity under the guise of efficiency. Yeah. people have always grumbled about this but hierarchy has naturally sucked the life out of believing real change, and empowerment, can occur. Now. as a recent article just stated “hierarchy is just a shape.” In general, I agree. But it does ignore that organization, construct, in and of itself, encourages stasis. But what if algorithms stimulated activity from within and discouraged stasis? That is my question.

With the concept outlined, let me highlight would I would see as four potential positive consequences:

Consequence 1: individual potential

Individual potential is always a tricky thing. Many times it is trial & error in an environment in which ‘stepping out of your specific responsibility zone’ is rarely encouraged and often high risk. This is unfortunate because if a system existed in which secondary, tertiary and even quaternary talent could be not only utilized but even exercised to become stronger, all individual skills improve.

Introverts tend to be hesitant to offer and extroverts tend to offer on the wrong things.

If an algorithm could tap into the potential mines of talent that exited on an ad hoc basis then every individual’s potential gets tapped. If that happens their productivity (mental or output) gets maximized.

Consequence 2: individual meaning

Here is the weird thing. Even though I am speaking of algorithms I am also speaking of community. Introverts or extroverts. Wallflowers or the bombastic. Getting everyone engaged is tricky. Yet. Everyone wants to be part of a community and everyone finds happiness part of a tribe/community. It is the getting in and getting engaged which is a very individual type decision. Work is no different. In fact. I could argue that work is not defined by some milestone attained or some project completion but rather “community is about a series of small choices and everyday actions.” Within those small interactions will be found that larger individual meaning.

Look.

Everyone wants to contribute. Everyone wants to do something to benefit others (“what I do has value to others”). Everyone wants to do both using whatever (all) skills available. Simplistically, if a business can trigger individual contribution it will enhance individual meaning.

Consequence 3: organizational potential

Strip away culture, shareholder value or whatever metric you want to discuss, business is dependent upon maximizing its resources. Think about it from a health perspective. If employees show up every day (no sick days), healthy and happy (health & happiness or linked), you maximize productivity on 2 dimensions – time productivity and individual responsibility productivity. Therefore, if you expand productivity beyond an individual’s responsibility and seek to tap into additional skills/abilities beyond their own specific responsibility you have the opportunity to expand organizational productivity in another dimension. Its possibly a different version of collaborative productivity. This one is collaboration not of people but of talent/ability fragments (via people). Its coalescing type collaboration. If you look at ability as resources it is possible an algorithm maximizes all organizational resources.

Consequence 4: organizational hiring

Assume consequence 1 thru 3 is true. You would no longer hire off a specific role but rather with an eye toward what combination of primary, secondary, tertiary & quaternary skills the leaving person has subtracted or, conversely, gaps the organization needs to fill if a role opens up.

Hire not for an individual role but rather organizational contribution made up of multiple roles.

Conclusion.

Oddly, my greatest defense of using algorithms to enhance organization potential may be found in the objective, the desired outcome, rather than in its more dubious companion – the algorithm itself.

The outcome?

As Don Cornelius said, ‘It is always a pleasure to find something that matters.’

What if algorithms helped find out what matters to people (skills) and optimized them?

What if all people were optimized (or, simply more & better utilized)?

What if all people skills were activated in a business?

The answers are obvious. More productivity. More individual meaning. And, arguably, more happy people and business.

Here is what I know.

Creativity is always what gives business, & brands, traction in the marketplace and is what insures businesses progress. If a business can maximize its creativity, it will always progress. Progress, rather than growth, should always be the objective a business.

Notice that nowhere in that paragraph did I mention meaningfulness, productivity, technology or purpose. I didn’t have to because if algorithms can tap into submerged skills people, and the organization, will inevitably be more creative in thinking & in solutions – which equals progress. And, bottom line, any algorithm that can do that is worth its weight in gold.

===========

“Making a product is just an activity, making a profit on a product is the achievement.”

Amit Kalantri

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

Author’s note:

I originally published this in 2018 and decided to repost given all the discussion about supply chain issues and inflation/inflated costs. While I believe it is fair to discuss inflation in a variety of ways, I believe it is business & economic malpractice to discuss inflated costs (to the consumer) without discussing how distribution issues effect costs. What I mean by that is even the smallest changes in distribution costs can make overall costs increase additively/multiplicative. Regardless. As I open this piece, “everything is about distribution.” Call it supply chain issues if you would like, but it is just good ole distribution.

=====

This is about distribution, therefore, it’s about technology, the internet & the transfer of goods & services.

Everything is about distribution. Everything.

Ideas.

Thoughts.

Attitudes.

Things.

Products.

Services.

Monies.

Material.

Data.

Information.

Think of each of these things as containers – containers to be shipped from one place to another. This is different than transactions. Transactions are the outcomes of distribution, i.e., I cannot make a transaction unless it can be distributed.

Now. While anyone can use this new Distribution Revolution world we live in you have to earn the income, revenue & profits, they don’t just come to you, i.e., simply accessing the construct doesn’t mean you will benefit from it. I believe that point is why much of the business world is struggling with what exactly technology is and whether it truly has offered any increased economic productivity. It gets discussed as “just another channel” or a social amplification tool or an efficiency creator or, well, the laundry list of labeling is massive. To me it would make much ore sense if we simply thought of it as a distribution infrastructure change from which people should start thinking about the repercussions to people, organizations & businesses.

Given this view, one would note the internet changed the world in a couple of ways that often don’t get discussed:

• Until the internet came along “everything is connected with everything” was more of a philosophical concept with strings of truth. Now, with the internet, it is truth which we need to conceptually, get a philosophical grip on it.
• Until the internet came along everything was physically distributed now many things can be virtually distributed.

Within this context of these two things, retail discussions, data distribution & digital transformations, are simply smaller battles within the larger Distribution Revolution. We discuss companies as disruptors or legacy businesses all the while neglecting the fact business is always about transactions of value & distribution enables the value items to exchange hands. Business is ultimately about transactions of value, and, distribution is all about enabling the value items (goods & services & payment/$) to change hands as efficiently to as many markets as possible.

Regardless.

Think about the internet as distributing containers – of information, monies, data, goods, services & transactions.

Original container revolution:

The container revolution started by giving businesses a way to distribute existing products faster and cheaper. Over time it allowed business to make and distribute new products and develop new business models. Containerization not only made shipping cheaper & faster it also completely changed the whole structure & mindset of distribution. In 1956 it cost $5.83 a ton to load loose cargo onto a ship in the United States – today it costs around 16 cents a ton (36x less expensive).

The new container revolution:

The internet is doing exactly the same thing. It gives people an alternative way to distribute existing products (physical and nonphysical) and enable businesses to create and distribute new products and develop new business models.

The Container revolution brought trade to previously out of the way places which before had been too costly to distribute. Similarly the internet has made it possible to not only distribute products & services but actual work (outsourcing). The internet can distribute in a variety of ways – physical logistics as well as digitally. This creates an entirely new industry for entrepreneurs to develop products & services which can be distributed anywhere at any time.

Think value on the move.

The essence of distribution is enabling value transactions to happen as cheaply and efficiently as possible beyond simply moving value from here to there, from seller to buyer, the internet actually provides opportunity to add value to the distribution process itself.

FYI. This can also be physical non internet products & services. For example, FedEx/UPS permits you to track your package via the internet. A logistics supplier who distributes nothing they actually create adds value to its own service simply thru distribution transparency.

All that said.

Digital is just a tactic within the revolution. Internet is the enabler of the revolution

What this distribution revolution has done is attack distribution in a variety of ways:

• Digitally unbundling value.

If distribution is value on the move it also means value can be unbundled (which has potential positives AND negatives).

Simplistically value, in the past, was created in a stacked layered way. Value was built layer by layer so that when assessed the value was seamlessly embedded in the total. The inherent strength of this methodology was value was constructed like a building in which parts were dependent on other parts.

In the new distribution revolution, the value is unbundled in a more linear way so that the individual parts can be maximized for its singular value. On a continuum both efficiency (time & investment) and effectiveness (ability to enhance value) can be manipulated on an ongoing basis, therefore, the value components can be constantly adapted to maximize the total value.

Productivity:

Theoretically, possibility of increased productivity occurs in 2 ways:

• Value gets driven up higher, in totality, by maximizing the individual parts with the highest value (this can be contextually different based on unique buying experiences). Productivity gets enhanced by more effective focus on things of highest value.
• Innovation opportunities are identified as discrete parts which can be pursued with the intent to either enhance structural (overall) value creation or intent to pursue a new transactional value creation opportunity (a ‘part’ of the value creation uncovers a new opportunity to produce something new)

• Localized relevance/personalization.

Local, or localized, connectiveness is a powerful aspect of providing value to distribution. People get absorbed, and sometimes overwhelmed, by the global scope of the distribution and localizing is an easy way to make it a little less overwhelming and more, well, personalized. Which leads me to personalization. To be recognized and acknowledged as a unique individual, or a distinct one, within a huge global distribution model, triggers one of the most basic human needs (recognition as an individual). Conversely, this is the underlying belief that while being acknowledged as an individual in a huge distribution world of anonymous impersonal interactions even a little nod to who you are, your identity, your specific needs, elevates basic distribution to personalized.

I would argue this is as far as you need to go (beyond maybe “you bought this so you may be interested in his” type personalization). The latter is acknowledgment you have had a relationship with that distribution but doesn’t overstep any ‘creepy’ boundaries.

Productivity:

We often conflate personalization with customization. Personalization, in general, creates a level of value to the functional & brand value. The productivity opportunity resides in the customization halo of personalization. In other words productivity can be enhanced if the productivity doesn’t simply ”chase” personalization but rather uses the personalization to assess either additional products or innovations which offer complementary products (which you can sell more of at a higher price).

• How does digital transformation fit in?

Digital transformation is a means to an end – an infrastructure decision. It should be viewed as “how can I distribute what needs to be distributed to either enable structural value creation (of what exists) or how it can create new value creation toward corporate vision.”

The value creation insures it meets business objectives and corporate culture (because, remember, digital transformation is dependent upon not mastery or implementation but rather culture – culture at scale means digital simply scales with culture).

In other words, unless you decide what you want to distribute and to whom and when, you cannot effectively implement digital transformation.

Productivity:

Digital transformation, implemented correctly. Offers two productivity opportunities:

• Transactional productivity (sell more of individual products)
• Structural productivity (cross selling of more products at a higher price – or higher profit margin)

• Where does the revolution go? New business models using New old products & services

We need to stop talking about Amazon and retail industry and focus on “how can this new distribution revolution be leveraged to meet our business objective (and what business do I want to create in which the objective can be met thru this distribution revolution>? There are few capacity issues/limitations associated with this distribution revolution so if the distribution helps you meet a viable business objective you know live in a ubiquitous world.

What I mean by this is there is an entire world of existing products & services which can become a new product or service simply by viewing it thru a distribution revolution lens.

Airbnb is simply a hostel-like concept enabled by tech

Uber was the eastern european transportation model but enabled by tech

Old ideas brought to life in a new way as information, value and transactions are exchanged.

Productivity:

There is nothing more profitable than selling more of something you already have and know how to produce efficiently. Theoretically businesses should be able to assess stagnant or dormant brands/products and evaluate whether a new way of distribution would reinvigorate sales & engagement.

Lastly.

• Not the customer Revolution, organizational revolution

I would encourage everyone to think of this Distribution revolution as having an organizational consequence (which will inherently affect customers but it is the deliverer of customer products/service which is impacted most). I would argue this is where the greatest productivity increases will appear.

The main reason we have not seen the expected economic results predicted with technology is lack of alignment between organizational design and technology benefits. One of the largest benefits of an information distribution revolution is the ‘knowledge worker’ (as defined by Alvin Toffler) can now have all the information necessary to make decisions wherever they sit with whatever title they may, or may not, have.

This is where the distribution revolution is easing its way into a distributed decision making & leadership business model. Distributed decision making inherently has economic benefits and increases productivity. The main proof point for this is “The Added Value of Buurtzorg Relative to Other Providers of Home Care: A Quantitative Analysis of Home Care in the Netherlands” (KPMG: Jan 2015).

————

Buurtzorg appears to transcend the usual trade-offs in health and social care: it is cost efficient and yet the ratio of nurses to clients is purposely kept low in the interest of care continuity; it generates a healthy surplus even though it employs a significantly larger than average number of highly-qualified staff remunerated at a higher than average level; it achieves higher than average employee productivity figures without centralised systems of employee control; it achieves higher than average quality of care at a cost level that is below the industry average.

————————

Now. This organizational design actually increases in productivity if more information, and relevant information, is distributed to employees.

This leads me to note simply removing hierarchy isn’t enough. Hierarchy has conditioned the everyday employee to not assume risk and middle management to be, well, anal. In addition current measurement models restrict decision making rather than enhance freedom necessary to make the best decisions at any given point in time. Frankly, most of us are conditioned to be passive and compliant. Successful self-managing companies have very clear structures but, culturally, are constructed with more of a belief in people taking responsibility & being accountable. Applying the Distribution revolution with a distributed decision making organizational model demands a mindset, leadership, culture and the human skills necessary to facilitate a much deeper level of productivity.

Productivity:

Organization change is a means to an end. Change for change sake is wasted energy. Therefore, the distribution revolution leading to organizational revolution needs to have productivity revolution consequences. Internet, to date, has not produced substantive economic growth.

I would argue that is because there has not been an alignment of business & how the internet distributes information, ideas, knowledge & things to date. Some businesses have utilized aspects of technology and distribution opportunities to make some successful economic forays into the marketplace. But I struggle to find a business that has aligned all aspects to maximize economic productivity, enhance value and, well, sell more at the highest price possible.

Conclusion.

Distribution is inherently about the transfer of goods & services. I have simply expanded the definition of ‘goods & services’ based on technology. I believe it is helpful to look at technology as a Distribution Revolution because, as I have been reminded over & over again, technology should be a means to increased economic productivity & enhanced value creation.

When viewed under that microscope it becomes more obvious there is a lack of alignment to best utilize the distribution of goods & services. We will not reap the larger economic benefits until we stop viewing technology as, well, technology and begin viewing it simply as a distribution model from which we align all phases in the distribution from creation to implementation.

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

Thanks to Joost Minnaar (Corporate Rebels) and Wiemer Snijders for some valuable thoughts as well as an older J. Walter Thompson white paper on technology.

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

“You’re little but you’re  big.”

—–

Pretty Little Liars

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

“The human tendency to regard little things as important has produced very many great things.”

Georg C. Lichtenberg 

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

Ok. Today is December 21^st … the littlest day of the year – the winter solstice. The winter solstice marks the shortest day of the year in terms of hours of daylight <solstice basically means “sun stands still”>.

On the winter solstice, everywhere south of the equator have day lengths greater than 12 hours. Meanwhile, everywhere north of the equator have day lengths less than 12 hours.

The good news?

Daylight gets bigger from here. From here on out the days gradually get longer and the nights shorter.

Anyway.

On the littlest day it seemed like a good time to talk about big things … and their relationship to little things.

Couple of quick thoughts.

Time. We bitch & moan about not having enough time to do everything we want to do. I could argue that most people actually get more real practical pragmatic shit done on the shortest daylight day of the year then the longest daylight day of the year.

More focus. Less distractions. More shit done. less daylight hours. Littler day. Bigger productivity.

Time is time … neither little nor big.

If you ever need an example of how littler can translate to bigger … well … the shortest day of the year is adman good place to start.

Little, or few, is more often than not a harbinger, forerunner or precursor to big.

From few, many. From one, multitudes.

This leads me to the heinous concept called ‘the big idea.’

I admit. I get tired of hearing about ‘big ideas.’ In fact … in my cynical mind … whenever I hear big idea I hear hyperbole, fantastical thinking & likelihood of big failure. I perk up when I hear someone say … “you know … I have a little idea that I think can make a big impact.” That I can get onboard with.

Let me make my point by showing how few, let’s say 100, can be the beginning of something big.

100 monkeys.

Yeah.

100 monkeys.

=====

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)> and that ‘something’ becomes accepted … it shifts into a norm, i.e., from the few, many.

I believe the truly stunning aspect of this theory is the ‘island to island’ aspect.

Oh.

And these monkeys didn’t have internet.

Nor a classroom.

Nor any physical contact.

This theory suggests that, although the exact number may vary, when only a limited number of people know a new behavior it may subconsciously reside as the conscious property of the collective people. I am NOT suggesting some telepathic mumbo jumbo … but … I am suggesting that accepting new behavior <and attitudes I imagine> has a tipping point.

In addition … I do believe the ‘100^th’ is reflective of my overall belief that great minds puzzling over similar situations are quite likely to have the same idea & thought <and inevitably the same innovation> wherever they may be and never having crossed paths with someone who is having the same idea at the same time>.

If you agree with that, then the 100 monkey theory is not as wacky or cerebral as it may seem at first blush.

Look.

You may not buy it.

You may not think people are related to monkeys.

You may think 100 isn’t enough.

But you should think about it.

You should think about how from little … something bigger arises.

And while 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.

A book has been written on this theory, “The Hundredth Monkey,” by Ken Keyes Jr., I don’t suggest reading it because, well, the concept is pretty simple and you don’t need a book to explain it nor do I believe a lot of pages with graphs and explanations will convince you. But. Here is my point on the littlest day of the year.

It can take a littler amount than you may think to create the change and behavior you desire. Add to that thought the importance of 1 – as in 99 to 100.

Whenever you doubt that 1 can make a difference just think about the 100 Monkey Theory.

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 should focus on “the 100” or ‘the few.’

Think about creating change by offering relevant useful behavior information and focusing on the few.

Gosh.

Sure would make life a little simpler huh?

<note: some people, like me for an example, call this creating an influencer base to influence mass behavior>

Lastly.

If you focus on the littler stuff, the fewer, well … this means you can have a littler plan than normal.

I can hear the screams of disagreement from big idea people … “big ideas need to be nurtured and protected by big well thought out plans.”

Well. The main issue with big plans and big planning is the fact that little things are always changing.

Even worse, these changing little things are oblivious to the neat orderly plan you had in place.

And even with all this change I imagine you have a choice … plow through the little changes swirling around with an unchanging plan … or watch the little changes <kind of like watching a double dutch jump rope> … and let your neat plan take on some less neat fluidity.

Little things can make big differences.

Little things can make big plans & ideas die.

And not everyone can see little shit when there is a big shiny looking shit dazzling you as if it were a star you shouldn’t take your eye off.

I would suggest that you know you are a big planner <as in one effective at creating Big plans> if all the little things that go wrong do not make your big plan go awry.

Little things can make big plans go awry.

Shit.

Little things can make anything go awry.

On the other hand.

Little things can make big impacts.

Little things can become big things.

So.

On this littlest day of the year think a little littler.

Think small.

Take a little time and focus on little things which, if nurtured, can become big things.

And maybe think a little about the fact that there is not too little time but rather maybe we should seek to do bigger things in the little time we have.

Oh.

And always remember … big shit is always a composite of a shitload of little things.

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

“That is the problem, we give larger space to small things. We give them power to break us in the tiniest form.”

Kajapajo

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

=====

“Cease, Man, to mourn, to weep, to wail; enjoy thy shining hour of sun; We dance along Death’s icy brink, but is the dance less full of fun?”

Richard Francis Burton

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

Well. This is about attitude and business and the occasions in your work life when you have the opportunity to dance on the icy brink of Death.

Oh. And I will make the point that dancing is … well … dancing <brink or not>.

Now. Unfortunately many people don’t look at dancing on any icy brink of death that way. They look at where their feet are instead of what their feet are doing. They get freaked because they are being asked to dance along Death’s icy brink.

Let’s be clear about this moment. You may be on the icy brink of Death <in some business situation>.

And yet.

The sun is out.

The spotlight is on.

My point? The icy brink moments are not the dark days. They are absolutely not the plodding grind it out days. Nor are they the days burdened by mistakes or failure. These are the days where, as you dance on the brink,  everything is clear and uncluttered and bright and warm and, well, let’s identify them as the moments where you sense — “this is it.” Yeah. This is “it” … one of those moments where you go big or go home.

These are the moments which business people dream of <or you should>.

You know what I mean … THOSE moments.

Everything clears, and is clear, and you have the opportunity to dance. To do your thing. To, well, suffice it to say many of us in business dream of these moments. It is here I will point out these moments are actually often few and far between.

Yet. So often, far too often, people hesitate to take the opportunity to dance.

Instead.

People mourn.

People weep.

People wail.

People gnash their teeth in despair.

People “wilt.”

They don’t see the opportunity to dance. They only see that their feet stand on the icy brink of Death. They only see uncertainty and <possible> death if they slip.

Now. Let me be clear. No really good business person actually aims to dance on the icy brink of Death. But that’s not really the point. Much of business is simply managing the moments that arise. You see the moments and some shit you can control as well as know most you cannot control. And the majority of the time these moments to dance, your moment, is not created by any plan you have developed but rather in spite of your plan. No plan goes as planned. And therein lies the dances that occur on the icy brink of Death.

And I say that because a shitload of people don’t dance because they are too busy regrouping around the ‘plan’ to see what went wrong. They gather around to discuss why the hell we have this <unfortunate> ‘opportunity’ to dance ON THE ICY BRINK OF DEATH <they moan>. Then sit around the table and gnash their teeth … and wring their hands … and seek to blame someone.

In other words, do anything but dance.

And you <as in the people who do not shrink in these moments>  want to frickin’ dance.

Well. Those who want to dance in those moments? Those are the people you are looking for in business. They do not focus on the uncertainty of dancing on an icy brink, they are only certain they know the dance.They are the ones  who see dancing as dancing — where they dance is almost irrelevant to them. They aren’t clueless as to the location of the dance <therefore they are careful where they put their feet> but other than that they don’t care where the dance is — just let them dance.

They enjoy the sun, the clarity, they ignore the moaning and wailing, and they frickin’ dance.

My point?

Pretty simple. In business all that matters is being able to dance and enjoy it. Because if you enjoy it, you will be successful. If you focus on where you are dancing, well, I imagine in some way you are claiming dancing is best, or better, in some places rather than others. These people, I would argue, seek the wrong things & actually can be a little dangerous to your business.

But. The people who just like to dance anywhere? Whew. I believe those who don’t care where they dance are the best of the best. The business people you kill for. The ones you pay a little extra for to keep around.

But that’s me. That’s how I think about this.

I know I have seen some great dancers, mostly younger, who never get an opportunity to dance on the icy brink of Death not because opportunities don’t exist, but because senior management does:

<a> anything but dance when on the icy brink,

<b> anything to get away from the icy brink or

<c> anything to explain why the opportunity to dance was actually occurring on the icy brink <or all of these or any combination of these> rather than there is an opportunity to dance.

Once again. Good business people don’t seek dancing on the icy brink of Death. But neither do they not dance there if the opportunity arises.

Anyway.

Just think about it. Because in the end dancing in business is not only exhilarating in that it’s usually the stuff that gets the heart pumping and when good stuff happens but, well, that’s kind of why you are working for gods sake … those moments.

I mean, if you think about it, all the rest of your working life is nothing but … well … no dancing.

So why miss any opportunity to dance, no matter where it is?

===========

“For our own success to be real, it must contribute to the success of others.”

–

Eleanor Roosevelt

======

“The way to achieve your own success is to be willing to help somebody else get it first.”

Iyanla Vanzant

=========

Business, as businesses should, think about how to improve their business. The good ones balance effectiveness and efficiency, the poor ones triple down on efficiency. But. 95% (I made that # up) of businesses focus on customers, service, process, systems and “best practices” — in their pursuit of efficiency (with head nods to effectiveness). This means 95% typically think of people as interchangeable pieces who can deliver all the service, process and outputs. All the systems are designed to ‘output’ and people simply make the systems ‘go.’

I would argue this is at the root of why organizations begrudgingly train employees. I would argue this is not only a bad ‘grudge’ if you really want to improve your business, but it is also stupid.

I always made a promise to anyone who ever worked for me – “if you ever leave this job I promise you will be well prepared to do well at your next job.” I’m not sure I was particularly good at preparing people for life, but I always said if you had a title/job responsibility with me you would be able to do that title/job responsibility wherever you went.

3 reasons:

• I knew people outgrew jobs & organizations and often organizations sucked at meeting peoples ‘grow’ needs. In other words, there is an incredibly high likelihood a current employee would become an ex-employee. I felt a responsibility to prepare them for their next job believing I/we would benefit for as long as they stayed where they were.
• Word of mouth is the most powerful recruiter. If you give, you get. The more people I sent out to build successful careers of their own, the more people recommended new employees to me or past co-workers sent people to me.
• I didn’t care about training per se, I cared about preparation to do jobs well. That may sound like semantics, but I think its important semantics. I believe businesses get hung up on “training people and receiving benefit.” And they may be right because, if you view training as simply training, you will most likely will not reap any meaningful benefits. On the other hand. If you look at maximizing an individual and enabling someone to do their job well, you will not only build individual strengths & potential, but also receive the direct benefit of them doing the job well. Choose wisely.

Regardless of your own view on this topic, the bottom line is a decision to invest in a person. Not some nebulous, often vapid, “invest in your people”, but rather ‘a person.’

I, honestly, can’t figure out why this is so difficult for businesses to grasp.

Is it lack of trust in people?

Is it a leadership ego thing?

Is it simply a misunderstanding of culture as a ‘we’ thing .. that you can enable & empower individuals and still be a ‘we’ culture?

I don’t know, but I do know any lasting change or effect in a business is not organizational or on systems or even on some broader cultural narrative. People leave, therefore, if your modus operandi is to enforce or impose (this includes ‘best practices’) systems, I can guarantee you that enforcing or imposing is not motivating nor long term effective (nor even optimizing short term effectiveness).

Truly lasting change & organization effect is within people themselves. Effectiveness is emergent. And because it is emergent it is something they not only embody when within the business, but also take with them outside the business (in life, family, community and other jobs). Therefore. To effectively lead people you actually need to view people beyond the limits of the organizational boundaries. This may sound odd, even inefficient. Its not. It doesn’t ignore the job that existing responsibilities demand, but it also enables individual potential to cross and bridge normal divides & barriers. Or, as Peter Drucker said, ‘business is of the community and the community is of the business.” And that is where true benefits reside. We far too often discuss ‘getting out of your comfort zone’ when instead we should suggest there is no zone or even if there is you should just push out on the limits and boundaries and give people the freedom to grow (and the business will grow). When a person is engaged as part of who & what they are they have the ability to engage to their fullest potential.

“Why do you, or they, or anyone get to determine my limits?”

Veronica Roth

Simplistically this is investing in people, not an organization. This leads me to the eternal question in business: “why train employees (people) if all they are going to do is leave? (and someone else will benefit by my investment).”

This is a valid, and important, topic.

At its core is, well, business’s decision to make business better. It’s like believing if you plant healthy seeds they will bloom here, there and everywhere and the entire forest grows.

Believing this demands we view a business in a non traditional way – you don’t ‘push down’ beliefs, behavior, responsibilities, etc. because, honestly, any time anything is ‘pushed down’ the world shudders to a halt as the people who are actually doing the work take the round peg senior leadership has created and try to figure out how to put it in the square hole of reality. In order to do so, most times, instead of convincing leadership they actually need a square peg, the teams design a mish mash version of a round peg that will fit into the square hole.

“In our consumer culture, we are encouraged to assume roles that aren’t truly authentic to who we are. In a way, this culture is its own kind of simulation, one that requires us to make more and more purchases to maintain the integrity of the illusion.”

Stowe Boyd

To be clear. I am not suggesting a ‘bossless’ organization. And while I do believe business has become more complex than in the past, I have always believed maximizing an individual maximizes the business. What was true then is exponentially true as business becomes more complex.

Stowe Boyd said “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.” I slightly disagree. While, as a generalization, it may be true, I would suggest some people have always known this is the best way to maximize an organization — its just that leadership doesn’t trust it to be done that way.

Of course I believe discussing new organizational models is important and, in some cases, a business should have a new business model. But at the core of any organizational discussion it really isn’t about models but rather “how do you think about individuals?”

Because until you answer that question autonomy, empowerment, self management, is all irrelevant. If you do not believe in people, than you do believe in control. Period. Full stop.

If you do believe in people, than you will stop talking about leaders, and what makes great leaders, but instead talk about resource management – how can we get the proper resources into the proper hands at the proper times to maximize each individual and group of individuals.

This expands the business by expanding the individual. Therefore leadership isn’t about direction or control, but rather managing/optimizing expansion. Ponder.