So.

The compulsion to jump from high places is called “l’appel du vide” in French.

Some call it ‘the call of the void.’

I think the phrase is specific to that one instance <& one action> … but I think it’s a cool phrase which creates great imagery beyond that situation.

What I mean by that is “the void” represents risk, the unknown and uncertain situations.

What I mean by that is “the void” represents the spaces in which you must leap into with only faith in order to make the true leaps of progress.

What I mean by that is “the void” represents the best opportunity to learn, grow intellectually & intelligently & … well … just become more knowledgeable.

I say all that because I have read in a number of places that our growth in intelligence is situationally driven. In other words we become smarter by assessing situations we face and contemplating alternatives.

Well.

This would presume all of us would be fucking geniuses because we think about what to do incessantly … in fact … at any given moment we are potentially viewing a lot of possible “alternate futures” in our minds most of which have some aspect of a ‘void’.

Just to humor me … let’s call these alternatives … ‘edges.’

Why?

Well.

Frankly … it sounds more risky than ‘paths.’

Paths implies you can veer off at a leisurely pace … and retrace steps if needed and … well … even a nice bar with a cool cocktail so you can rest at some point.

But edges mean impact.

Impact as in ‘splat’ or impact as in ’that made a difference.’

Impact? Let’s face it … standing at the edge of a high place, staring into the void <or wide open spaces if you want to be poetically beautiful> … means one of those possible futures is “I step forward.”

However, since we know standing on the edge and doing so could bring highly unfavorable consequences, our internal censor whispers in our ear … “no … do not take the step … terrible things could happen.”

To be truthful.

Not many people are truly tempted to jump from the edge into a void.

Most of us just talk about it <and we like talking about it>. But we are just talking … kind of fooling ourselves into ‘taking it into consideration‘ thinking of it the way we do all of our alternatives.

Unfortunately for us … voids are a different kind of alternative.

Think of it this way.

For most of Life, and time, our minds are built to be flexible. We keep “jumping” from thought to thought … alternative to alternative … weighing opportunity <for happiness, success, improvement, pain, etc.>. We envision outcomes in these pondering moments.

But the void is different.

Or at least I think it is.

I don’t think it’s as straightforward as contemplation of the possible or assessing alternatives. Mainly because … well … it is difficult to assess outcomes because it is … uhm … a void.

In addition.

While there a shitload of choices and alternatives that appear before us … many with painful or grave possible consequences … these ‘this or that’ type of choices do not have a similar call of the void. They do not because they are clear choices which we can take in hand. The void is a choice inherent with risk & unknown. The allure, and deterrent, resides in it’s contemplation of the possible with some added element of desire tinged with danger <risk> all centered around a big gaping ‘unknown’.

In our heart of hearts … we know that big risks are the things that reap big rewards.

But taking that step … oh boy .. while tempting … we hesitate because we see … well … “nothing.” Well. Nothing tangible.

But. That temptation. The allure. It keeps us thinking.

Why are we so apt to be attracted to the unknown and the unknowable? Well. In general I believe most of us are hardwired to be curious and to learn. There is an attraction to the unknown because we inherently want to learn and to know and to try to figure out shit which we do not understand.

And to discover new things.

It is that allure to discover which makes you almost see the void building before your eyes.

It gets created by things left unsaid and things said. A discomfort building between what you know and don’t know.

The void truly appears when you finish questioning faith … and it becomes decision time.

You go through the decisions … and the non-decisions … and it builds up to what amounts to a personal leap … a jump into the dark … into the void.

But here is the other truth. Once you’ve fallen into the void and through it … you find yourself in the embrace of … well … what’s next. And after doing so you will rarely fear the void again.

You actually find … or believe you will find more … in the emptiness … in that void.

This means ‘Void answerers’ … or those who can see the void as something rather than nothingness … have the ability to see things where many people see nothing. I believe they actually see vast opportunity within emptiness.

Yes.

There is some faith.

Some faith that at some point in the void you will blindly grasp something to hold on to … either mentally or physically … and you will stop the fall into nothingness and find something.

Something that will stop the fall into the void.

Well … at least that is the desire. Not to endlessly drop but to find some plateau on which to see new things.

The call of the void.

Look.

Not everyone hears this call. And even then … not everyone who hears it … answers it. I tend to believe the ones who answer the call would give you a 6 word answer:

—–

“I wish I could be more.”

=

Six Word Story

—–

It is easy for many of us to think of these ‘void answerers’ as crazy or irresponsible risk takers or imprudent … but we need them. They show us that the void isn’t empty but full of ‘somethings.’

In the end … I believe we need more people who answer the call of the void.

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

“You are talking crazy-person talk. Put your words in word places please.”

―

Buffy the Vampire Slayer

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

So.

I have relentlessly outlined Trump’s shortcomings from a business leadership standpoint.

I have relentlessly outlined Trump’s dubious relationship with the truth.

But today I turn to … well … not even his words … but how he talks.

I mean … well … who the hell talks like this?

“You know, I’m, like, a smart person.”

Uh huh.

Yeah.

Right.

I can honestly say that after having sat in thousands of business meetings, hundreds of conference rooms, dozens of boardrooms and currently trade personal emails with a wide range of business executives … the only person I have ever heard talk like this in a corporate business environment was eventually fired, monitored as he packed up his office, and escorted out of the office by security people.

He was a whack job.

And he talked like this.

All of this makes me begin to think Trump may actually … sigh … not telling us the truth when he says, “you know, I’m like a smart person.”

<note: “like” falls into the same speech pattern as the valley girl “whatever”>

The evidence continues to mount just from the shit he says that he is … well … just not smart.

I know dozens of business executives.

I know some incredibly smart people … maybe even some brilliant people.

I know some Ivy League graduates. Heck. I even know a Wharton person <Stanford people tend to be smarter & I have never met a non-smart Yale grad>.

And what I know is that none of these people talk like this.

I am no psychologist but I imagine the people who talk like this, and the ones who talk in first person <Ricky Henderson most likely being the most famous first person speaker — he called San Diego GM Kevin Towers and left the following message: “This is Rickey calling on behalf of Rickey. Rickey wants to play baseball.” > are people who are actually trying to persuade themselves that they are smart, have a good brain and know good words.

I admit when I hear Trump talk, well, I teeter between repeating Rex Tillerson’s reported thought on Trump — “fucking moron” – and simply shaking my head and saying “who the hell talks like this?”

All I know is that it seems more cartoon-like than President-like:

———————-

“I went to an Ivy League college. I was a nice student. I did very well. I’m a very intelligent person.”

‘I’m, like, a really smart person’

“I am also honored to have the greatest temperament that anybody has.”

“I would say basically we talked condolence.”

“I have one of the great memories of all time.”

“Nobody has more respect than I do. Nobody.”

“Well, I think the press makes me more uncivil than I am. You know – people don’t understand – I went to an Ivy League college. I was a nice student. I did very well. I’m a very intelligent person. You know, the fact is, I think, I really believe, I think the press creates a different image of Donald Trump than the real person.”

“… my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, okay, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart

“My generals and my military, they have decision-making ability,”

“The response and recovery effort probably has never been seen for something like this. This is an island, surrounded by water. Big water. Ocean water.”

After arriving in Israel from Saudi Arabia, Trump told his hosts: “We just got back from the Middle East.”

And, of course,

Trump to hurricane victims in Puerto Rico: “Have a good time”

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

I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer but, c’mon, no reasonable business person with any reasonable experience talks like this.

And we know that.

We do.

For some we knew this is not normal behavior earlier and for others it has been a grudging realization.

That said.

While we know no one should talk like this we have two problems in finally admitting it & dealing with it:

• The Slippery slope of excuses.

I have written several times about the “slippery slope of ‘just this once’.”

Just once becomes … well … okay just one more time … and then … oops … and you are well on your way on the slippery slope.

Suffice it to say a shitload of people are on the slippery slope with regard to making excuses for Trump.

And they know it.

And while those of us not on the slope can stand there and be righteous … I think it would behoove us to recognize that any slippery slope is a sonuvabitch to get off of.

We would be foolish to utter some simplistic tripe like “just do it” … just get off it.

We would be foolish because it is difficult — for everyone <if you have ever been on a slippery slope … despair, small lies, depression, etc. … you understand>.

Give someone a hand.

Help them.

Quit moralizing. Quit being righteous. Quit being holier than thou. Just fucking help them get off the slippery slope.

• Holding him accountable and our own accountability.

Oh … shit. Accountability is a two way street. No matter how heinous Trump may be on occasion if you hold him accountable … you will also be held accountable. What that means is it inevitably becomes a comparison of ‘failings.’

Well.

That sucked to type.

This means failings of character.

This means failings in judgement.

All of your own failings enter into the accountability fray <and I can guarantee he will bring them into the fray>.

If you make him accountable for his, you need to be accountable for yours <and do not be defensive in doing so>.

And this means dealing with a ‘counterpuncher’ who cannot discern the false equivalence between character failings and judgement and simply hammers away in his simplistic grade school rhetoric in a “if this, then that” pushback.

That sounds … well … horrible. But here’s what you have on your side.

Remember … who the hell talks like that?

Yeah. That’s his weak spot. Accountability does not need intellectualism so you can leave the high falutin’ words at home. Accountability of character & judgement is easy to articulate. It is easy because people really do know right from wrong and that how you win matters more than just winning … they just need to be reminded. And when they are reminded … people will hold him accountable.

Look.

No truly experienced normal business person talks like how Trump talks. They would get kicked out of any office in any viable business in America.

Trump has had 71 years, access to some of the finest America has to offer in education and the opportunity to learn more through experiences than most of us could ever dream for.

He has squandered them all.

Other than being able to bully his way through real estate transactions and make gobs of money off of licensing deals <which is simply being a grifter> he is hollow … hollow of even the most basic information a United States high school senior possesses.

If we cannot win against someone who talks like this, who is hollow … well … WTF … we don’t deserve to win.

Me? I would take him on anywhere at any time. He is hollow, I have seen hollow in business, and I know hollow cannot win.

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

“I’ve accepted that everyone in my life is bound to hurt me but now I have to figure out who’s worth suffering for.”

—–

Bob Marley (maybe said this)

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

Well.

When I saw the Marley quote the first time I thought about … well … ideas.

Ideas — thoughts about what to do as well as thoughts about oneself.

Uhm.

I would suggest that ideas … and thoughts about yourself … are inextricably linked together. I say that because behind every good idea, and bad idea, is some relationship between you <the idea creator> and someone else <a possible idea destroyer>.

Behind every good idea is a good friend.

Behind every bad idea, and thought, is a bad friend.

And you know what?

It could be exactly the same friend.

Friends have an incredible knack for exploiting the cracks & crevasses in ourselves.

Why do I think this happens?

People, humans, individuals, are much much better at destroying something than they are creating something.

It’s not that we enjoy destroying <although there is some inherent satisfaction in taking shit apart> but I just think <know> it is easier.

Why the hell wouldn’t do something that was easier?

That’s why in business there are a shitload of people that can destroy ideas, people, thoughts, process, systems & institutions and a significantly smaller group of people who know how to build, create and navigate taking an insight into real action.

There are derivates of this thought like … “easier to criticize than …” … “easier to edit it than create” … “easier to find reasons to not do than to do” and, of course, “you have to break the pattern to create a new one.”

But at the core of all the snazzy little catch phrases is the fact 80% of people <at a minimum> know how to destroy and only 20% <at best> know how to create.

People just are better at dividing & destroying rather than effectively combining & creating something that ‘holds’.

But.

……….. Pierre Pauselli …………..

The biggest thing you have to accept is that some people do it because it is easy and, unfortunately, some people do with a sense of focus, ferocity and frequency that … well … it just isn’t being done because it is easy but rather it is being done because they <a> gain personal satisfaction, <b> derive personal value and/or <c> are one of those people who simply enjoy destroying and dividing because it makes them look smarter (‘bigger’) in their own eyes.

Building self-value off of the easy path is kind of like admitting you are willing to be the tallest midget. The easy path, the ‘knee jerk’ path, only can help you reach a certain height.

A height? Yes.

But let’s say it can only attain a ‘rolling hill’ type height and not a Mount Everest type height.

The hardest paths in Life & business are the ones which offer the highest prizes – the monumental type wins <which offer you the highest self-value prizes also>.

Ah.

But my <c> … the ones who simply like destroying.

===========

‘I stopped holding on to people. I stopped revolving my world around them. If they stay, great; and if they don’t, others will come along and replace them, just like others would replace me.‘

—-

unknown

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

Look.

Everything ends <at some point>.

Everyone is gonna hurt you <at some point>.

Nothing ever goes perfectly <at some point>.

Shit inevitably happens <at some point>.

Even creators are pretty damn good at destroying.

And creators don’t always create what they want to create.

Everyone knows how to destroy.

Not everyone either knows how to create let alone even how to create.

These are the Life truths no one sits you down and warns you about when you are a kid. In fact … many of these are mostly associated with the foibles of adulthood.

I don’t know why we don’t tell kids.

Maybe we want them to keep some of their childhood innocence or some stupid shit reason.

Shit.

I don’t know why we don’t tell adults.

Maybe we want them to keep some sense of the belief that anyone can create, good can come from destruction and ‘constructive criticism’ is a role of the ‘wise.’

Destroying shit is easy and you just should accept the fact that people will be more naturally inclined to do it … and not be disappointed or ‘suffer’ it.

Other than the assholes who seem to thrive only in destroying, most people are feeling their way through business and Life ‘becoming & unbecoming’ and part of that is learning what to destroy and how to create.

Saying that … well … I would say that you should probably very rarely treat someone as a finished human being.

And you should just accept the fact they will disappoint you on occasion and that is just a part of Life <and business> you just … well … suffer. Its aggravating and sometimes painful … but it is what it is.

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

“It is not fair to treat people as if they are finished beings.

Everyone is always becoming and unbecoming.”

 

—-

Kathleen Winter

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

Now.

THAT said … well … remember the ones I pointed out who only know how to destroy and actually seem to thrive on it?

Those you don’t suffer.

….. intelligence.org Nate Soares ………..

Especially in business.

In business you accept that people will hurt you and your ideas but there is absolutely a difference in types of hurt and the ‘destroyers’ should be insufferable.

Those who have no clue how to create anything and destroy aren’t worth a shit.

And you shouldn’t accept one sliver of suffering them.

Yeah.

I know.

In business some of these assholes actually make it to some senior position under the guise of ‘needed contrarianism’ and they aren’t really a contrarian … they are just simply someone who has no idea how to create anything.

And, yeah, you have to suffer them <at least for a while>.

But.

Here’s the good part.

You can make them suffer.

How?

Create something they can’t destroy. That kills them.

Anyway.

In the end.

Everyone is going to disappoint you at some point and a shitload of those same people will also hurt you in some way.

The truth is, in business & in Life, managing decisions is all about a thorough understanding of the decision’s hierarchy of needs & understanding the attributes surrounding those needs … and doing so in some finite amount of time … then decide that which generates the most rewarding outcome.

Uhm.

“Generates.”

Not all people can do this.

And, maybe worse, some people find ‘the most rewarding outcome’ is … well … not an outcome, nor ‘generating’, but rather destruction.

Just think about that for one last time.

If we all truly seek a rewarding outcome in which ‘rewarding’ is multiple in dimension — a rational reward and an emotional reward – it would seem to me that we would only suffer the people who desire this kind of outcome.  Or at least only suffer those actually interested in generating a rewarding outcome.

Destruction is not a rewarding outcome to anyone but the destroyer.

We should never choose to suffer destroyers.

Be wary … very wary … of those who you struggle to find any rewarding outcomes associated with them but only find they thrive on destroying things.

And remember …

Behind every good idea is a good friend.

Behind every bad idea, and thought, is a bad friend.

And 90%+ of the people will attempt to kill your idea and it will be up to you, and how you feel about yourself, to create the possibility your idea will not be destroyed.

======

Richard Lugar <Indiana senator for 35 years>

It takes courage to declare dozens or even hundreds of positions and stand for office, knowing that with each position, you are displeasing some group of voters. But we do our country a disservice if we mistake the act of taking positions for governance.

They are not the same thing. Governance requires adaptation to shifting circumstances. It often requires finding common ground with Americans who have a different vision than your own.

======

So.

This is a followup to my battlefield of ideas society version — on gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering is being discussed at the Supreme Court level in the United States.

Here is the one thing I have not heard discussed, yet, when debating gerrymandering – a desire to create battlefields of ideas.

Let me explain.

Inherent to gerrymandering is a lack of conflicting ideas to debate. When there is no ideology to compete against the one which will … well … win … then the only ideas which are discussed are the ones that people already deem to be worthy already <this is an ideology discussion and not a battle of ideas>.

This creates an environment in which a citizenry gets trapped in the same doom loop of existing ideas and ideology never to be freed to view new ideas <or unearn the ones they currently have>.

Gerrymandering is driven by politics in America which is an eat or be eaten world.  I could, and will, suggest this is not only not healthy for democracy it is also unhelpful to progress.

====

“The difference between a politician and a statesman is that a politician thinks about the next election while the statesman think about the next generation.”

―

James Freeman Clarke

====

I would be arguing to the Supreme Court <and most likely would be laughed out of the court> that democracy is about progress and gerrymandering is not about progress. My rationale for that argument is that lacking any real battle of any ideas there is no progress.

But, maybe more concerning, is that if you do not battle over ideas the people, the citizenry, become intellectually hollow. I am not suggesting everyone needs to be an intellectual but I do believe people should be more invested in a better understanding of facts, ideas & pragmatic realities versus ideological opinions & perceptions of truth.

Look.

Simplistically … I think this is what people want in a candidate from an economic & success standpoint:

1. Correct identification of the actual, major problems.

2. Plausible, workable solutions <ideas>.

I am not sure we want Politicians who deal in the pragmatic reality of governing and how it matters to the everyday business & person … but that is what we need.

Without a battlefield of ideas, which gerrymandering eliminates, we don’t discuss what we need … we end up discussing what we want.

That is bad.

I listen to the rantings of politicians who seem far more caught up in ideology and party positioning than they do in honestly meeting the deep challenges of our economy, the needs of our people, and caring for an environment which is capable of sustain our children’s children.

I listen to the rantings of politicians discussing what is right and what is wrong <with regard to citizen assistance> and then witness hurricanes, wildfires and poverty destroying lives and property and then begin to question our priorities when we are unable to respond adequately.

Gerrymandering should be discussed not as a structural democratic decision but rather a societal “idea debating structure” discussion. We should be discussing that we want a voting construct which actually FORCES a battle of ideas so that we, the people, can be sure we actually GET the best ideas.

I want to listen to the rantings of politicians who are caught up in ideas and the battle to articulate their ideas so that … well … we are here because we have a better idea.

What would I do?

Back on February 1^st 2016 I offered this thought:

• Stop districting voting blocks.

Having republican voting blocks <districts> and democrat voting districts is crazy.

Make a politician win the popular vote in the area they will be representing is in that district. All the people.

I don’t want a republican county or a democrat county … I want a ‘people county’ selecting by popular vote a person to represent their county interests.

Oh.

If you do this, it permits you to choose ALL politicians by popular vote <President included>.

In almost every Gallup poll since 1944 only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state <about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided>.

Regardless.

Politicians designed redistricting so that politicians could benefit. This is political reengineering at its crudest and worst.

What bullshit.

If we are truly a Republic <which USA is> than the people should design district policies and idea <so that they encapsulate their needs and wants – schools, taxes, infrastructure, etc.> and then by popular vote select a representative who wins the battlefield of ideas.

Remove districting as a variable.

I don’t want a district predestined to select a specific party.

I want voting districts to become battlefields of ideas not partisanship.

—————————

That was just a thought.

I also believe we should have mandatory voting.

If I truly believe I have a societal problem in that people are not invested enough intellectually in the ideas that matter to them and to the country then maybe I should enforce some involvement.

Do I believe everyone will be an engaged spectator in the battle field of ideas?

No. Of course not.

Do I believe MORE people will be an engaged spectator in the battlefield of ideas?

Yes. I surely do.

In the end.

What I would like is someone who doesn’t insult me with superficial promises and silly diatribes that stoke fear.

What I would like is someone who doesn’t insult the intelligence of any and all people and a political system which not only does NOT encourage this but actually penalizes politicians who pander.

What I would like is for political campaigns to become battlefields of ideas.

I would also like a leader to … well … lead in this discussion.

And … well … Trump is not that leader. He continues to not want to battle on ideas but rather try and win battles by process & procedure <and pandering and superficial promises>.

Frankly, this does nothing to improve society or true understanding of what is right or wrong.

And … well … Obama was that kind of leader. He continued to battle on ideas. He didn’t always win but he battled on ideas. Just as a reminder <because there is some untrue criticism of Obama with regard to Fox News> this is what he said in an interview with Bill O’ Reilly:

What Obama actually said about Fox:

Asked if he was unfair to Obama, the president responded to O’Reilly: “Of course you are, Bill. But I like you anyway.”

“This list of issues you asked about – they’re defined by you guys in a certain way,” Obama continued. “But this is OK. If you want to be president of the United States, then you know you’re going to be subject to criticism.”

I bring up the Obama/Trump comparison to state that while I wish we had a president who would encourage a battlefield of ideas … we do not.

Therefore I think the entire gerrymandering discussion takes on a completely different hue. It shouldn’t be about who wins from a political party perspective but rather who wins on the battlefield of ideas.

The only way I know to do that is to drive debates in a geography which demands some aspects of centrist-type ideas and , inevitably, to a more centrist position where people begin to understand compromise, the trade offs of ideas and neighbor’s wants & needs and wh0 & what represents a greater good rather than “what I think.”

And the only way I know to do that is to eliminate gerrymandering and use whatever basic districting which creates a mish  mash of … well … parties, races, incomes, whatever … and force a battlefield of ideas.

=======

 “The appropriate response for horrible language and horrible ideas — the appropriate response is a better idea.

We are here because we have a better idea.”

—–

Lt. Gen. Jay Silveria

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

“It’s no longer the case that technologies of communication merely accelerate the public discourse, they now ensure that every possible public discourse happens simultaneously. It’s not one damned thing after another. It’s every damned thing all the time.

And so in place of a deliberative democracy, in which we as a people could acknowledge, and even tolerate, our differences while working through complex tensions at a pace consistent with social cohesion, we get a no-holds-barred battle royale in which all things are always at stake — in which we’re fighting every culture battle, past, present, and future, right the hell now.”

—–

Daniel Foster

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

Ok.

I tend to believe everyone knows that we are in a world in which ideas are getting the shit kicked out of them.  For the majority of people ideas float on the superficial surface of our awareness waiting for us to pick one out when it catches our eye.

What that means is rarely do we do any deeper dive to see what else may lie under the surface.

This is happening for a variety of reasons … but the one that bothers me the most is the overall lack of interest in ‘deliberative discussion.’

It seems like in the battlefield of ideas it is a kill or be killed world in which we instantaneously shoot one death ray, attempt to deflect the one which was launched at us, and assumes, in this assault, only one walks away alive.

Ideas do not fare well in battles like this.

The battles in which ideas thrive are the grind it out battles. The ones in which there is an ebb & flow with strategy and strategic maneuvering and there are … well … strategic compromises made in order to win or achieve the objective.

As I have said before … to truly win on the battlefield of ideas you actually need to suffocate bad ideas, suffocate objections and suffocate ignorance not by shouting <which just adds oxygen to a room and an idea> but rather by squeezing the air out of the idea.

But in order to do that you need to engage in deliberative discussion and … well … not be a coward.

Battles are for neither the lazy nor the cowardly.

Deliberative discussion means you just cannot randomly pick up an idea off the superficial surface and walk away.

You need to engage … well … deliberately. You need to step onto the battlefield of ideas <either as an engaged spectator or a deliberate contestant>.

And maybe this is where I get most grumpy with ‘we the people.’ While we may have a shitload of good excuses it almost seems like the majority of people deliberately resist the invasion of ideas.  This almost takes as much effort & energy as actually deliberately participating in the invasion of ideas.

This grumpiness on my part made me revisit something I wrote back in 2016:

The conflict of ideas does not have to reside in any open debate. You don’t even need another person. Ideas invade in any number of ways. They plant themselves in boxes you have forgotten you even had. They grow to a point where you cannot ignore them anymore and begin to battle existing ideas you have. It becomes … well … a war between learning and unlearning … new and old … what you knew and what you know.

I imagine my point is that we are on the battlefield of ideas whether we choose to deliberately be there or not.

In general, I this means we are failing society if we do not deliberately participate in some way.

In general, this means we are failing society <and ourselves> if we deliberately  curb the ‘art of the idea battle’ by deliberately deciding to  curb the art of critique & criticism <which is at the core of the deliberate discussion>.

This is almost societal malpractice on our part because criticism has a role in an effective battlefield of ideas in that it tends to hone the point of attack and … well … sharp edges break through ignorance & well-formed opinions.

Some would call this “the ability to unlearn.”

But ,maybe more importantly, by avoiding this battlefield of ideas we have ceded the ground to not only the cowards but also the assholes. The ones who do not seek to battle over real ideas but rather simply to win an opinion <note: opinions CAN be ideas but real ideas are rarely just opinions>.

Look.

I have nothing against my idea winning <in fact … I like it a lot> but I imagine my point is that the bar for acceptable good behavior to win has dropped significantly.

Studies show it.

Shit.

Just watch the people around you or watch some tv and you will actually see it.

And this lack of acceptable behavior affects how we battle. And, well, that matters because a battle poorly fought means ideas lose or suffer and opinions <and assholes> increase their odds of winning.

Anyway.

I think we all know that Life isn’t just solely about winning and losing … and this is even more relevant on the battlefield of ideas.

I think we all know that some basic good behavior isn’t something that needs to be dictated but rather it is simply something good for common humanity within a population with a desire to have better things and do better things than we are doing today … and this includes better ideas.

I think we all know that behaving well, at least relatively speaking the majority of the time, has a reward that may not always show up in pride, power & pay but rather almost always in dignity, honor & … well … certainty … and this is important in the actual battle of ideas.

I would argue that the three things I just outlined matter a shitload because if we do this then we will … uhm … treat ideas more fairly and less divisively … even as we battle over them.

If we do these things,it tends to lead people to an overall belief, and understanding,  that the idea is fairer for the greater good & society, that the institutions <and the people battling the ideas in the institutions> will treat them more fairly and the world, in general, will end up treating them more fairly <because the ideas are fairer and better understood>.

Ah.

Better ideas better understood –that is the outcome of not only behaving better on the battlefield but permitting a real battlefield of ideas.

I do believe we are behaving more badly.

Suffice it to say that if everyone took one step back and viewed the battlefield of ideas and the behavior on the battlefield and viewed the wide spectrum of current behavior from good to heinous, well, it just doesn’t paint a pretty picture.

Not only are there not a shitload of pretty ideas out there being battled over but how we are battling ain’t so pretty either.

Frankly, we are acting more like assholes every day.

Even the people who are trying to stand up against the assholes.

And in doing so while societal discourse suffers the largest loser in all of this assholishness are the ideas.

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

“Only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation, in a way that would make them proud.”

———-

Barak Obama

===========

Lastly.

With all of this assholishness behavior floating around and ideas suffer … you have to hunker down and understand it’s not personal … it’s about ideas.

I know. I know.

Conceptually this is a tasty high road we like to offer everyone who sits at the idea table.

Realistically … well … this one is difficult to swallow.

On the battlefield of ideas while the ideas can often do some mighty hand to hand combat far too often the messenger gets personally attacked.

But.

Here’s the deal.

I could care less if I turned on the TV and saw Bruce McTague sucks on every channel I went to. Sure. It would sting but, well, at least in the good ole USofA I have the right to speak my ideas and have the opportunity to rationalize my ideas … and others have the right to criticize … me & my ideas.

It’s not personal.

At least it’s not if you believe it is a battlefield of ideas and not a battlefield of ‘messengers’ or personalities.

We need a battlefield of ideas. And we need this battle to be fought every week, every day, every hour and possibly every minute.

Why?

The appropriate response for horrible language and horrible ideas — the appropriate response is a better idea. We are here because we have a better idea.

We deserve not only better ideas but the best ideas. And the only way I know to get the best ideas is … well … to have a battlefield of ideas. The world, and society, would be a much better place if we actually stopped battling over meaningless things and battled more over the truly meaningful things — ideas.

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

“As a therapist, let me just say: almost every trauma survivor I’ve ever had has at some point said, ‘But I didn’t have it as bad as some people,’ and then talked about how other types of trauma are worse. Even my most-traumatized, most-abused, most psychologically-injured clients say this.

The ones who were cheated on, abandoned, and neglected say this.

The ones who were in dangerous accidents/disasters say this.

 The ones who were horrifyingly sexually abused say this.

The ones who were brutally beaten say this.

The ones who were psychologically tortured for decades say this.

What does that tell you?

That one of the typical side-effects of trauma is to make you believe that you are unworthy of care. Don’t buy into it, because it’s nonsense. It doesn’t matter if someone else had it ‘worse.’

Every person who experiences a trauma deserves to get the attention and care they need to heal from it.”

—

hobbitsaarebas

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

“It’s true, I suffer a great deal–but do I suffer well? That is the question.”

―

Thérèse de Lisieux

===

“… victimization is a way of attracting sympathy, so rather than emphasize either their strength or inner worth, the aggrieved emphasize their oppression and social marginalization.”

—-

sociologists Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning

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

Whew.

Believing you are unworthy of care.

I call this “victimhood backlash.”

Now.

This is different than feeling unworthy of love, respect or … well … unworthy of something or any of that type of thing.

In fact.

This is actually the exact opposite of a victim mentality.

This is when something truly bad has happened to you <you are a real victim of something> and you look around and say “whew, they are the real victims.” In a real sense this person then constructs an extremely viable narrative to suggest that while they are in a shithole … their shithole is nothing compared to some other people’s shithole.

This is not self deprecation … it is a sincere feeling that what you did or experienced was closer to ordinary rather than extraordinary.

But.

I say this unequivocally  … even if someone is shrugging off help or maybe even adamantly opposing the help … a hole is a hole and you need help getting out of holes.

Someone may not think they are worthy of care, or asking for help … but they need it.

Anyway.

I have two thoughts on this ‘believing unworthy of care’.

First.

A hole is a hole.

If you are in a hole, it is a hole.

I have written this before … a shithole is a shithole. We are not in the shithole comparison business. All shitholes are dark, deep and often don’t have a visible ladder to get out of the shithole.

To me?

Horrible is horrible.

A black hole is a black hole.

And while maybe not all holes and abysses are created equal … all seem equally deep, dark & shitty when in one.

This may not be literally true … but figuratively I tend to believe that is how we view it when encountering some shit Life gives us which places us into some dark hole.

Second.

I do not believe that victimhood is some cultural crisis <the sociologists I highlight upfront do suggest that>.

Yeah.

The things for which we can publicly accept the fact we were a victim of has certainly increased. This doesn’t mean more shit, and shitholes, have occurred … it is just that it is now more acceptable to admit them and address them.

Can this get out of whack? Sure.

But a long as someone isn’t creating a shithole and claiming being a victim then .. well … a shithoe is a shithole.

I would suggest that we want people who feel like they are n some shithole because they were a victim of something to speak out regardless of whether an everyday schmuck like me may look at them and say “c’mon, be real, that’s Life” and maybe we should be focusing on how to better address them when they speak out.

We need less pandering and more reality management.  We need less judgement and more dialogue.

We need to grow a dialogue culture. Rather than responding to comments or behaviors with less condemnation or judgement and more engagement to engage rather than repel <without increasing victim mentality but rather managing it>.

But we do not want anyone at anytime to believe that they are unworthy of care.

Anyway.

I can almost guarantee almost everyone will either slip into a hole or go crashing into a hole at some point in their Life.

And that person <which means, uhm, everyone> will need help getting out of it.

For if you permit someone to linger too long in the hole … well … the abyss will gaze into them. And inevitably find some dark corner in the mind that they will find a place to live, eat and breathe for years and years to come.

Just accept what I just said without shrugging or thinking “that’s some bad shit.”

<Most> Holes are fine in Life.

They are part of Life.

Regardless of whether the shithole is incredibly shitty or just basic shit they have the same intended conclusion — you just have to make sure you know how to get out of them.

Ah.

Which leads me back to the opening quote.

Someone who believes that they are unworthy of care.

I say that because you can spend a lot of time looking around at other shitholes thinking about how to get other people out of their shitholes … all the while ignoring your own shithole, avoiding finding a way out of our own shithole and, maybe the worst, if you gaze long enough into an abyss … anyone’s abyss … it will gaze into you.

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

“And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.”

 

–

<Beyond Good and Evil> Friedrich Nietzsche

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

Look.

I have had this debate a zillion times … the one where you discuss who has it worse.

Who is going through tougher times.

Who has actually gone through a tougher time.

Maybe even discussing a bad moment in life as horrible, but always discussing ‘horrible’ relative to other horribleness.

And while it is most likely true that, regardless of your situation, someone somewhere has it worse than you do … that thought only seems to offer some false comfort nor does it really offer any solutions.

To me … comparing bad situations is not only not very helpful but it also tends to suggest the wrong thing to me – “my suffering isn’t equal to your suffering.” Which tends to lead to “I don’t believe I am worthy of care.”

Bad. Wrong.

I do not believe we should be in the shithole comparison business.

A shit hole is a shithole and anyone in a shithole is just as worth of care as anyone else in a shithole.

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

“For each person there is a sentence — a series of words — which has the power to destroy them.”

—

Philip K. Dick

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

“I would hurl words into this darkness and wait for an echo, and if an echo sounded, no matter how faintly, I would send other words to tell, to march, to fight, to create a sense of the hunger for life that gnaws in us all, to keep alive in our hearts a sense of the inexpressibly human.”

—

Richard Wright

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

Well.

I have written about the power of words, the proper use of words and … well … the waste of good words a zillion times.

Nothing tears me out of my frame more than seeing and hearing someone abuse words.

That said.

I cannot tell everyone how often I am reminded that how you say something is possibly more important than what you say <at minimum I would suggest it is a symbiotic relationship in which the life of ‘what you say’ is in the hands of how you say it>. And ‘how you say it’ doesn’t just encompass context, tone, choice of actual words & phrasing but also internal speaker stuff – intent, purpose and, maybe the most important of all, belief in the words you are saying.

All this becomes incredibly important because when words are used well <and even poorly> in front of a receptive audience they can encourage marching, fighting and a sense of hunger for life that can gnaw at us all.

While I could write an entire book on what makes words tricky … today I will offer a couple of things:

• Words given and words used

Yes. Some words we choose on our own.

But more times than we may like to care … there are words that are given to us.

Huh?

It is easy to think about how there are speechwriters and how some people have to stand up and deliver someone else’s words … but this bleeds into everyday life. In business you can be sitting around a table and people parse out words and offer different ways of saying what you want to say. Parents suggest different words to their children and teachers do it day in and day out. Friends say “don’t say that” or “I wouldn’t say it that way” … in other words … we are given words to say all the frickin’ time.

Suffice it to say … not all words given to you are actually good words for you to use. Words have to match personal beliefs to be delivered effectively.

I was reminded of this the other day listening to Trump deliver a speech he obviously <a> had written for him and <b> didn’t agree with. Trump is incapable of keeping his thoughts to himself, or of cloaking his speech with words that could disguise his true thoughts.

Here is what I think I know from years of giving speeches and seeing people give speeches with regard to effective use of words and presenting words — intended thoughts versus underlying principles.

In general most people working together share some basic principles. These are the foundations for specific words. Therefore when given words to speak the shared principles kind of ground the tone and delivery so that they don’t sound painful or distasteful coming out of the speaker’s mouth – just maybe a little uncomfortable on occasion.

Without shared principles the words have no foundation … they are delivered hollow of anything. They are just empty words. And empty words sound … well … empty. They may be the actual right words to say but the wrong person is trying to say them – which hen strips them of any meaning.

Here is what I know about empty words — empty words are evil.

==

“And empty words are evil.”

—

Homer

<The Odyssey>

==

They have been uttered full of nothing … even though they possibly were crafted by a lot of something <passion, thought, insight, whatever>. But as they eased out from between the lips of the deliverer they were stripped of anything meaningful and simply become platitudes.

I could argue that this insures inevitable invisibility <unless some listeners/pundits attempt to parse out each word as meaningful and full of some meaning & intent – where there actually was none of that>.

These words are not harmless because in their emptiness they have become a version of evil. Evil in that they have not prompted any thought, any idea … any new passion. They are evil in that they have not inspired anything new … and everything old, or that which exists now, remains unchanged.

That’s what evil does … it fights change and thrives on inertia.

Those of us who give words should be incredibly careful, and smart, on who we give them to. Just because a word is right it may not be right for that person.

The second.

• Words can have a life of their own

Words are their own people with minds of their own. This means that they may not always remain a true reflection of the speaker’s thoughts. Once they leave the lips and they enter into the ether … well … they can be chameleons. They often take on the hues of the environment.

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

“Words are chameleons, which reflect the color of their environment.” 

——

Learned Hand

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

Whew.

This makes choosing words even more difficult. More difficult in that a word can mean several things at exactly the same time … what it means in your head, what it means as it leaves your lips, what it means as it floats thru the environment <slowly, or quickly, changing as it is bombarded with contextual environment> and what it means as it is heard.

What made me think of this was watching a Trump rally speech, a day after watching a scripted teleprompter speech, where I was reminded of the power of context. Context, and delivery, can strip a word of meaning or it can dress it in whatever clothes you would like.

For example … if I use the word ‘unity’ and, yet, it is used within an overall “us versus them” driven narrative it suggest not an overall unity but rather a unity of “us only.”

Huh.

One would think unity would be a word well used in almost any environment.

Unite. Blend. Coalesce. Combine. Fuse. Join. Merge. These words refer to the bringing or coming together of several different elements to form a whole.

Out of many one. E pluribus unim.

Unite actually comes for the Latin word ‘usus’ which means one.

Combine means to bring together in close union … more general in application than unite and does not emphasize as strongly the completeness of the process of coming together. In other words it just places things together but don’t guarantee the full integration.

Blend even more strongly than combine suggests a mingling of different elements. Unlike combine it specifically refers to the obscuring or harmonizing of various components.

Merge, like blend, suggest the loss of spate identity of ingredients, but does not imply the physical act of making or mingling together different elements.

Join is the broadest term of this group can mean to become part of to bring together or connect or to put together in close contact.

Fuse means to join by or as if by melting together – it also implies some aspect of ‘forcing or forging.’ Fuse in other contexts implies a solid lasting connection.

Coalesce suggests a gradual or natural coming together. In extended senses coalesce suggests two separate courses that gradually merge into one. .

In other words I can say unity in a number of ways or even qualify unity with another likeminded word all of which suggests this is a multi-dimensional challenge — constantly in flux. When Trump says unity it doesn’t create gold in people’s minds … it … well … creates shit.

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

“I’m fucking King Midas in reverse here. Everything I touch turns to shit.”

Tony Soprano

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

Regardless.

I imagine my real point is that words without their corners knocked off, or ground down, can be good words … and used for good.

They need to be shaped, protected and guided through the environment instead of being flippantly flung out assuming a basic stimulus – response world.

I clearly have a healthy respect for words. And I, frankly, have a healthy respect for the responsibility of words handed to someone.

Used well they can nudge the world.

Used hollowly they are evil.

Used poorly they are just wasted.

—————

“Words…  

They’re innocent, neutral, precise, standing for this, describing that, meaning the other, so if you look after them you can build bridges across incomprehension and chaos. But when they get their corners knocked off, they’re no good any more… I don’t think writers are sacred, but words are.  

They deserve respect.  

If you get the right ones in the right order, you can nudge the world a little or make a poem which children will speak for you when you’re dead.”

==

Tom Stoppard

——————-

I am not a speechwriter but I have been involved in, and seen, hundreds of presentations and speeches. I can say, unequivocally, the same word can nudge the world, be hollow or just be a waste of breath depending on who utters it.

You learn in business, fairly quickly, that just because a word is universally good <like love, or unity, or hope> it can quickly lose its ‘goodness’ depending on who delivers the word and how they deliver it.

You learn in business, fairly quickly, that while the audience matters you cannot ignore the deliverer of the words.

An angry speaker struggles to speak of love authentically.

A passionate speaker struggles to speak of mistakes authentically.

A storyteller speaker struggles to speak with the intent to inspire energy authentically.

You learn in business, fairly quickly, you use words, and give words, with ‘authentic delivery’ in mind. And, yes, that means that sometime you sacrifice some words despite the fact you know your audience yearns to hear that word.

You learn this, in business or in Life, or you will waste a shitload of words.

Anyway.

I would say this about anyone … but Trump is painful for me to listen to … as he either misuses words or purposefully abuses words <or is given words that he abuses>.

But I can honestly say that I, a word guy, feel insulted when I am asked to imagine that Trump believes what he says whenever he is persuaded to sound like what he believes the president of the United States is supposed to sound like.

I have lots of gripes with President Trump but the fact he abuses words so shamelessly is a crime to me.

And that may be one of the biggest crimes he will commit because words have a power stronger than a single bullet or bomb.

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

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

——

Frederick Douglas 1850

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

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

―

Gaylord Nelson

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

Ok.

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

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

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

Or that our situation has never been worse.

Or something is better than it has ever been before.

I admit.

I kind of chuckle when I hear all this.

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

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

Frankly.

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

Shit.

Most people any age.

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

Ok.

If I were sensitive, I would care.

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

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

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

But.

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

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

Yup.

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

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

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

Yeah.

The older tectonic plate.

The one that is supposed to be smarter.

The one that is supposed to know the best.

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

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

Well.

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

Pieces or parts smarter and know the best?

Yes. Sure.

On the whole?

Nope.

Why?

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

Ok.

To be fair.

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

But they are a minority.

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

It is too bad.

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

But.

Regardless.

In the end.

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

True in 1850.

True in 2017.

True in 2150.

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

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

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

Now.

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

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

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

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

Regardless.

This post all comes down to several overarching thoughts.

Each generation faces radical adversity.

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

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

And, lastly.

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

Why?

Because we are managers.

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

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

Well.

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

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

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

Anyway.

Is this poetic metaphor a bad one? Maybe.

But certainly something worth thinking about.

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

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

 

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

 

―

Criss Jami

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

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

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

——–

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

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

So.

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

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

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

Yeah.

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

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

I believe this is a real issue.

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

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

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

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

Lets be clear.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now.

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

They may be partially right.

But I would argue 3 things:

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

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

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

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

Look.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

―

Ayn Rand

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

Ok.

Discussing business leadership is … well … interesting.

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now.

That said.

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

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

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

Look.

A shitload of people can lead.

An even larger shitload of people think they can lead.

And even smaller shitload of people can actually lead well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

“Stop opposing the truths.

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

―

Bikash Bhandari

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

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

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

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

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