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

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.

=====

“It’s dark because you are trying too hard.

Lightly child, lightly. Learn to do everything lightly. Yes, feel lightly even though you’re feeling deeply. Just lightly let things happen and lightly cope with them.

I was so preposterously serious in those days.

Lightly, lightly – it’s the best advice ever given me. So throw away your baggage and go forward. There are quicksands all about you, sucking at your feet, trying to suck you down into fear and self-pity and despair. That’s why you must walk so lightly. Lightly my darling… “

Aldous Huxley

=====

Life truths.

Hard and lightly.

Haste with patience.

Forward diagonally.

Happy and sad.

Success and failure.

Right and wrong.

Thinking and doing.

Dreams and hard work.

Whew. This means that the truly great things in Life may be a coin you can put in your pocket — a coin made up of two sides and two faces.

Yeah. Life is usually a combination of opposites fighting a tug of war moment to moment. I bet no one told you that when you were growing up.

Far too often we are told the secret to life is one thing.

Far too often someone is not telling is the truth <or maybe they don’t really know the secret to life?>.

Th truth is Life <and business also> is a wonderful, maddening blob of inconsistency.

The only way to survive , and not be totally boring, inept or a hermit, is to steal a little of something from both sides and do your best to proportion it all out in the end.

Proportional?

I need some sadness to recognize true joy <only I certainly don’t want to dwell on sadness nor walk around as Happy the Clown every minute of the day>.

I want a leader who is energetic and demanding and cajoling, pushing, shoving, pulling, inspiring people toward a horizon < but I want the moments of idle strength and compassion intertwined>.

I want to work hard … so hard the muscles, brain and/or physical, are strained and hurt … and get to maybe get a glimpse of one of my dreams on occasion <so I can dream a little when not working hard>.

I want people to play hard and play to win <in any endeavor> … but do so with grace in victory & loss, with sportsmanship & fairness and respect for the game.

I want, well, it doesn’t matter what I want. Pick your ‘hard-lightly’ Life combination. I guarantee you will find the most interesting people, most interesting experiences, most interesting moments, most interesting anythings are a reflection of this ying-yang combination. Life is meant to be lived, and experienced, hard & lightly.

Now. By the way.

Just because Life is meant to be lived this way doesn’t mean it is easy to actually live it that way. Living hard, or living lightly, is not only addictive, but also often generates a sense of ‘lostness’ when shelved for a bit.

Why lostness?

Well. It is mostly fear that we will not refind or regain it therefore we hesitate to ever let it go from the way we currently live our Life.

So what do we do? We ‘take a break.’

We ‘get away from it all.’ In other words instead of seeking some ‘how we actually live’ balance in our lives we just step away from the way we live our Life by simply not going lightly <if we typically go hard> or not going go hard <if we typically go lightly> and we don’t do anything other than how we live our Life so, ultimately, we just choose to do nothing to ‘recharge.’

I would suggest that you don’t need to ‘take a break’ to recharge, but rather if you seek the proportional ‘yang’ to your ‘ying’, well, you will find additional purpose as well as your ‘ying’ takes on an entirely new image n your eyes & mind.

• *** note: proportional versus balance: I purposefully use proportional rather than balance because on an individual, person to person, basis it is rarely a 50/50 split – even over time. everyone customizes their life between hard & lightly as is appropriate to their personality, ambition and life desires. once again, this is rarely 50/50 and everyone should just seek what their optimal proportional mix is.

Regardless, just approaching Life one way means you miss out on what is most interesting in life – going hard & lightly.

Aw shit. Look. All I really know if that if you can figure out how to go hard and tread lightly at the same time, you will most likely be successful in business & in Life. You will most likely be appreciated, respected, sometimes liked and certainly not hated. I know … I know … the ‘tread lightly’ part is really really hard if you like to live Life going hard.

But.

As I just told someone go hard for the things you want and dreams you seek to reach toward and if you continue to do these things for you, knowing that your moral compass is set correctly and that your instincts with regard to ‘what is right’ versus ‘what is wrong’ are good, you will be happier and the people around you will rarely be disappointed.

Ponder.

—-

==

“There are times in life when people must know when not to let go.

Balloons are designed to teach small children this.”

Terry Pratchett

————–

Well. I have written about how difficult it is for people, in business & Life, to let go of things so much I am not sure I can find any new words to share on that topic.

In fact if you google “reasons to not let go” you get nothing. Nada. You get jack shit on the topic.

All you get is page after page of ‘reasons to let go.’

And, yet, there are certainly times to know when to not let go.

To be clear, a purposeful ‘not let go’ is a different difficulty for us. While not letting go is something that is mostly based on some version of fear or doubt, knowing when to not let go of something seems to be more about our difficulty in discerning what is important, or good, and what is unimportant, or bad.

In fact. I think part of the ‘not letting go’ difficulty resides in how we learned to hold on in childhood <the balloon thing>.

We learn very early on that when you let go of something good it floats away never to be seen again. So we have learned to hold on a tightly as possible to anything that could be construed as good <note: even if it is really a crappy balloon>.

We have become so good at it we are almost proud of not letting go. Therefore the problem isn’t our ability to actually hold on … it is choosing what to really not let go of.

Not letting go is a complex decision compounded by the fact we are complex people.

Why does the complexity matter? Because there is no formula. No ‘rules of not letting go.’

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Some things are obvious. The self stuff, the character stuff, the ‘who you are as a person’ stuff you don’t let go of. They are good balloons. But if you are not careful, after a while, you have so many balloons you can’t discern the good ones from the bad ones. Which leads me to suggest I sometimes believe the ‘what not to let go’ choice is an acquired intuition thing.

Yup. I just typed acquired and intuition side by side.

I like to remind people that you are not borne with good intuition. You may be borne with a good intuition muscle, but experience strengthens the muscle and it takes some time & experience to ‘acquire’ the intuition necessary to ‘not let go’ of the right things.

Regardless. I suggest intuition because unless one of the balloons has lost all its air and has sunk to the ground you are choosing amongst a shitload of balloons that maybe all look pretty good to you.

This may sound crazy because balloons float above you and should seem obvious at all times, but the connections to many of the balloons in your life are actually like links of a chain underwater.

==

“The moment of truth, the sudden emergence of a new insight, is an act of intuition.

Such intuitions give the appearance of miraculous flushes, or short-circuits of reasoning. In fact they may be likened to an immersed chain, of which only the beginning and the end are visible above the surface of consciousness.

The diver vanishes at one end of the chain and comes up at the other end, guided by invisible links.”

Arthur Koestler

==

You see the balloons. Okay. You see some of them.

But the strings get all tangled up and you cannot tell which string to let go of <because you are not sure which balloon will go away> and which one to hold on to. Some of the choices you make as you look at the strings are intuitive. And given some time and experience I imagine the string feels a little different in your hand as you pluck it out from all the others. That is this version of intuition.

So. One of the things I admire most in people is consistent great intuition and how they manage what to not let go of.

It is an interesting characteristic to assess when you meet people and is fairly easy because you can just look up and see the balloons they carry with them.

So, in the end, maybe the balloon metaphor is bad, or maybe I simply overused it, but suffice it to say that while there is a lot of free advice on ‘letting go’, there isn’t a whole shitload of advice on ‘what to not let go of.’

I think it is obvious that there are certainly some ‘be yourself’ characteristics that you should never let go of <although figuring out what to not let go of as you try and improve yourself is not easy either>.
What is less obvious is the other stuff in your life. Experiences, knowledge, even people.

I don’t have any answers today. Just questions. And maybe some prompting that this is something we should think about a little more.

Most letting go advice online is vapid and a waste of time <albeit with good intent>.

I don’t have any advice for ‘not let go’ other than think about it. We all learn to hold on to balloons because they represent freedom and hope and good things waiting above us. Paradoxically, despite the fact it may appear like they should be let free so we can benefit from them, it is actually those that should be the things we hold on to and not let go of. 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.

=====

“… but there is a certain point where trying to choose between the lesser of two evils is just an exercise in futility. It doesn’t matter what you choose … both are so bad you struggle to discern which would be worse. Therefore, I refuse to choose.”

Alex Verus

———–

So. The opening quote is from a character in a fantasy book, but, that said, we have all been in a situation where all the choices look bad, or not so good — but definitely not good.

This is the choice of the lesser of two evils:

—

The lesser of two evils principle (or lesser evil principle) is the principle that when faced with selecting from two unpleasant options, the one which is least harmful should be chosen.

—

Let’s just say, well, it sucks. And it sucks even worse when we stop and fruitlessly seek some silver lining in what is, frankly, no good choice trying to convince ourselves it isn’t ‘actually’ that bad a choice. But. It is a bad choice.

This is not one of those choices where someone says “sometimes the wrong choice puts you in the right place.” The only place this choice puts you is in a bad place, sure, maybe less bad than somewhere else, but bad. In game theory it is typically known as the no-win situation – an unavoidable decision with unavoidable an outcome which encompasses the losses of whatever value resides within the choice.

Uhm. And, yet, the character decided to not choose. Why?

At some point it becomes an exercise in futility.

Now. If there was ever an example of ‘no choice actually being a choice’. this may be it. In fact, it may actually be ‘the win’ choice.

Huh?

It seems like when faced with a lesser of two evils far too often we look at harm associated with the choice itself and not the harm to ourselves.

This may sound crazy, but survival is not always the desired outcome.

Huh?

Well. If survival means sacrificing all that you find valuable & important to your self, you better be damn sure it is worth the evil you are choosing.

And that is what the character in the book is saying.

“I choose neither of the evils because if I did … I live … but I may not be able to live with myself.”

Well.

Personally, I probably think about this ‘live with myself’ with regard to my decisions more than most people and possibly more than is productive or healthy for me. But.

I have seen success and I have seen failure.

I have had rewards and suffered penalties.

I have risen toward the top and scrambled to get free of the bottom.

Through it all the only one, the only thing consistent, is me.

Just saying ‘I survived’ <and this can be in business, life or situational> is not enough for me. Never has. Possibly because I have seen the wounds inflicted upon character, esteem and integrity with basic ‘I survived’ choices. Personally, I don’t want to survive if I have to sacrifice … well … me <the character portion … not the physical portion>.

To be clear. This is a personal choice and I do not judge others on how they choose.

To be clear. This personal decision comes with a cost. But it is a cost I am willing to bear because it only costs me material rewards & society-based successes. It doesn’t cost me any of what resides within me.

Look.

Choosing between the lesser of two evils is almost always actually choosing between three evils: the two choices and what evil it inflicts upon yourself.

I cannot tell anyone what to do when faced with a ‘no win’ scenario.

That is for each person to face on their own and decide what is best for them. But I can tell everyone you should think about it.

It can be a ‘no win’ choice just make sure you, yourself, also doesn’t win. Because losing yourself in addition to having to choose between a lesser of two evils means, well, some version of evil has won.

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.”

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

“You can always find an excuse to not stand up for your principles.

But if you don’t risk anything, it doesn’t matter as much.”

Jeff Flake

=========

“Laws and principles are not for the times when there is no temptation: they are for such moments as this, when body and soul rise in mutiny against their rigour … If at my convenience I might break them, what would be their worth?”

Charlotte Brontë

=====

“Great ambition is the passion of a great character. Those endowed with it may perform very good or very bad acts. All depends on the principals which direct them.”

 Napoleon Bonaparte

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

Well. While I am not so sure Life really offers us nonstop, limitless opportunities to move forward and make progress toward things we want or like <albeit it does offer us a lot> … what it does do is offer us a relentlessly tantalizing smorgasbord of opportunities to take the easy way out, appealing short cuts and opportunities to circumvent rules & regulations <while no one is looking>.

My point is that Life pretty much says “there is always an easier way and choice if you are willing to set aside your principles just this one time.”

And Life relentlessly whispers this in your ear … moment … after … moment. Relentlessly.

I mention this to everyone because if Life really does this moment after moment <and it really does>, you would be tempted to find an excuse to not stand up for your principles on occasion.

Ah.

“On occasion.”

That sounds so … well … harmless. It was back in September 2010 I wrote “slippery slopes & “just once” where I said this:

It is incredibly easy to compromise … in business and in life.

“Just this once” you say to yourself when you are tired. Whatever the decision or action we are discussing, to you, in the moment … it is mentally “an exception”. And before you know it <after some “just this onces“> you have edged on to that slippery slope.

I think the most interesting thing to think about is this whole idea of principles and slippery slopes. It is interesting because most people think of principles a steadfast, unshakeable and solid. We never think of them as slippery.  And, yet, seemingly harmless momentary exceptions are actually extremely harmful moments in which each exception makes the next exception even easier to do.

In other words. You end up finding an easy excuse to not stand up for your principles.

Part of the problem is that the whole concept of principles has become an incredibly twisted concept in today’s world. In fact, “principles”, in today’s world, can often get placed in that heinous slot with ‘political correctness.’ What I mean by that is the meaning of the word, and phrase, has been subverted into a negative space from its intended space which is, and should be, a positive one.

It seems odd but principles and principled actions are a tricky topic.

Tricky in that while a principles ‘are statements denoting fact or generality which are universally or widely considered to be true and fundamental’ they, in fact, have a great range of meaning. While ‘principles’ most often refers to the elementary, or fundamental, basic proposition of some system or of conduct, it can also be tied to some specific designation, i.e., religion, government, business, education, etc. as well as some specific values <of which could be shared or not shared>.

It would be much nicer if we actually referred to ‘principled behavior’ as an axiom. While axiom is a derivative of ‘principle’ it is more tightly tied to ‘one agreed upon as the basis of truth … a truth so self evident as to be indisputable’.  Principles, in theory, are an axiom unfortunately, in practice; they are more a theorem <a proposition>. I offer this philosophical mumbo jumbo to make the point that principles is a trickier topic an idea than one would think.

I do believe the internet has made this topic trickier in that civil discourse has devolved to such a state that if you were to offer your ‘principles’ to an audience there will inevitably be a negative nasty, and often cruel, backlash suggesting that what you would consider principles are … well … bad.

Principles fall into the horrible trap of “small minds discuss people; average minds discuss events; great minds discuss ideas.” And, yeah, the deterioration of discourse in general aids Life in whispering in your ear that maybe, just maybe, just this once you should find an excuse to not stand up for your principles. This often happens in a twisted way in which we focus labels of “evil thinking” toward  people who do not think like us, or have similar principles, which then seems to provide an open license to anyone who wants to vent  with extreme behavior.

I make that point because … well … all of this makes the moments you really do find an excuse to not stand up for your principles extremely important.  They are important because your principles are your means of integrating what you know, knowledge, and what you feel <moral> which enables you to assess value of individual decisions and choices. In other words, the value assessment provides the signpost for doing what is right or doing what is wrong.

In other words … your principles are applied to Life to organize and control the path of your Life <and as a larger sense … of society>.

In other words … principles affect all systems of law in effect today and, in effect, provide us with the signposts for guidance even above the law.

In other words … principles permit you to focus on what is in my best interest without doing so at the expense of the best interest of society as a whole.

Yeah.

All that sounds good.

But if you have some strong principles you will inevitably worry that if you live by your principles … doing what you believe is right and the right thing to do … in what you perceive is a ‘dog eat dog’ world … you will get chewed up.

You worry that doing the right thing and having principles will actually hinder them in their journey toward their ambition.

Think about what I just wrote.

I suggest you do so because we older folk spend a shitload of time ranting about the altruism focus of the young … that they want to ‘do good’ but don’t want to ‘do work.’

We are missing the point.

In fact, we may be missing something we should be paying attention to.

Most of these young people simply don’t want to compromise their principles. They are not being dreamers nor are they being Pollyannaish with a perspective to the world, in fact they are possibly seeing the world better than we old folk are.

They want to work.

They want to run businesses.

They want to be productive and be part of some company where they can be part of a them doing and making something.

They just don’t want to compromise their principles.

I use the young to make an example but everyone walks this line.

The line?

Your good gets tugged toward the side of bad.

And, yes, the bad gets tugged toward the side of good.

Anyway.

This was a semi-sad post for me to write.

Sad in that it seems like we have forgotten the power of principles … and I sometimes think we believe the system is driving our behavior, and our selective stance with regard to our principles in the moment,  and success.

Sad in that I think we forget the system shouldn’t dictate our use of principles, nor should Life, but rather it is the people who build and make up the system and, therefore, they dictate the definition of principled behavior.

Sad in that I think sometimes we older folk appear to cynically view the system as ‘it is what it is … deal with it … do what you need to do … or you will lose.’

Sad in the younger people view the system as ‘it is what it is … I don’t like it … I will not compromise’ … and they are electing to try and avoid it … and many of us older folk are ignoring them as naïve.

Sad in that … well … how is any of this I just noted, in any way, a successful formula for the future?

Look.

Life makes dealing with your principles a constant struggle. The real point is that you can fulfill your ambition & maintain your principles, you just have to decide to not find an excuse to not stand up for your principles.

To be clear … we can all find an excuse to not stand up for our principles.

To be clear … we can actually stand up for our principles and still sometimes find we are standing up for the wrong things and in the wrong way.

To be clear … this will not be a one-time choice. It will be an ongoing calculation throughout your entire Life, a decision that must be revisited repeatedly, week after week, moment after moment as new decisions unfold.

I say that because in business, even if you gaze into the ‘principle crystal ball’, it is never a one time choice nor is it an unchanging choice. Business is ever changing and the leaders of a business are constantly being challenged and responding in an ever changing way in which your principles are tested in a variety of sometimes seemingly innocuous ways.

Business has a nasty habit of challenging a leader’s character almost more than it does his/her skills.

Business has a nasty habit of challenging your own character almost more than it does your skills.

Therefore, principles and principled behavior needs to constantly be assessed … and judged. In other words. Events demand to be met head on.

In the end, all I can do is leave you with one thought — I am not sure there is a worse feeling than looking back and wishing you had been more principled. Period.

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

“Do you admire men of principle?

That would depend, I suppose, upon what set of principles you’re speaking of.”

Well.

Don’t you find that principles inject an almost moribund inflexibility in the people who subscribe to them?”

The Hollow Men

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

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

“You know the Greeks didn’t write obituaries, they only asked one question after a man died, ‘Did he have passion?’”

movie quote from Serendipity

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

One morning I woke up thinking that if I ever came across my own obituary I, well, wouldn’t bother with it. it’s a sobering thought. the majority of my career, and life, I have helped people make money who didn’t actually need more money, found people who needed me who actually didn’t really need anybody like me and the best things I did well were things that those same people could pay someone else to do.

Well. And then I thought about the movie “Serendipity”. Wow. That was a transition, huh?

** note: The closing scene of Serendipity probably ranks in my top 5 “best use of music in a movie scene” rankings. It is absolutely the perfect use of Nick Drake’s Northern Sky.

My opening quote is actually when John Cusack’s buddy at the end of the movie says “The Greeks didn’t write obituaries. They only asked one question after a man died: Did he have passion?”

I loved it.

But me, being me, had to Google whether Greeks truly did write obituaries or not (because I found that thought to be fascinating and I wanted to be sure it want just some movie writer writing it).

Well.

It turns out that they did and didn’t. This is the philosophy of Aristippus of Cyrene (c. 435-356 B.C.) and

his grandson who were founders of the Cyrenaics.  They were Greeks. But their philosophy didn’t represent all Greeks. So it was Greek but not all Greeks.

Regardless.

Back to obituaries and passion and, frankly, what if passion is missing in our life and what does that mean if anything meaningful at all.

In my mind passion rarely spontaneously ignites, it develops slowly and purposefully (despite what writers & poets and whomever want you to believe). It is not borne from nothing but rather from something. Because of that I believe you feel it most when you take time to consider the things in life (actions) that have meaning to you.  Oh. I also believe that passion does not seek you out rather you discover passion thru a pursuit of things that are interesting to you.

Maybe the Greeks were on to something when they discussed respecting the cultivation of personal passion as important to living life to its fullest.

I guess this mean that accomplishment is empty if you reach a goal on technical skills alone.

Think about that.

And let’s think about this … and I will use my passion of teaching the next generation as an example.

If education is taught by rote, there is no passion only technical skill. So even if they “succeed”, where succeed is measured by making some grade, they have not accomplished anything because they have no passion.

Oh my.

That summarizes a lot of my thinking on education and the existing education system.

Ok.

But.

Back to obituaries.

And self-retrospection again as an example.

So if I were to die today would I be content with what my obituary will read?

I’m not sure that I can say yes at this moment. Oops. I lied. No.  I wouldn’t be.

What’s missing?

I guess that’s the question that I’m going to have to answer at some point.

I imagine the answer resides somewhere in-between some unidentified-to-date issue in my past (forgiveness for what I may have done) or if the answer lies in the future (what I have yet to achieve).

And, yes, they are two edges of the same sword.

All I know for sure is that my obituary would be incomplete as of today.

But the value in thinking about it a bit now is once we all measure the words of our “today” obituary we begin to assess where do we go from here.

Sometimes we do things we can’t take back. And that’s that. What you have done is who you are (today).

But what you have done is not who you will be.

In my case it has been nearly 3,150 weeks. Uhm. And a traditional life is around 400 weeks. Whew. I better get going if I want to complete my obituary .

My point there, beyond the fact we don’t really have a shitload of time in a typical lifetime, is an obituary is not about what you can undo from what is done and moving on. Why? You don’t undo.

That, my friends, is a big thought if you are thinking in obituary terms.

Because a lot of people want to go back and fix or ‘undo.’

Once again.

You can’t.

That said. Obituaries are written when they are written and that means they are written with “what is” as the case and point.

My point? Unburden yourself from the past.

The good, the bad, the indifferent … none matter.

Write your obituary from today on.

Yeah.

The past cannot be changed, forgotten, edited, or erased. The truth is you can only accept it. Accept it and get to building what you want.

Here is a thought.

Maybe everyone should write your obituary after you read this post.

You may not like what you read.

You may only like parts of what you read.

Who cares?

You are alive.

You still have time to do something else that can get written.

So. Write the obituary you want beginning today.

=======

“We cling to our fairy tales until the price for believing in them becomes too high.”

Ransom Riggs

====

“The best way to expose our ignorance is to hold on to biased ideas and opinions, because we fear giving the upper hand to the other side.”

Charles F. Glassman

====

Business is a tricky combination of adapting and consistency.

Suffice it to say discerning what to keep and build some consistency, and what to change or adapt, is, well, the key to creating a successful business.

Letting go of shit is difficult. We all know that.

But. Knowing when to hold on to something is just as difficult.

Simplistically:

<1> many organizations are burdened with older employees who tend to hold on based on their experience, and

<2> many organizations are burdened with younger employees who tend to let go of existing ideas and opinions based on their lack of experience.

Both sides are stubborn, fearing to give the other the upper hand.

And that is where business really needs to get its shit together. This whole ‘upper hand’ thing.

Because success isn’t about compromise it is more often about good ideas winning no matter where and when and who they come from.

When someone or a generation feels like they have the power, or run the risk of losing power, they do stupid things. Obviously, the business pays the price, not the person doing the stupid things. That is why adapting and selecting what to be consistent about should be about anything but power. It should be about creating a culture & organization in which old & new is debated and ‘the good of the organization & business’ decides what to hold on to and what to let go of.

Far too often the power structure in a business <and this can be one individual wielding an inordinate amount of power or an age group/cohort fighting for their space> holds the ‘fairy tale’ success formula, uhm, until the price for believing them becomes too high.

Sigh.

Unfortunately that moment is often too late to ‘fix’ what has gone wrong.

Regardless. A business’ success, and flaws, is typically driven by a couple attitudinal things  <a> a general feeling that you could be doing better and <b> the virtue of the participants.

Doing better.

There is gobs of pressure put on a business both internally and externally. Internally <be successful or be fired> and externally <the market is brutal on any business which does not show growth>. Even if the business has been steadily improving someone will be hammering away on either how terrible things are or how much better it can, and should, be.

Virtue of participants.

A business, in order to function efficiently and effectively, is dependent upon the virtue of the participants. A lack of virtue engenders wasteful transactions, wasteful actions and breeds an overall monitoring cost which can paralyze an organization from any movement or adaptation.

Both of those things I just shared are power. They both have the power to do good, and bad, for a business. What I mean is that the price for believing, disproportionately, in doing better is virtue-driven – that can make the price too high to meet simple ‘doing better’ objectives.

Power, ultimately, resides in, and will always, identifying what should remain consistent and when & where to adapt. All of that is organizationally driven and not individually driven. And yet … it is the individual who must assess all actions & behavior with the intent to always seek when ‘the price in believing something becomes too high.’

In the end I would simply note that the strongest most powerful thing you can do for a business is to understand that doing better with virtue can work.

This is not a fairy tale.

Just know there are no shortcuts and it isn’t easy — you have to work for it.

You have to find ways <just having it as objective will not work>. You have to somehow do something, sometimes anything on occasion, all the while keeping your head on straight and go do something that saves … well … the business <which is kind of like saving the world>.