==

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

——————

Albert Einstein

==

Let’s talk Chaos.

Controlled chaos.

Disciplined Chaos.

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

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

Ah. Where to start.

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

The biggest success opportunities?

(a)    Organizing the chaos

(b)   Getting through the chaos unscathed

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

<Days of Thunder scene>

Anyway. Great advice. Ok. Excellent advice.

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

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

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

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

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

There are two fundamental interdependent characterizations of chaos:

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

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

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

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

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

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

It may not be well thought out.

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

It may even be misguided or ignorant action.

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

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

Now. This is going to sound like a contradiction.

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

Translation?

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

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

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

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

seeing the whole more than the parts.

Pieces are pieces and parts are parts.

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

a detachment from things.

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

a frustration when details keep from advancing the big picture.

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

step by step plans can be frustrating.

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

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

You know you need to get somewhere.

You know you should get there as quickly as possible.

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

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

Next (and last).

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

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

That’s it. Chaos can be good.

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

Originally posted March 2012

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

les murs ont des oreilles

translation: “Who can say who is listening?”

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

This is a french version of ‘the walls have ears.’

I know that I always told people in business, if they talked badly about clients & customers, those people would ‘hear’ and know exactly what was said <even without being within miles of the conversation>.

Look.

Hearing is often not a physical thing. It is often simply knowing. It is a feeling.

Here is a truth <albeit a harsh truth>. It is silly to believe you can say something out loud and not believe that it echoes through the ether in a way that someone can feel the ripples of the words.

Well. Not really silly. Just stupid. Or, if I m being generous, maybe just an ignorant attitude. If we believe we can say something and act differently, or not give out cues on how we really feel, we are stupid.

I fully understand we all say mean things sometimes. And sometimes we actually mean them. And sometimes they are uttered out of spite or some senseless random emotional trigger, in other words, semi-meaningless.

But. Here is the deal <that Life neglected to put in its handbook for you>.

Words have meaning. Words actually have a Life <they live & breathe>. Senseless or meaningful, silenet or even behind closed doors, all words are heard.

Always. And it amazes me when someone is surprised that something they said came circling back.

What are the words the surprised person says:

But it was a secret.

But I just told one person.

But everyone laughed.

But I didn’t really mean it.

But.

But.

But again.

Stop. You are a butthead.

Now. Let me throw you a curveball.

I don’t go for the bullshit of “if you don’t have anything nice to say don’t say it all” because we wouldn’t be human if we actually did that.

I go the other way.

Say what you mean.

Say what you feel.

Say it … and know it will be heard.

Say it to the people who you are talking about.

Don’t accept this advice at your own peril.

One last reminder.

No one is eavesdropping, but Life.

No one has betrayed you by sharing a secret.

No one has listened when they shouldn’t have.

Life is always listening. And Life will always share what it knows.

In the end, “who can say who is listening?” <I can answer that>

Life. And, by the way, Life is nosy and a gossip. It will most likely not tell you shit about its own secrets and, yet, it will not hesitate one second to share everyone else’s secrets.

The quicker you learn that the better off you will be. Your words will always be heard even if you do not want them to be.

 ============

“It’s a most distressing affliction to have a sentimental heart and a skeptical mind.”

Naguib Mahfouz

 =============

“It is lack of confidence, more than anything else, that kills a civilisation. We can destroy ourselves by cynicism and disillusion, just as effectively as by bombs.”

Kenneth Clark

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

Well. I sometimes believe we confuse lack of confidence and skepticism.

Yes. I am sure they are aspects of the same thought <on occasion> but suffice it to say whenever you are skeptical with regard to something about, or for, yourself … someone will contritely suggest you are simply lacking confidence.

Look. There is no ‘how to live Life’ handbook. Most of the time we do the best we can as we make it up as we go. And, yes, I am fairly confident all of us sit back at some time or another and say ‘what if we don’t know what we are doing.’

What that typically translates into is a life in which we constantly get tugged one way by optimism or hope and the other by skepticism. In other words skepticism slows you down — sometimes even strong enough to stop you.

Having skepticism as an acquaintance isn’t necessarily a bad person to have in your circle of acquaintances. It will give you the reasonable caution to consider a little before oblivious optimism grabs your hand and pulls you off of some overly optimistic ledge. But having skepticism as a so-called ‘friend’ is a bad person to have close to you. Its nagging presence insures you always feel like you truly have no idea what you, personally, are doing. It makes that hesitation personal. And it makes you forget that everyone doesn’t know what they are doing and making it up as they go and doing the best that they can.

Life is bigger than just us and while we are individuals and unique in our character we all pretty much share the same rules and challenges in Life.

Skepticism is personal.

It pulls you out of the bigger ‘us’ and makes you a smaller ‘us.’

I thought about this when I found this teen written letter written to herself written to her so called friend ‘skepticism’:

Dear Skepticism,

Oh, why must you infect my brain with your contagious thoughts? You are not content to let me simply accept, you find any way to twist my beliefs into doubts. When I am truly happy, you shatter the illusion and show me exactly why my life is nothing to be pleased about. Mirroring me, images of success and loneliness, you know how to get under my skin. Skepticism, you know my inner self more so than any other, thus you know which strings to pull. I am your marionette, controlled by your twisted intentions. Push and pull the words in my mind, formulate sharp sentences designed to drawn blood from my fragile humanity. The way I hurt others, is multiplied in the way I myself am torn apart.

 

In this distance, in this loneliness, skepticism welcomes itself to my chemically dyed head, taking it’s place amongst longing and deep hurt. Underneath the surface intelligence, beneath the mathematical formulas and psychology terms, is my fragility. This I admit, not much effects me, except my own carefully targeted words. Why would I allow myself to feel pain at the words of others, when my own mind is so much capable? My inner demons are muted when I am amongst others, when I am laughing with my best friend or in the arms of my boyfriend, but in silence they scream demented tones. “Why would anyone love you?” They taunt me, pulling at my weaknesses. “You really think you have anything going for you besides your intelligence?” They laugh at my naivety. “If you were worth something, to anyone, would your phone really be so silent?” They say the things I do not want to hear. They speak the truths I try to forget.

Skepticism, please take leave and allow me some peace of mind. A good night’s sleep would be beneficial, I am sick of this restlessness. The distance itself is enough, I do not need your constant reminders of what it might mean. I know you find pleasure in twisting at the corners of my mind, but please fuck off. I do not need the constant doubts you provide me with. This weekend has given you sufficient time to point out exactly how I feel, I get it. Skepticism, I know you only want to protect me, but it’s much too late for that. I am old enough to make my own mistakes and hold my own beliefs so please, fuck off.  I am done with you telling me who does not care about me. You are not a good friend, understand that I want nothing to do with you. You only bring me down.

Sincerely,

Gloria

Skepticism is sly. Even though we don’t really know what we are doing <in general> we do know something and yet actually doing it is something  very different. Therefore, skepticism sets limits for you <under the guise of protecting you>.

You know you should stop procrastinating.

You know you should be writing, or doing something to improve a skill, or practicing something, or decluttering.

You know you should … <insert whatever you know here>.

These are things you know.

You are skeptical of, well, whatever <success, effort, process, results, value … bla … bla … bla>.

In business they have something they call The Knowing-Doing Gap. Gobs of companies pay gobs of consultants gobs of money to increase their effectiveness and limit the knowing – doing gap. And after all the gobs of whatever, they know what to improve, but still don’t actually implement it.

Why can’t we put what we know to do … into actual doing? What stops us?

The answer is simple and difficult. Skepticism. Skepticism determines limits.

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

Veronica Roth

All that said. It takes a teen to remind us how to deal with skepticism:

“dear skepticism … so please, fuck off.  I am done with you telling me who does not care about me. You are not a good friend, understand that I want nothing to do with you. You only bring me down.”

We may not know what we are doing. But most of the time we know what we should be doing.

We all have ‘heart’ and will always be afflicted with a skeptical mind.

But. My only advice.

Tell skepticism to fuck off and go do.

==========

“On s’engage et puis … on voit.”

“First engage in a serious battle and then see what happens.”

———-

Napoleon

======

“Understanding why was more interesting than understanding who.

The story of why things are the way they are is heartbreakingly beautiful.”

———

Keegan Allen

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

“The fire which enlightens is the fire which consumes.”

—-

Henri-Frederic Amiel

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

Well.

I almost called this “existing answers versus new answers.”  If you think about it, curiosity is a multidimensional “thing.”  I do know Curiosity is possibly the most important characteristic of anyone who is good at what they do <in Life & in business>. But “good” comes in a variety of shapes & sizes and sometimes those shapes & sizes are crafted by one thing: “do we care more about the question or the answers?”

What I mean by that is finding truth, or the best answers, is very rarely a linear process. Therefore the question & answer sequencing to that truth is not linear. Oops. I tend to believe most people use question & answer in a “that begets that” way.

I would argue that is a reflection of believing the answer is more important than the question. And when you do that all that means is if you get the first question right <and a shitload of us do not> the truth is arrived at like in a sequence of dominos. That’s not the way logic works <although we like to discuss logic that way>.

Discovering creative outcomes & ideas <i.e., answers to questions> typically comes down to attempting to maintain perspective and looking at things differently <which typically doesn’t translate into ‘methodically’>.

I would note here that “mental models” are not “mental methods.”

Models are not just ways of thinking about things but, as a generalization, you think with a curiosity in an inevitable change in thinking. This all gets embodied in a process of information, education, dialogue, and ultimately, the insights generated from the process which will drive the choices.

Which leads me to ‘asking questions’ <because the only way you can gain insights is by actually asking questions>.

I don’t know why but it seems like there is a growing fear to ask questions these days  –especially by leaders. I have a number of theories why it’s happening but let’s just accept it is happening. I say that because not asking questions leads to, well, worry <or the verb: ‘worrying’>.

In the short term, absent of question/answer work,, worrying makes your brain feel a little better — at least you’re doing something about your problems. The mind is only happy when it’s working. So it worries <useless energy> or it asks questions. Even the latter is tricky because neuroscience suggests you will be happier even if you don’t find an answer.  Doesn’t matter. You don’t have to find anything. It’s the searching that counts and all the scraps of potential answers you pick up along the way.

So why not ask it to work on the right things? Worrying over shit is wasted energy ayt least questions/answers has the possibility of energy used well.

This permits me to talk about searching. Because how you search for answers <the questioning> will impact how well, or how much you suck, at how you view the answer <and ultimately the decision I imagine>. Yeah. How you view the decision is actually more important than discussing the decision itself.

We don’t discuss this insight-to-decision relationship enough.  Because of that we sometimes ignore how we gather information, assess information, discern information and use the right information to ultimately make a decision. This is relevant to ‘not asking questions’ because if you don’t ask questions you will inevitably lean in on past experience <which is, in this context, existing ‘answers’ you may have to offer>. I will not invest a lot of energy on this because it’s obvious that leaning in solely on past experience is not only fraught with peril, but just plain stupid. Gathering information from one source is always dangerous it just becomes increasing dangerous if your past experience is the sole source.

Regardless. My last point.

Suffice it to say, the best question/answer leaders almost slowdown in gathering information, and ask questions, to speed up <in the decision and its effectiveness>.

Maybe we don’t talk about this because if we did … and described it that way … it sounds … uhm … slow.

Questioning.

Listening .

Responding.

(repeat as needed)

Yeah. It can be slow. It can also be fast. I would argue it should take as long as it should take and no longer. I would also argue that while the past can play a role it will also not be likely to provide “the” answer. It can inform but will not be the answer.

In the end. What I would argue is that:

• Without questions you gain no new learning
• Bad questions lead to wasted energy, bad answers & more fear (it’s a doom loop)
• Questioning & gaining answers has no speed control. it moves at whatever pace is necessary, neither fast nor slow. Directing speed seems silly.
• Recognizing mental models can help limit bias
• Embracing mental models can help unlimited thinking, questions and, inevitably, answers.
• If you thrive on destinations, you will never be happy with questions and answers lifestyle. Each answer begets a new question, therefore, true question & answer is on a never ending infinite loop.
• A mind likes to work. If you do not fill it with questions and answers it will worry at anything, even nonsensical things, like a bored dog with a bone.

We all need new answers all the time. The only way to get a new answer is to ask questions and learn. In other words, be curious.

“The proper method for hastening the decay of error, is not, by brute force, or by regulation which is one of the classes of force, to endeavor to reduce men to intellectual uniformity; but on the contrary, by teaching every man to think for himself.”

=

William Godwin

——–

Thinking for yourself. A topic, if you dare to discuss with an old person, that often facilitates a belief that suggests because of the internet, and games and a whole host of other issues; the young cannot think for themselves.

Well. I have one word for them. Bullshit.

I have some research on this which disproves this perception or belief.

Unfortunately, at the same time, I have some incredibly bad news for everyone <young & old>.

The research points out the majority of us do not like to think for themselves — at all. They think thinking is painful. I almost cried when I read this research. I was absolutely depressed afterwards.

Now. I don’t think thinking is a pain, but apparently 2/3rds of people hate thinking.

How painful? <pretty frickin’ painful>

————-

“What is striking is that simply being alone with their thoughts was apparently so aversive that it drove many participants to self-administer an electric shock that they had earlier said they would pay to avoid.”

the research scientists

————

Yup. I almost cried. How can something so valuable to me <and seems like it should be of at least some value to the majority of people> would be so abhorrent that they would select an electric shock rather than think?

I don’t have an answer to that my friends. But I wish I did.

 ————

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of recent psychology experiments proving the human aversion to thinking is when tasked with sitting in a chair and doing nothing but thinking, two-thirds of men and a quarter of women chose to give themselves electric shocks to pass the time.

————-

Yup. The researchers, with the objective to check whether people might actually prefer something bad to nothing at all, gave participants the option of administering a mild electric shock … instead of thinking.

While it is painful for me to make this point … I want to be clear on the choice made versus thinking in this test.

They had been asked earlier to rate how unpleasant the shocks were, alongside other options, such as looking at pictures of cockroaches or hearing the sound of a knife rubbing against a bottle. All the students picked for the test said they would pay to avoid mild electric shocks after receiving a demonstration.

 Oops.

In the test 12 of 18 men gave themselves up to four electric shocks, as did six of 24 women.

I cried now.

Please.

Thinking has to be the least expensive, with the easiest access, activity anyone can ever find. It is so easily accessible I imagine it is easy to reach a conclusion that if people found it truly stimulating, being lost in thought, I guess you could assume then they would surely do it more often. But the fact is that most people will do anything to avoid sitting down and having a dialogue with their internal voices.

In fact it seems the majority of people find unstructured, uninterrupted thinking as a horrible experience.

Why? My guess is that there is no guarantee where all that thinking might go. In today’s world that sounds purposeless. It sounds like there is a possibility of no outcome, output or achievement. Or a waste of <valuable> time. No ROI. Or simply valueless. Or maybe simply to dependent on random for outcome.

I guess the good news is <said sarcastically> that this information could  suggest mental illness is limited <in quantity of people> because, much of what we call mental illness, is simply a loss of control over thought. In other words. We can’t stop ourselves thinking what we don’t want to think, or we put so much energy into not thinking certain things, that all thoughts just get bent out of shape. In any case we find ourselves suffering unable to escape from the horror inside our heads.

While that sounds like something most of us are quite familiar with <in lesser degrees than true mental illness>, by avoiding any type of thinking something like 2/3rds of people avoid any horror in their head..

That said. People have always been fairly industrious with finding ways to not think, mostly, by doing things. Doing helps us not have to go thru the pain of thinking. In the past we made shit <woodworking, building stuff with our hands, etc,>, we sewed, we farmed, we hunted and we had lots of sex <and had more kids to take care of>. In the research that ‘doing’ came to life in an electric shock.

But why should thinking be such a pain? The old fashioned psychoanalytic answer <which has flaws but is a shitload smarter than the trite mindless ‘blame it on cellphones/technology’> is that culturally we have become more dependent on what, I hesitate to call, an aggressive greedy drive.

I believe I would rather suggest it is a self-actualization <problem solving> aspect – in the form of a tangible foreseen outcome.

Let’s call it self interest in terms of ‘proof of behavior.’

Unfortunately thinking usually means something disorderly and less immediate cause-effect. It is something intangible <or maybe no guarantee of something tangible> therefore less likelihood to conclude in ‘specific proof of behavior.’

——–

“We take flight mentally when we rise above our habitual ways of thinking about things and experience new insights.

This is what it means to open our minds.  Emotionally, we take flight when the strength of our passion exceeds the strength of our blockages; the floodgates open and we are free to feel fully.

Spiritually we take flight when we locate that part of ourselves that is beyond the constraint of linear time and the world of form.

It is in this place that we experience the essential boundlessness that defines the experience of flight. Taking flight is always about freeing ourselves from form, if only temporarily. When we literally fly, in a plane or on a hang glider, we free ourselves from the strength of gravity’s pull.

As we open our minds and our hearts, we free ourselves from habitual patterns of thought and emotional blockages.

As we remember our true nature, we free ourselves from identification with the temporary state of our physical forms. The more we stretch our wings, the clearer it becomes that taking flight is a state of grace that simply reminds us of who we really are.”

Daily Om

——-

Thinking is about taking flight <mentally>. And ‘proof’ often goes counter to flying because
proof” is more relatable to ‘keeping your feet on the ground.’ And I wrote that to get back to the infamous ‘kids don’t think enough’ and ‘youth is too whimsical and not practical enough’ and ‘technology is making people mentally lazy.’

Lets be clear. This is a cultural, metal mindset, issue and not a cultural, or generational, trend issue. The findings that the researchers <at Virginia and Harvard University> report is NOT a reflection of cultural trends weaving their way through society unnoticed and affecting the mental development of young people at a particular stage in their lives <despite what us older folk want to say>. Suffice it to say that in more than 11 separate studies, the researchers showed that people hated being left to think, regardless of their age, education, income or the amount they used smartphones or social media.

Uhm.

Let me repeat that … “people hated being left to think, regardless of their age, education, income or the amount they used smartphones or social media.”

This is not a young person issue. In addition the lead researcher said the findings were not necessarily a reflection of the pace of modern life or increased use of mobile devices and social media. In fact those things might be popular because of our constant urge to ‘do something’ rather than nothing.

<whew … chew on that thought for a second or two>

Why do I get stunned when I find people really do not want to think? Most people take shit at face value.

Most people don’t really think even when they do think <they accept opinion easily>. And then they blame those who make you think <purposefully>.

Huh? I don’t want everyone to be an intellectual. But, whew boy, I find it depressing that over 2/3rds of people don’t want to think.

I am going to go away now and cry.

——-

“I’ve noticed something about people who make a difference in the world: They hold the unshakable conviction that individuals are extremely important, that every life matters.

They get excited over one smile.

They are willing to feed one stomach, educate one mind, and treat one wound.

They aren’t determined to revolutionize the world all at once; they’re satisfied with small changes. Over time, though, the small changes add up.   Sometimes they even transform cities and nations, and yes, the world.” 

= 

Beth Clar

——

This is about responding.

First. What does RSVP mean? In the context of social invitations RSVP is a request for a response from the invited person or people. It is derived from the French phrase répondez s’il vous plaît, meaning ‘please respond’ <”respond if you please”>.

Sticking with the formal aspect of an RSVP … there are some guidelines. 

———

If RSVP is written on an invitation it means the invited guest must tell the host whether or not they plan to attend the party.  It does not mean to respond only if you’re coming, and it does not mean respond only if you’re not coming (the expression “regrets only” is reserved for that instance).   It means the host needs to know who is going to attend, get a definite head count, the planned event … and needs it by the date specified on the invitation.

———–

Second. RSVP also has to do with Life, not just parties.

Think about it. Life, in many ways, says ‘please respond.’ My fear, and belief, is that many of us simply haven’t read the rules of etiquette and do not respond.

Look. I often write about how Life is difficult and how Life is tricky and how Life has a warped sense of humor.

But. Life can also be quite respectful and act with true etiquette and grace. I don’t mean big pomp and circumstance moments, but little moments in which doing the little things well matters. Uhm. Like an rsvp for example.

—–

“When you do something noble and beautiful and nobody notices, do not be sad. For the sun every morning is a beautiful spectacle and yet most of the audience still sleeps.”

John Lennon

—–

I sometimes worry people no longer understand what RSVP means. In social event scenarios as well as Life.

Assuming the best, and that the reason guests don’t RSVP to an invitation is a case of ignorance, not rudeness, let me suggest this.

People have a tendency to not respond because … well … it is safer.

Less chance of conflict. And it may seem like the easiest path but think about it from this quote’s perspective.

—–

“Every time we choose safety, we reinforce fear.”

Cheri Huber

—

Sure. I could simply believe most people don’t get involved with Life because they are too busy.

Or they are ignorant of the fact their absence is not noted or meaningful.

But I can’t. I can’t because I don’t believe it is true.

I think we do it, subconsciously or consciously, because it is safer — we get to avoid possible conflict.

Oh. The risk in doing this over & over & over? We become disengaged with Life.

But. Here is the good news. Life will keep sending you invitations. Over & over & over again.

You just gotta RSVP every once in a while.

To be clear. You are not always being invited to a ‘big party.’ Sometimes the RSVP is just for something small.

Saying that permits me to circle back to where I began … willing to feed one stomach, educate one mind, and treat one wound.  They aren’t determined to revolutionize the world all at once; they’re satisfied with small changes.

Over time, though, the small changes add up.

That’s why you RSVP to life.

Small changes add up.

Small moments add up.

Small gestures add up.

It is true that Life, in general, is indifferent to you and what you want. However. What Life does do is create event after event which you DO get invited to. That means its up to you to respond. And, yeah, I do believe RSVPing matters even in this scenario. Just showing up is good but not as good as telling Life you are gonna show up. Why? Because it increases the odds Life may actually NOT be indifferent when you show up.

My advice? Just make sure you RSVP to Life one response at a time.

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

“You cannot live without establishing an equilibrium between the inner and outer.”

—–

Paul Auster

=========

“I used to think of you that way, you know. Like the sun. My own personal sun. You balanced out the clouds nicely for me.”

He sighed.

“The clouds I can handle. But I can’t fight with an eclipse.”

–

Jacob

=======

“The idea that talent is directly proportional to your trophy cabinet is one I oppose.”

—-

Alex Turner

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

Ok. I have been extremely consistent over the years with regard to my belief that I think balance is the key to almost any successful endeavor – in life & in business.

Suffice it to say I am a big balance person. And, yet, the other day during a business discussion it occurred to me that I may not be using the right word or even have the concept correct.

I may actually be a ‘proportional’ advocate.

Let me explain. Business, more often than not, is about assessing the correct proportional value of a topic, fact or idea and assigning the correct proportional response to that value.

Sure. That may inevitably arrive at something we could call “a balanced response”, but to get to the so-called balance we need to think about proportions.

I imagine, in my head, this means we need to stop viewing things as a zero sum balance, but rather as proportional to the situation in hand.

Now. I did some research and back in 1975 a guy named Piaget described the essential characteristic of proportional reasoning as it must involve a “relationship between two relationships.” I am not really sure what that means, but I am guessing it means that proportional assumes some dimensional aspects while balance is simply a relationship between two more concrete/discrete things.

He also suggested that proportional involves something called “additive reasoning” which, to me, explained my misrepresentation of balance.

Balance suggests an either/or trade off — something like teetering on a balance beam.

Proportional suggests a more spatial trade off or, maybe, ratio based trade off. What I mean by that is I can add one thing as part of a compromise and its true value is a zillion and give up one thing as part of the same compromise and its true value is 1/10^th of a zillion (despite the fact their actual costs may be different).

I balanced my response, but gained a proportional advantage.

There is even something called ‘the constant of proportionality’, but that becomes too complicated for my pea like brain so I will let you google it and see if you can explain it.

I imagine my real point is that most of us, most likely, are proportional thinkers and not balance thinkers <although we say we are balanced>.

More often than not we invariably assess things through assimilation and the synthesis of multiple things <numbers, ratios, tangible, intangible, and … yes … even missing information & components>. Our decisions are a messy mix of analyzing a series of unequal and equal things shaping them into the proper proportions to make a, well, proportional response. This can all make sense but it doesn’t really make it any easier for us. its not easier because balance is easier to assess and judge, balance is almost always associated with ‘fair’ while proportional often looks like something won & something lost and balance gets confused with linear zero sum game decision making.

All that said. Here was the bigger epiphany to me on why we should explore the more difficult pat of proportional thinking.

While balanced may seem like a simple improper term the truth is the more one focuses on balance the higher the likelihood I would actually end up doing the wrong things.

Huh? If you focus on balance you will inevitably try and force equality in all things. That may sound good, but it ain’t really reality. Simplistically it means you are focused on the wrong outcome & objective.

Instead, if you focus on the best proportional response to every situation, you may not end up with a one-to-one balanced relationship on any one comparison you review <which creates issues in its own right>, but you will end up with a balanced relationship on any given series of comparisons.

That last paragraph may actually showcase why most people focus on balance. In a simplistic measurement business world we are almost always demanded to show one-to-one or linear explanations.

Balance does that.

Proportion does not.

This means to embrace being proportional means you will have to accept the burden of explaining the more difficult to explain, to showcase asymmetrical as actually being simple and dimensional can actually reflect symmetry. Nothing in what I just shared in that last paragraph is easy. Particularly in today’s business world.

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

“Divide the target in proportion to the available resources”
―

Sunday Adelaja

==========

All I really know is that, whether I like it or not, I am actually a proportion person and not a balance person. It only took me over 25 years in business to figure that out <no one has ever suggested I am a quick learner>.

Think about it. You may actually be a proportional person too. More importantly, maybe you should be.

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

“Whenever you take an action, decide by both your brain and heart in equal proportions. Balance them as far as possible.”
―

Bikash Bhandari

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

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

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

Stowe Boyd

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

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

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

First.

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

Second.

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

Anyway.

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

Anyway.

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

context: accelerated world

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

Which leads me to connectedness.

everything is connected with everything

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

Which leads me to connecting.

the world as a merry go round

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

Which leads me to untidiness.

discomfort with untidiness

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

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

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

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

“Sureness will always elude you.

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

—–

Claire DeWitt

Which leads me to freedom.

discomfort with freedom

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

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

Which leads me to belief.

belief.

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

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

That said. It’s a twofold belief challenge.

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

========

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

The Catcher in the Rye

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

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

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

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

In the end.

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

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

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

Postscript:

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

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

———

“Maybe who we are isn’t so much about what we do, but rather what we’re capable of when we least expect it.”

Jodi Picoult

———-

“After all, our lives are but a sequence of accidents – a clanking chain of chance events. A string of choices, casual or deliberate, which add up to that one big calamity we call life.”

Rohinton Mistry

———-

So, I tend to believe we measure ourselves by what we expect of ourselves when … well … we have expectations of ourselves.

But.

If this big ‘calamity we call Life’ is simply a sequence of accidents … a chain of chance events … maybe we should be measuring ourselves by what we are capable of when we least expect it.

I feel confident suggesting this because most of us are capable of a shitload.

Yet. Most of us give ourselves a shitload of criticism for not meeting expectations when we expect to do something.

Yet. Most of life is a shitload of unexpected things.

It would be nice if Life acted upon the same principle as the programming technology industry: the principle of least astonishment. In other words, if some key technology feature has a high astonishment factor <the surprise factor> they immediately conclude it may be necessary to redesign the feature. The design should match the user’s experience, expectations, and mental models <in other words … surprises are bad>.

Well. Unfortunately Life doesn’t work that way.

And neither do we. Life astonishes us on a fairly consistent basis and we astonish ourselves on a far equal amount of the time.
Least expected typically refers to something that is the least likely <or most unlikely> to happen. And yet what we do, what we are capable of, in these least expected moments are actually the least unexpected. Because least unexpected refers to something that is the least unlikely <or most likely> to happen and, yet, it is incredibly likely we are more than capable.

In our heads, and often in our words, unlikely or unexpected get jumbled up with least likely and least expected and in all the jumbledness the result ends up as, well, actually the least unexpected.

<don’t worry … my head started getting confused & hurting when I wrote that>

I would suggest that what we are capable of when we least expect it is typically pretty frickin’ amazing.

In the unplanned calamity of Life we make choices … and in a least unexpected way we do pretty fucking well. Remember this:

———

“Adventures do occur, but not punctually.”

E.M. Forster

———

Life is not punctual. Nor is Life planned ahead of time.

Life is often one big calamity. The only thing we can expect of Life is the unexpected.

The least unexpected thing? What we are capable of.  Who we are is not just defined by what we do <in general>, but rather what we do in the unexpected calamity of Life. The choices we make in the unexpected chain of moments that make up most of Life. To paraphrase Chekov:

Any idiot can ‘do’ in the expected moments.

The measure of a person is truly found in what you do in the unexpected moments.

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

“The world is full of magic things, patiently waiting for our senses to grow sharper.”

—-

W.B. Yeats

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

This is about business, milestones and magic (which could be ‘company/brand value’.

Day in and day out we get shit done and are told to do more shit. That would imply that many days are just full of shit. While that sounds harsh I imagine many people think only a slightly less harsh version of this about day to day life. But, even slightly less harsh, it has a tendency to dull our senses and miss out on the magic. Business, in particular, has an odd way of addressing this lack of magic.

What do they do? They create lines in the sand.

Uhm. They may be arbitrary lines in the sand but they are lines nonetheless.

In the business world they are milestones and, oddly enough, calendar and fiscal years. Milestones are easy enough to explain, but the yearly line in the sand stuff is slightly harder to explain.

Why? 99.9% of your employees know that business doesn’t stop at the end of a fiscal year. In fact. We spend gobs of energy talking about ‘setting the stage for the following year’ before we ever reach our arbitrary line in the sand <end of the year>.

While I fully understand that some construct and some order is useful it seems like we would be better served to encourage everyone to think of a business more like a long Life and not by birthdays.

Yeah. This creates some management challenges and some organizational challenges and it certainly doesn’t mesh very well with the artificial measurements demanded by the financial world <quarterly and annual reports>, but if you could figure it out it would permit the business to match the natural ebb & flow of a category, industry and challenges & opportunities – regardless of when they came and went.

But even more importantly if you could figure it out I tend to believe it would make day to day a little less like ‘days of ongoing shit to do’ and more about energy invested, or energy conserved, to meet the needs and challenges of the business.

I tend to believe there would be less artificial and arbitrary shit and more ‘meet the needs of what is going on.’ I say that because, while not all lines are really lines, most employees start thinking if they can just hold on and survive whatever line they are being asked to cross that lines in the sand eventually disappear <and someone else will most likely draw another stupid fucking line in the sand>.

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

It’s just a simple line

I can still hear it all of the time

If I can just hold on tonight

I’ll know that nothing

Nothing survives

Azure Ray <Displaced>

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

I say all of that because I could, and would, argue that creating arbitrary lines in the sand does not make our senses grow sharper in the way that needs to happen to see the world’s magical things.

Yeah. Lines in the sand certainly tend to sharpen focus.  No argument here. But that same focus prohibits … well … magic. By that I mean is that your senses have to naturally sharpen in order to access the world of magic. You cannot force the sense with some arbitrary lines in the sand but rather it takes patience.

Now.

The pragmatic & practical ones out there, particularly the business ones, are gonna say “who gives a fuck about the magic things in the world … I have a business to run.”

Fair enough.

But I would say to them that successful businesses more often than not are <a> more than just process, doing & treating people like gears in a machine and <b> of some value derived beyond simply ‘getting shit done well.’

Let me try it this way. Wall Street assesses value on companies all the time. and while there is certainly tangible value most of the time we sit back and scan some intangible value they have bolted on to some company and, well, we assume it is real in some way because, WTF, Wall Street has put some value on it.

That’s the magic part.

Yeah. Some pseudo intellectual will puff out their chest and say “that is the brand value” … yeah … well … just stuff it, you asshat. It’s the magic the company has figured out how to bring out in the company idea and employees. It is the intangible, the greater good created as senses sharpened, which great organizations seem to figure out how to bring out. There is no book to tell you how to do it and there is no management guru who can come in and give you the ‘how to guide’ which can teach you the patience wherein the senses grow sharper to access the magic in the world.

Sorry to tell you that.

This isn’t like boiling an egg or even cracking an egg for that part this is the intangible part of business where some get it and some doing, but you cannot teach it.

That said. This may be one of the few times in business where the attempt matters. Some of the things I offered today are out of the comfort zone for a shitload of business people <the whole focusing on long Life rather than arbitrary milestones management>.  But. I would argue whether you ‘get’ being patient & encouraging the senses to grow sharper to access the world’s magic, or not, if you even attempt to encourage some intangible aspects in your business you are better off than not even trying.

Sincere attempts are appreciated and there is value in that alone. And if you are actually good at it and you just haven’t had the opportunity to do it <because the general business world is not really conducive to this type of thinking> … well … magic is magical.

I can honestly say that once you have overcome your natural tendencies to not be patient and once you have actually encountered the world’s magic released in your business you will never go back.

Shit.

You can’t.

Why not?

Once senses are sharpened they cannot be dulled and, in a world which has a nasty tendency to dull our senses, that may be the best argument for embracing the idea that magic does exist in the world and that is is worth the effort to try and find it.

In the end. Maybe we need less lines in the sand and more magic.