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

“A boss creates fear, a leader confidence.

A boss fixes blame, a leader corrects mistakes.

 A boss knows all, a leader asks questions.

A boss makes work drudgery, a leader makes it interesting.

A boss is interested in himself or herself, a leader is interested in the group.”

—–

Russell H. Ewing

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

This is not about threatening employees about making mistakes <i.e., ”you are gonna get fired if you fuck this up”>, but rather threatening employees who are exhibiting behavior that isn’t what you want from them. This is also less a thought about managing individuals, but more about managing a culture and groups of individuals – exploring systemic behavior issues.

Now. I have to tell you.

Having managed a shitload of people there has certainly been some point where I wanted to threaten my employees if not just strangle them <and I am sure the feeling was mutual on occasion>. Most of us just take a deep breath. Maybe close the door of their office and throw something. And then calm down enough to realize that most employees’ actions & behaviors are derivative of our own leadership.

As a corollary to that thought, if the actions & behaviors reflect a more systemic issue and not just some random individuals, well, you know it is reflective of your own leadership <or lack of leadership>.

Ah … “most of us.” Well. Not “all of us.”

Management by fear is the go-to tactic of the old generation of business leaders. They were also the ‘benevolent dictators’ <sort of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Men of Hitlers> as well as the dickheads who treated everyone like shit except the ones who did exactly what they were told to do.

Once again, about the only business people who believe in this type of management are:

<1> those who have never run a larger organization which demands cultural alignment for effectiveness,

<2> managers over the age of 55 — mostly white ones,

<3> weak leaders, or

<4> narcissistic arrogant dickheads.

=========== 

“I suppose that leadership at one time meant muscle; but today it means getting along with people.

Indira Gandhi

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

Threatening employees with forced confidentiality agreements, law suits, sweeping statements of firing a shitload of people, and even “you are either with me or against me” type threats is not only stupid but it is less than effective.

That doesn’t encourage the best behavior, which is self-motivated, but rather all this does is create ‘forced behavior.’ Now. I am no behavior expert, but even I know if I am forcing a certain type of behavior and, ultimately, that behavior is never absorbed as ‘self-affirmation of what I believe and like”, well, the first chance an employee gets to ‘unforce themselves’ they are gonna do it.

Here is what most of the good leaders know.

You can never, and I mean never, absolve yourself of the behaviors of your employees. You are either complicit or encouraged or simply an enabler. You are, whether you like it or not, responsible for your employee’s actions.

What does that mean?

If they do things that piss you off you, most likely, have pissed them off.

If they show you little respect, you, most likely, have shown them little respect.

If they show you lack of loyalty, you, most likely, have not earned their loyalty or shown behavior that deserves loyalty.

If you do not recognize anything I just wrote as truth, you, most likely, just threaten your employees every time they do something you don’t like.

Look.

I have absolutely talked to an individual employee about their expense reports.

I have absolutely spoken to an individual employee about their behavior in the office.

I have absolutely sat down with an individual employee about what they should, or should not, be saying to people outside the office.

But, more importantly, I talk with the accounting department, the HR department and department heads to find out about what the organization is systemically doing with their expense reports, behavior in the office and talking outside the office before I speak with any individual.

I don’t think I was a particularly great leader, but even I knew that systemic behavioral issues were my issues — not their issues. I also understand that threatening employees, or even the trite ‘carrot & stick’ thinking, was ineffective if you wanted to build a culture where individual employees didn’t cheat on their expense reports, didn’t do stupid shit in the office and didn’t say the wrong things about the company outside the office.

A leader knows threats are stupid if you have any desire to build a long term culture. You set expectations, provide a vision that people can be proud of and the reward is not anything individual monetarily or even ‘keeping your job’ but rather the employee looks around and sees solidarity – the prize is being part of a team aligned on an objective.

Some leaders don’t see that. All they see is bad behavior and offer threats to seal the cracks in the system. All that does is mask the problem not solve the problem. All that solves systemic organizational bad behavior is good leadership — not threats.

Fear, despite what some may suggest, is not a particularly great motivator in business.

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

“Ideas pull the trigger, but instinct loads the gun.”

–

Don Marquis

===========

This quote is taken from Marquis’ “The Almost Perfect State” which was written in 1927 as a series of criticisms of the Progressive Era.

Ok. I imagine a lot of people read this quote and wonder if the quote would work better: “ideas load the gun, but instinct pulls the trigger.” But I believe that misses Don’s point <albeit I have not spoken with him on this topic … he died in 1937>.

The point? Knowledge and experience can only take you so far. Yeah. I just said that. I .. the one who has written that common sense is anything but common, our instincts typically suck and knowledge/experience is the most powerful weapon one can bring to a context battle.

That said. This is the difference between being solely analytical and incorporating the intangible <the instinctual>.

What he is suggesting is that all the bright thinking and big ideas in the world don’t mean shit if they cannot be brought into being by a person who can originate the intellectual movement of action. I will note here that most meaningful action is driven by cognitive engagement which is most typically an engagement with ‘thought’ (thinking or intellectual/brain engagement).

Anyway. This person requires a special character. Ah. Special character. This means ‘someone with good instincts.’ Many people may suggest this is the ability to adapt and bring to bear the needed resources & skills to match the contextual challenge/needs. I would suggest this ability is at its best when it combines knowledge & experience with instinct.

Now. Instinct is one of those things people hate. Because it is not tangible and it always assumes some level of risk.

It is research of one <which scares the shit out of people these days>.

That means:

Collaboration? Well. Nope.

Consensus? Geez. Nope.

Extrapolation through the hypotenuse of multiple data points discussed ad nausea and plotted on some nifty white board? Sounds like fun … but … nope.

Instinct is gut & feel. (albeit typically great instincts have been honed by experience and knowledge)

But in the end it is not tangible nor proven. It is, well, just what it is.

Sure. It can be cultivated. And it can even be honed. But I do not believe it can be taught.

Well. Let me take that back and try this. Good instincts cannot be taught. Good instinct is first and foremost an internal aptitude. We all have instincts, but some just have gooder instincts. Beyond that natural foundation it is probably a combination of experience and knowledge and ultimately a mindset.

I say a mindset because instinct is a feeling and not anything visible or tangible. You sense what to do and where to go and what to say.

And it often isn’t because your instincts are proven good … but just rather that you know what feels wrong.

“Every time I’ve done something that doesn’t feel right, it’s ended up not being right.”

Mario M. Cuomo

That said. I know one of the most frustrating things I have heard in business decision meetings is “I am not sure what the right thing to do is … but … what we are discussing doing sounds wrong.” And while frustrating … it also feels right.

We sometimes get so rushed to make a decision we grab one — anyone will do. And, yet, it feels wrong. Okay, maybe not wrong, just not right.

That is instinct.

Not only knowing the path to success, but also recognizing paths to failure & disappointment <before you even take one step on that path>.

Look. It is a true joy to be near someone with good, if not great, instincts. They seem to be in an effective zone and not in a comfort zone. What I mean is that they have a habit of disregarding distractions, discerning the important from the unimportant, and have a focus. That focus may not be the destination <it can be>, but oftentimes their instincts are reflective of the journey to the destination.

They have a humble confidence and sometimes are even slightly insecure <I imagine because their strength is in the intangible>. And they are rarely emotional in decision making.

Now. Conversely, it is absolutely miserable to be near someone who has crappy instincts <but thinks they have good instincts>. It is not only miserable because you end up going down lots of fruitless paths and waste a lot of energy, but also because instincts are intangible.

There are no numbers or research or facts that can counter instincts and intuition. Therefore someone in a leadership position who has crappy instincts is unmovable. They are literally an elephant in the room.

That is misery.

Regardless. Instinct is a natural aptitude. Kind of like a knack. An innate tendency or response to act in ways that, at its most base description, is essential to development, preservation or survival.

As Hayakawa (Use the Right Word) suggests:

“instinct implies innate disposition rather than having a talent. It is not a gift, nor a talent or even an aptitude. It is more an inborn intangible. It could be called a ‘Knack’ but that has almost always been associated with social rather than intellectual causes & situations.”

It is tough in today’s world for people with good instincts. While intellectual in its strength it is not proven with any reason. In an over thinking, over analyzing, over safe world, ‘without reason’ doesn’t often gain a place at the table.

Instinctual decision making often requires having people follow with some blind faith. And in a world of consensus and collaboration, well, that ain’t happening much these days.

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

“Toil and risk are the price of glory, but it is a lovely thing to live with courage and die leaving an everlasting fame.”

—-

Alexander the Great

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

“The time is always right to do what is right.”

—-

Martin Luther King, Jr.

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

“I would rather die right then live wrong.”

—–

Bruce McTague

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

Well. I believe Alexander’s full quote was:

It is a lovely thing to live with great courage and to die leaving an everlasting fame,

Macedonians!… Why do you retreat?!… Do you want to live forever?!

In the name of Zeus!… ATTACK!

So. I tend to call this “selective thoughtful recklessness.” Yeah. I am not really sure something exactly like that exists but, whether it has a name or not, it is a characteristic of winners and ‘everlasting fame’ as well as a characteristic of everyday schmucks like me who want to do the right thing, desire some everlasting fame as in ‘known for doing good shit the right way’ and am willing to work hard for it <that is the ‘toil’ part>.

This may sound a little crazy, but I do believe if you are dedicated to doing the right thing and doing good shit you have to be comfortable assuming some risk.

Now.

I get some shit for my ‘comfort with assuming risk’ <I believe security is, if not an illusion, mostly a superstition keeping people scared of shit>, my attitude in general with regard to risk, and my general disdain for people who have the absurd principle of ‘making a decision instinctually.’ All that said. I came up with my own phrase – selective thoughtful recklessness. This combination seems to me to be better than simply being rash or foolhardy in behavior. It is better because I have a full respect for consequences and hold consequences in high regard.

To be clear. There is never any absence of forethought <which is where I typically find ‘instinct’ fails miserably>. I certainly have extreme care and concern with respect to not only other people’s welfare but my own. Sure, yes, there may be a bit of daredevil in the attitude but without the flair and debonair style associated with a daredevil.

What is there is a certain defiance to odds once a decision has been made and a complete “In for a penny, in for a pound” attitude. <Cambridge Dictionary: something you say that means that since you have started something or are involved in it, you should complete the work although it has become more difficult or complicated than you had expected >.

My epitaph will absolutely be “I had a lover’s quarrel with the world”, but my mantra seems to be captured in what I said upfront … “I would rather die right then live wrong.” That is not courage, nor is it an attitude, it is a choice that simply requires some mental resilience. You feel doubt, resistances to choice and even outright disagreement but someone who embraces the selective thoughtful recklessness remains mentally resilient towards anything that attempts to stop you from doing what you believe, and maybe even know, is right.

And maybe that is where the thoughtful daredevilishness steps in.

In order to find glory <in this case I believe glory is ‘doing what is right’ and not some fame or accolades> you have to first & foremost reframe the story of what is and what is possible. I am not suggesting some alternative universe nor am I suggesting fooling yourself into believing something truly impossible is possible. This is more along the lines of the traditional disruptor definition — seeing the conventional in unconventional ways. By reframing the story the boundaries & limits in the original story become new & different boundaries & limits. Rarely do they align with the old ones and it is within these differences that the ‘thoughtful reckless’ wander.

But this also demands one other thing.

Let’s call it ‘intense listening without attachment.’

What I mean by this is you have to be aware of everything going on around you, but you do not necessarily get attached to what is being said. It’s like recognizing the clutter around you and rummaging thru it for the useful and avoiding the useless. This would also include at least being aware of your own biases and trying to un-attach your listening from them as much as possible.

Lastly.

Here is maybe the most controversial thought I will share on finding glory.

Be small. Yeah. I just said ‘be small.’

To be clear. I don’t mean live a small Life but I do mean if you want to find the kind of glory I am discussing, and you want to be selectively thoughtfully reckless, and you want to die right rather than live wrong, you end up thinking about being an energy for ‘doing’ like an atom, or a pebble in a pond, where you make yourself as solidly, strongly and distinctly rightly small — and then choose your path. Thinking about that, well, maybe that is why I balk at ‘daredevil’ so much. It sounds big & flamboyant. I find that being defiantly, and successfully, right in your choice is more often found in the ‘toil’ — in the small stuff and avoiding the small stuff at the same time.

It is more about being solidly small in your solidly rightness.

========

“Let others lead small lives, but not you. Let others argue over small things, but not you. Let others cry over small hurts, but not you. Let others leave their future in someone else’s hands, but not you.” 

Jim Rohn

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

And, yes, maybe it is about a small quiet courage found in the everyday.

Do I think I am courageous? Certainly not.

Resilient? Absolutely yes.

But this kind of resilience seems to contain a version of courage that is easy to miss. It is a small resilient courage.

It is the small courage you hold on to … to stay when it is easier to leave.

It is the small courage you hold on to … to keep doing when everything says ‘quit.’

It is the small courage you hold on to … to respect difference when we would much rather judge.

It is the small courage you hold on to … to accept some vulnerability when building a wall feels much safer.

It is the small courage you hold on to … to recognize your own agenda needs to be revised to accommodate another’s better idea.

It is the small courage you hold on to … everyday <even though it takes some ‘toil’ to create it>.

It is the small courage you hold on to … to not only become who we really are … but which enables the better version of who we are.

It is the small courage you hold on to … in a world that often doesn’t seem to encourage courageous everyday acts.

Anyway.

Life isn’t easy. Business isn’t easy. And navigating both shouldn’t be easy. All I can suggest is some selective thoughtful recklessness can help you out on occasion. I can also promise, when done well and with ‘good as an intent’, it gives you a shot at glory.

Just remember.

… it is a lovely thing to live with courage and die leaving an everlasting fame

 I would rather die right then live wrong

——

“There are many kinds of crime. I’ve always thought the most unforgivable is to have a gift and turn your back on it.”

=

Ruth Reichl

——-

I believe everyone has a gift. It may be big, may be small, may be somewhere in between, but everyone has some gift. That said. Here is what I think about having some talent and using it (or not using it).

We are truly a forgiving society.

Yes.

Quick to blame and chastise.

But. Just as quick to forgive <after bludgeoning you with some self-righteous indignation>. But society does not even have an opportunity to forgive you <or bludgeon you> with this particular crime because turning your back on a gift is actually an unseen crime <most of the time>.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

This means you can commit this crime and never be punished. Never be chastised. Oh. And never have the opportunity to be forgiven.

What I mean is that even if society does notice it may simply cast a glance at you wasting your gift and forgive you despite the fact you are actually cheating the world of your gift. This is the crime of missed opportunity (the world’s opportunity to gain from your gift). Let’s call this “ignorance is bliss.”

On the other hand.  Yourself? The unforgivable crime is really to oneself.

I could list all the reasons why someone ignores their gift, some may seem silly and some may seem realer than anything in Life, but ignoring is ignoring. Period.

Let me be clear.

Having a gift does NOT mean that Life is any easier. In fact it may make it tougher on occasion and you certainly would have to learn to say ‘fuck you’ to critics & doubters &, well, a shitload of people who do not have a discernible gift.

Hell.

You even have to say ‘fuck you’ to even people who recognize you have a gift. I will say that having a gift can be construed as a burden because it comes with some pressure. Oddly I wrote about this burden & pressure aspect awhile back citing Andy Roddick of all people.

But.

The list of ‘why we ignore‘ doesn’t matter.

Good reasons or bad reasons it is a crime to turn your back on your gift.

I am so unequivocal on this because while I do believe all of us have something to offer and all of us can contribute in some form or fashion in the world, not everyone has the same gift.

Sorry to tell people that.

Some of us schmucks just muddle thru Life doing the best we can with what we have. We have no real gift that impacts beyond a very small impact or have some spectacular talent other than maybe being able to survive the grind successfully with character & a good moral compass <which ain’t bad by the way>.

But if you are one of the happy few who do have a gift that CAN make a larger impact you can’t simply say “uhm, I would like to return this gift” … shit … you cannot even regift it.

Once you have a gift it is a non transferable non returnable gift exclusive to you.

Do not use? It never gets used. Once again. This may sound sad, even disappointing, it is neither, it is an unforgivable crime.

Ok. But why do most people ignore their gift? I imagine is really is not fear, it is simply about waiting until it is too late.

It’s kind of crazy, isn’t it?

We have a habit of believing a future moment will end up being more important than the present. We simply keep holding off for some better time or moment we are sure <see: imagine> will be better to display the gift we have.

—

“Most humans are never fully present in the now, because unconsciously they believe that the next moment must be more important than this one.  But then you miss your whole life, which is never not now.”

Eckhart Tolle

—

Anyway. Whether it is natural to wait for a better moment, or some ‘more important time to step up in the future‘, suffice it to say that not using a gift you have in the here & now — this special talent given to you and only you — is not a waste. You are simply committing a crime in the here & now.

And that crime is truly unforgivable if you know you have this gift and simply ignore it.

Shit.

Just think about what I have written a little.

If you truly have a gift, a gift you are fairly sure can contribute to a greater good in some way, ignore all the reasons to not use your gift.

Ignore all the reasons to not foster your gift.

And be the best you can be. Why? Because while it is a crime to deprive the world of the potential your gift may offer it the biggest crime is to yourself – you will not maximize who & what you could be. Now THAT is a crime.

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

“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

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

“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

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

So. This is about ambition (which is good) and principles (which is even better). That said. Let us begin by reminding ourselves that Napoleon crowned himself emperor. Uhm. Yeah. Crowned himself. By that I mean to show he was even above the church <and the pope> instead of having the crown bestowed upon him and placed on his head by a representative from Rome he took the crown in in his own hands from the church guy and placed it on his own head.

My point? THAT is ambition.

As for principals?  Liberté, égalité, fraternité: “liberty, equality, fraternity <brotherhood>” — the national motto of France. Or. “Any man aspires to liberty, to equality, but he cannot achieve it without the assistance of other men, without fraternity.”

He drew a line.

Well. Then he redrew the line. And that is the difficulty with ambition. Drawing lines.

Because principles are not meant to be redrawn. They are not fleeting nor casual. And they certainly do not ‘inject an almost moribund inflexibility in the people who subscribe to them’ as one of the opening quotes suggests. Principles are almost like moral guard rails or maybe a foundation upon which represents the ground you stand upon. You get it. Something solid. In a way I imagine that is what character is all about – an inner moral compass. Principles by which to live.

I will also point out character is really about drawing lines. Lines you won’t cross. Boundaries within which you, your soul and pride and esteem and self belief, resides within. Is that inflexibility? Gosh. Maybe. I tend to believe it is more about insuring you keep some sense of self as defined by what is right and what is wrong.

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

Oscar Wilde

Ok. Try having this discussion <ambition and principles> with young people, say high school kids, and maybe even some young adults entering the work place. This is a very difficult discussion to have.

There is a lot of discussion around how to fulfill their ambitions <and by the way if you have any doubts that kids these days aren’t ambitious or have some very well defined ambitions go to school for a day>.

Anyway. In other words the discussion revolves around how do they get to where they want to go. And this discussion isn’t around schooling or skills or picking a career; it is about principles.

They have principles they just worry <a lot> that the world they are entering does not.

They worry that if they live by their principles, doing what they believe is right and the right thing to do in what they perceive is a ‘dog eat dog’ world, they will get chewed up.

They 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 … and they want to ‘do good’ and 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 young people 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 <or larger entity> where they can be part of a them doing and making something.

They just don’t want to compromise their principles.

So what do they do? They start seeking opportunities in places where they perceive they will not have to compromise their principles. In fact they are aiming toward opportunities that they believe embrace their principles so much so that they can tout them as some sort of ‘value’ <or justification> in their decision and choice to fulfill their ambition. I tend to believe older people who scoff at the importance of social responsibility in business or the importance of being environmentally conscious take a moment and think about this. Whether it REALLY matters in decision making/choices or not it DOES represent something tangible to a young person to attach their intangible principles to. Is it a representation of “whole cloth” importance? Probably not. But it is like grabbing onto a lifeline from a principle standpoint.

Think about it. This is choice by avoidance rather than choice by true ambition.

Parts of what I am saying are sad.

Sad in that some great young minds which could make the world a better place through business and ideas and innovations … are veering away.

We, as in society & productivity, are worse off because of this.

And we, as in older folk, kind of need to get our heads out of our asses and recognize what is happening. Stop thinking things like “kid, there is a real world out there you are gonna have to face … and you need to pay the bills … so assume some responsibility.” <or some derivative of that>

They are absolutely assuming some responsibility.

I fear that they only believe they can change the world through more altruistic pursuits. And, yes, they are important and good pursuits but from a larger perspective business drives the world. Business makes shit that makes lives easier and healthier and impacts the home and life in ways that it is difficult to imagine let alone outline in a few words. Somehow, someway, we need to insert the ‘believers of principles’ into the business world with all of their ambition and hope … and remind them – and empower them – that they can change the world.

They can make the world a better place.

They can make society and people and lives better.

And they can do it in business … not just altruistic career opportunities.

Look. Young people absolutely recognize that ambition i s good.

And you know what? It is. Ambition doesn’t mean having the biggest title or the biggest salary or the biggest anything, ambition is simply declaring you want to maximize your potential.

Ambition just needs to be tempered with principles mainly because you don’t live in a cocoon so you cannot truly fulfill your ambition ‘without the assistance of other people … without fraternity.’

I imagine my real point here is that ambition is always a personal struggle. It isn’t easy <no matter what anyone says>. Everyone walks a line. The good get tugged toward the side of bad and, yes, the bad get tugged toward the side of good.

Anyway.

This was a sad piece for me to write. Sad in that we have forgotten the power of people and I sometimes we believe the system is driving behavior and success … and worse … principles. And, yet, people build and make up the system.

We older folk appear to cynically view the system as ‘it is what it is, deal with it, or you will lose.’ And 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.

How is that in any way a successful formula for the future?

I began with Napoleon. He was from a relatively humble background on the island of Corsica for gods sake. And he ended up leading France to heights that seem unimaginable.

Did he reach too high and too far? Sure. Absolutely.

Life makes dealing with your principles a constant struggle. The real point is that you can fulfill your ambition & maintain your principles.

I believe we have forgotten this.

We have forgotten how to draw lines.

Well. Maybe the young haven’t forgotten and maybe we should get out of their way and let them change the world with their ambition & principles.

—————

“And the nights, bigger than imagining: black and gusty and enormous, disordered and wild with stars.”

—–

Donna Tartt 

=============== 

“This is the way the world ends

Not with a bang but a whimper.”

―

T.S. Eliot

==========

Well. Despite the fact most nights remain the same amount of hours, minutes and seconds day to day, a sleepless night can often look bigger than imagined. I have found that sleepless nights are less about restless minds and more about capacity in a squeezed space.

Huh?

Let me tackle squeezed first.

In general the world is a pretty vast place and our lives can seem fairly inconsequential.

The good news about this is that within all that vastness there is a lot of room to let some of the more horrible or horribly mundane crap just slip by.

The bad news occurs when all of a sudden Life, and the world, shrinks and you feel squeezed. And this can happen a lot easier than one may think.

Ponder what I am going to say as “the big squeeze.”

Everyday everyone faces some naturally occurring ‘shrinking’ aspects which in and of themselves can’t shrink your Life enough to matter. Let’s just say this is the daily grind of work, chores and family & Life commitments. Some things go well and some things don’t.

And then, of course, there will be a day or two where the things that “don’t” significantly outnumber the things that “do.” because this is day to day shit I view this as getting squeezed from the sides. They kind of suffocate you a little.

But set that aside for a moment.

And then there will be some days where you have that ad hoc shit you have to plan to get done — the faucet is dripping, the car engine light is on, someone hit the mailbox, crap like that. 95% of the time this kind of shit never goes as planned. It takes too long or it doesn’t get done right the first time or … well … suffice it to say … the easy stuff never gets done as easily as you would want.

And then, of course, there will be a day or two where the things that never get done as easily as you want actually end up just not going right. This is stupid little shit … but maybe think about it as maybe getting squeezed from underneath – an unexpected aggravating shift on the ground below you.

But set that aside for a moment.

And then there will be some days where you turn on the TV or maybe scan the internet news breaks and … well … some shit has hit the fan. Your country has made some monumental decision that seems to shift its place in the world.

Some nutjob terrorist has committed some heinous act to innocent people.

Some “thing” happens that feel like a shift in the bedrock of ‘what is.’ It may not directly affect you but you sense that it is a monumental thing which will most likely affect you <even though you aren’t sure how yet>. This is big shit … this just makes you feel a little like the weight of the world has gotten a little heavier and the world as you have known it has become a little murkier. You are getting squeezed from above.

But set that aside for a moment.

Now. I will now get to capacity.

Let’s assume on one day all there of things happen … you get squeezed all on one day. Oddly, this becomes a test of your capacity <which implies largeness>. And, yes, maybe it is about largeness. As in how large you can remain as you get squeezed.

Some nights it isn’t easy to not get suffocated.

Other nights you find your capacity and push back a little.

Most nights you find just enough largeness to not get, well, too little.

But the nights in which all three aspects I outlined squeezed you I would suggest the word ‘forlorn’ comes to mind. 

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

“Oft hope is born when all is forlorn.”

J.R.R. Tolkien

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

I use forlorn because I associate it with capacity as I am discussing it today. Forlorn has a sense of shrinking to it in that the good in Life seems to shrink and that which is bad seems to grow and you are left with that wretched forlorn feeling which dogs you throughout a sleepless night. Forlorn seems like it is more appropriate than lonely or lonesome in that it specifically embraces a senses of wretchedness and desertion or abandonment … in my mind … ‘despairing of the arrival of a friend … in this case … a friend called Hope.”

To me all of what I just shared with regard to squeezing and capacity captures the essence of the worst of the worst sleepless nights. And, if I were a betting man, I would bet we have all had a few of these.

Ok. Here is what I know.

Most of us get through these nights. Despite the vast emptiness of a night, more vast than we imagined it should be, we cast about among the chaos of the stars and find some light. I like to think of it as we clamber through the clouds and exist.

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

“I will clamber through the clouds and exist.”

John Keats

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

And the outcome of most of these nights, in addition to being tired, is out of the gauntlet of forlornness we seem to come out with a degree of hope. Hope for a better day <at minimum> and maybe Hope for something better <at maximum>.

In other words, out of the bigness which seems to squeeze us, if but for a moment, we rummage through a sleepless night … one black and gusty and enormous, disordered and wild with stars … and come out a little less black, a little more calm, a little more ordered and a little more focused on some star.

===========

“Rock bottom became the solid foundation on which I rebuilt my life.”

—

J.K. Rowling

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

“How do we forgive ourselves for all of the things we did not become?”

—

David ‘Doc’ Luben

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

Ok. Have you ever noticed that rock bottom is actually relative?

It is actually not a ‘bottom’, but rather like floors in a high rise building.

Someone can see a homeless person and think “rock bottom” and, yet, that homeless person, if asked, would say “oh, I have been lower.”

Someone can hear a millionaire recount when they were bankrupt and ‘it was rock bottom’ and, yet, two years later they were a millionaire again.

I am not suggesting that a wealthy person cannot see a starving child in a poverty stricken neighborhood as rock bottom  just that they cannot ever envision it is a viable rock bottom for themselves – ‘couldn’t happen to me’ syndrome.

I will not argue that people use their own versions of rock bottom as leverage points for progress and moving upwards away from that bottom. JK Rowling is certainly a great example of that <although … it would behoove us to acknowledge that she is an exception and not the rule>. But if you ever want to truly understand how fucked up we tend to view rock bottom just take a second and ponder the wealthy view and how they discuss ‘entitlements’ and monetary safety nets.

It drives me a little nuts to hear some millionaire talking about the time they ‘lost it all’ and, yet, they sit in some plush chair wearing a hundred+ dollar tie discussing their comeback from rock bottom as a ‘self-made millionaire who fought his way back’.

Uhm.

Real rock bottom doesn’t permit you to go from less than zero to multi-millionaire unless you live in some privileged world or you win the lottery.

My real point is that rock bottom is relative.

The 50something C-level experienced person out of work for several years with dwindling bank balances and no discernible path off of the slippery slope certainly feels rock bottom. But their bottom is measured by what they had and what they lost … and what they believe they will be able to gain again <if given the opportunity>. And “opportunity”, even at their bottom, certainly seems within a ‘hopeful grasp.’

Conversely, the hard working blue collar worker constantly on the edge of poverty or “making do” deems rock bottom as losing whatever they have gained … maybe a house or maybe just an apartment in which the adult has their own room and dinner food 6 days a week for everyone in the family. They may not view “opportunity” as hopeful but rather some small step toward relief from some worry.

The wealthy talk about ‘understanding’ that kind of rock bottom, but they don’t. There is no way they do. In their world rock bottom is significantly different and the path out of that rock bottom hole looks significantly different.

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

“She destroyed too many good things in society, and created too many bad ones, then left a social and moral vacuum in which the selfishly rich and unimaginatively fortunate could too easily destroy still more of what they don’t need and can’t see that everyone else does need.”

Emma Darwin

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

I am picking on the wealthy <mostly because many of them live in some absurd world view in which everyone has the same opportunity to attain the wealth that they have> but everyone views rock bottom thru their own relativity lens.

And, in general, that is okay.

It is mostly okay because it is our own self calibration, and motivation, mechanism to challenge ourselves to get what we want. The difficulty happens when you start applying your own self calibration to others.

Look.

Rock bottom is fairly easy to see if you look around without cynicism.

Look around.

Entitlement programs represent almost 2/3rds of the American federal budget. Almost half of American households receive some assistance from the government. When we see numbers like this most of us get grumpy and many of us think there is some underlying problem <which is difficult to put a finger on>. Simplistically the biggest problem is that nobody thinks they’re the problem.

Shit. To be fair. Nobody ever wants to think they’re the problem.

Unfortunately, the truth is as long as we continue to think of the rising cultural reliance on government assistance as someone else’s problem, and someone else’s fault, we’ll never truly understand it and we’ll have absolutely zero chance of fixing it.

Unfortunately, the truth is that an America assistance culture is far more pervasive than people realize – even beyond the lazy moochers and deserving poor <of which there are certainly lazy moochers but far less than what we perceive>.

Even the wealthy rely on government assistance … just in different ways.

Here is the truth. People want more stuff than what they have and everyone hates losing what they have. Therefore rock bottom relativity centers on that understanding – what I have, what I have lost, what I could gain.

That formula works if you earn $100 a week or $1000 an hour.

The truth is that … well … now everyone feels like they are entitled – even the wealthy — which is driven by a belief everyone is getting rich, or richer, but them. This makes people become resentful, jealous, angry, and a little selfish. They are working hard and they want their share and they are at their rock bottom and see someone getting what they believe they deserve.

Now. People, in general, know this is wrong and people, in general, don’t like this feeling and they resent feeling this way <and acting this way>. They get a little pissed that the definition of rock bottom isn’t some simple ‘same for everyone’ so they start lashing out and blaming other people.

People are milking the system.

People in government <whichever party you want> are creating the problem.

People who don’t look like us are to blame.

People think their rock bottom is more important than everyone else’s rock bottom.

And all people want a simple thing to point at and say ”fuck you, I am at rock bottom and I do not want to be here.”

Here is a truth.

The truth is that it is a systemic issue and, I would argue, our failing to truly understand rock bottom.

I will offer a quasi-contradictory thought to end this.

As a generalization … wealthy people <say 90% of them> have an absurd concept of rock bottom and fairly consistently misjudge attitudes & behaviors of poorer people who really are at their rock bottoms.

Conversely … it is a massive mistake to generalize the non-wealthy and their rock bottoms. While I felt comfortable generalizing with the wealthy <because I believe overall they have more opportunities within their grasp more easily graspable> I am not comfortable doing so with less wealthy people. And I say that to go back to my original opening point – rock bottom is relative and personal.

That point is pretty important.

It is important because we tend to want to create some sweeping program and solution which misses the fact that it is more likely to be successful if we go one-on-one and help individuals assess their rock bottom and help them get somewhere other than a bottom.

What I would feel comfortable making a generalization on is the fact that any less-than-wealthy person at their rock bottom has no desire to remain there.

They may have no clue how to get out of their hole.

They may have absolutely no hope of getting out of their hole.

They may exhibit no behaviors that suggest they want to get out of their hole.

But exactly 0% wants to remain in their bed at the rock bottom of their hole.

We should never permit anyone to make a bed at the rock bottom. Never.

================ 

“Life has many ways of testing a person’s will, either by having nothing happen at all or by having everything happen all at once.”

―

Paulo Coelho

—–

“I think as you grow older your Christmas list gets smaller and the things you really want for the holidays can’t be bought.”

=

(via hefuckin)

—–

Merry Christmas. Well. It’s scary how true this quote is.

Christmas sometimes seems simpler when thinking about the past. But it most likely wasn’t. It is just when young your list was long filled with things you wanted and the list was, well, a clear cut black & white list.

Today? Beyond the fact an ‘adult list’ is shorter … it sometimes seems like Christmas has descended into a trashy, crass, excessive, shallow <or hollow>, lighted plastic capitalistic driven spectacle. From a broader perspective Christmas has become a ‘retail event’ from which a lot of people step back from the joy of giving and assess the economy <not happiness>.

Yet. From a purely economic perspective Christmas spending is an inefficient way to drive growth. In 1993 an economist named Joel Waldfogel described what he called the “deadweight loss of Christmas” which is the concept of the fact that everybody pays too much for what nobody wants.

Anyway. But when you get past all that cynical pragmatic crap you see lots of the things you really want for the holidays which can’t be bought. The raw, non corporate branded, humane, caring and kind things.

————–

Dorey Walker: I don’t think that there’s any harm in not believing in a figure that many do acknowledge to be a fiction.

Kris Kringle: Oh, but there is. I’m not just a whimsical figure who wears a charming suit and affects a jolly demeanor. You know, I… I… I’m a symbol. I’m a symbol of the human ability to be able to suppress the selfish and hateful tendencies that rule the major part of our lives. If… you can’t believe, if you can’t accept anything on faith, then you’re doomed for a life dominated by doubt.”

Miracle on 34th Street – 1947

—————

Let’s call them ‘the little big things.’

I reflect on this thought knowing that gifts have never mattered to me even when I was really young. But that doesn’t mean I ‘got’ Christmas. I imagine, at my best, it was just an event where you were able to develop thoughtful lists which expressed something beyond simply ‘giving a gift.’ This elevated me above Scrooge status, but never really elevated me to an ‘understanding what Christmas was really all about’ status.

Today? Well. As usual. I am a work in progress. But I do see my list shrinking and I seem to get closer to one thing. One idea. Hope.

I think many people may treat the event & time as a gift giving occasion or a time to gather or even a time to reflect … but I am beginning to think Christmas offers a glimmer of ‘what could be’ more than anything else. Sometimes it may simply be a small glimmer but it is …well … a glimmer.

A small piece of hope for the future.

A small spotlight on when hope appeared in the past year or so.

And while context matters, in that whatever is happening in the world around us, I tend to think regardless of the context as we get older our lists get smaller because we get closer to the one thing that really matters. This also means that the closer you get to that one thing the less important all the other things become.

Oh. I also began to realize that if I am only to give one gift to the people I know it is to insure they see Hope even if it is for but one minute. This is not to suggest I believe I can make anyone actually believe in Hope.

You cannot.

However, I do believe you can show that Hope is there … possible … and attainable <in some form or fashion>.

It can be found in taking one minute to show a young employee that the best version of whatever they can be is attainable.

It can be found in taking one minute to tell a good friend that the dark<er> bridge they are walking on does have an end <and there is good solid ground with some grass & trees on it to stand on>.

It can be found in taking one minute to hand that homeless person you have seen for the last 11 months standing there at the corner a $10 bill instead of a $1 bill <and say ‘I hope it gets better’ … uhm … when do you think is the last time they have heard a stranger say they have hope for them??>.

None of those things have really cost me a thing, and I have given one little gift that I doubt was on their list of ‘what I want this Christmas.’

Just think about it.

Ok. Beyond Hope and believing and speaking of big … and small … let me shift to “the big man”. Santa Claus himself.

It’s a small thing … but believing in Santa Claus is important. It creates a smallish type hope that good resides and visits everyone. And, yes, the best example of this is “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.” And, yet, there continue to be millions who not only doubt Santa Claus … they deny his existence. They are called Santa deniers <and it is called Santa Denial>.

Silly people.

I say that because a writer recently took on Santa denial quite well. And this writer offers us a great reminder why we should believe in Santa Claus:

=

Addressing Santa Denial:

Santa-denial has existed for far too long and I cannot understand how Santa deniers are allowed to promote their views. Why are these people tolerated in today’s modern media?  Science has long shown that Santa Claus is real, and those who claim otherwise are invariably in the pocket of the big toy companies, who don’t want people thinking they can get free playthings and so will pay for their products.

But the evidence is beyond any reasonable doubt, and the arguments of the Santa deniers have been repeatedly debunked. But, just to refresh your memory, here are some of the more typical ones and why they’re wrong:

===

If Santa has a workshop at the north pole, why has nobody ever seen it?

Santa’s workshop is located in a very snowy region that very few people can access, so it’s unlikely that many people would get to see it. It would theoretically be possible to view it from above, via an aircraft or satellite in a polar orbit, but what would Santa’s workshop look like from this perspective? A snow-covered building on a background of ice and snow? That’s basically just blank whiteness. And infrared scans can be tricky with snow. It’s a fallacy to assume that something isn’t there because you haven’t seen it. You can’t see oxygen either, but try denying that it exists and see how far you get.

=

How can a human survive prolonged periods in sub-zero conditions?

Santa has several features and properties clearly adapted for cold weather survival. His large girth and dense beard and hair are obviously meant for insulation, in the manner of polar bears. Of course, enduring below-freezing temperatures for months on end requires a lot of calories for a warm-blooded mammal, hence Santa needs to get through millions of mince pies and glasses of milk in one evening; he’s building up resources for another frosty year.

How is it possible for a sleigh with millions of toys in it, pulled by reindeer, to fly?

Admittedly, the whole “flying reindeer” thing does seem very far-fetched, and this is a fair accusation. Investigations suggest that the flying reindeer image is a distortion of the truth, in that reindeer are native to the Arctic so Santa may well keep reindeer on his premises and perhaps they did pull his sleigh originally. But there is substantial evidence now to suggest that Santa powers his sled with the energy obtained from a precisely controlled quantum singularity.

Basically, Santa has access to a small black hole, which he uses to perform his duties. It’s likely that a miniature black hole struck Earth at some point in the past (don’t worry, this wouldn’t have been as disastrous as many think). Some argue that it came down in the arctic regions, hence its discoverer (Santa Claus) built his workshop on top of it. A black hole singularity can provide a lot of power, so this is the most likely explanation for the energy consumption of a busy workshop.

Once a year, Santa fits the singularity to his vehicle and uses it to travel the world. Black holes have exotic properties that allow them to distort space and gravity, so traveling with millions of toys in a confined space won’t be as impractical as it would be under normal spacetime rules.

=

It’s impossible to visit every child on Earth in a single night!

You’d think so, but remember the singularity mentioned above? They distort time too. The time period might feel like months for Santa in his own personal gravity well, but it’s mere minutes to anyone observing from the outside.

So, regardless, How can Santa keep track of every child being naughty or nice? As uncomfortable to realize as it may be, Santa’s approach hasn’t always been the most rational. It is traditional for every child to send Santa a gift list they have written themselves, so in the old days Santa was able to use the questionable science of handwriting analysis to determine who had less-than-pleasant personality traits (along with some educated guesswork based on the list itself; a child who asks for live scorpions or chainsaws is likely to have suspect motivations).

However, with the arrival of the internet and surveillance culture, it’s relatively easy to keep track of everyone. Especially if you’re a powerful industrialist like Santa.

=====

Why does Santa deliver toys and items with the branding of corporations?

Outsourcing!

Duh.

Plus, most children these days ask for specific items made by corporations, who jealously protect their copyrights by legal means. So either Santa sources the toy from the original makers, or the child goes without.

Is that what you want, Santa deniers? Children waking up empty-handed on Christmas morning? Despicable!

===

Why are there so many Santas in shops and grottos?

Those aren’t all Santa. They’re men in costumes. How gullible are you?

===

<note: If you still deny there is someone called Santa Claus … well … you have no soul>

<source: a delightful writer named Dean Burnett >

————

And, everyone, please have a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.

—

“Now to escape involves not just running away, but arriving somewhere.”

===

Bernhard Schlink

————————

“Be still. Stillness reveals the secrets of eternity.”

====

Lao Tzu

——————-

I could be a real jerk and say that people should stand their ground more often rather than flee <run away>.

But I won’t.

I won’t because all of us have run away from something at some point in our lives.

Yeah.

Pick your poison but we have run away from it.

However.

Where we get running away wrong <90+% of the time> is that we just flee with no destination or ‘somewhere’ in mind. We simply run ‘away.’ And in doing so we run … well … nowhere in particular. We end up ‘away’, but no closer to arriving at some meaningful destination.

I will never advocate not running away. I simply suggest that if you do run away you should actually attempt to arrive somewhere.

This distinction may actually be the difference between panic and thoughtful retreat.

It may also be the difference between lack of clarity and clarity in a stressful situation.

It may also be the difference between successful people and less successful people.

That said. I will admit.

Maybe 80% of the time we run away we should remain and be still. Because stillness, more often than not, reveals the secret to survival. Survival in the moment, but it also reveals knowledge you can use for eternity. Running away deprives you of that knowledge. However, while I flippantly tossed out the 80% number, I will warn you that the 20% of the times you SHOULD run away look an awful lot like the 80% of the times you should stay and remain still.

Therein lies Life’s dilemma with regard to fleeing. Stillness can give you extraordinary knowledge and could just as well kill you.

So lies the coin flips in Life.

Regardless.

Here is the real reason why running away to somewhere matters.

If you run to nowhere you are … well … nowhere <from a personal growth standpoint>.

If you run to somewhere you grow a little, and inevitably you return taller.

=====

“I will come back to you, I swear I will;

And you will know me still.

I shall be only a little taller

Than when I went.”

Edna St. Vincent Millay

=====

Look. We all run away from shit.

It can be fear … it can be pain … it can be a person .. it can simply be the unknown … but we all run away. Accept that. And at the same time make a conscious effort to insure you arrive somewhere when you run. That is the trick to running away.

 =================

“The belief that the commonplace is really worth looking at, and the courage to look at it with a minimum of theorizing”

John Szarkowski

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

This is about business culture collaboration in business, organizational structure and customer relationships. What do they all have in common? If you treat them in a transactional way, you will not only have limited value you will have fixed value.

“Transactional relationships have a fixed value (i.e. the end goal) and an expiration date (i.e. when the end goal is achieved – or not). There is nothing beyond them. Change value for values and a transformation takes place because it adds a common, shared fluidity to them.”

David Amerland

This may sound obvious, but I would bet 90% of middle management exists in a transactional relationship world (albeit couched in structural, cultural verbiage). Heck. I would bet 75% of senior leadership thrives in a transactional relationship mindset.

We talk a good game on ‘soft skills’ and ‘the importance of culture’ and any number of non cause-effect measurable sales/revenue topics, but the reality is most of business is transactional – do this by then, what is ROI, KPI index, etc., i.e., simplistic cause-effect. Why? Its easier. Its ‘measurable’ (albeit sometimes dubiously measured). This is incredibly dangerous. Dangerous because in a complex business world an effect could be the result of multiple causes and an individual ‘cause’ can create multiple, often ripples, effects.

Here is the issue. A lesson I believe marketers, customer-centric, branders, organizational, etc. should ponder more often. While cause-effect is simpler, reality is much more fluid.

The former is finite value. The latter is infinite value.

I several thoughts:

Hopes and fears

Look. We promise according to our hopes; we perform according to our fears. This important from a finite AND infinite standpoint.

Somewhere along the way they began to see fears as assets and hopes as liabilities. That’s because, in a transactional world, fears drove measurable finite game type results and hopes seemed immeasurable in finite and too distant, transactionally, in the infinite

The fear of ‘death’ (failure) is the affirmation of the finite.

“From where you are you can hear their dreams. The dismays and despairs and flight and fall and big seas of their dreams.”

Dylan Thomas

Somewhere along the way business, addicted to measurement & short term results (the finiteness of business), fear became the organizational emotional energy. That is bad. That is transactional. That is a fixed value relationship with people and time. I will say fixed value is limiting and un-fixed value is limitless.

Collaboration

I’ve always argued forced collaboration was waste of time. Why? Because, in today’s business world, more often than not its transactional.

We have entered a new age. I could argue as business organizations modeling has entered into a new age (grudgingly so), collaboration has also. Unfortunately, business, as business does, has mostly failed to shift attitudes, and modes of, toward collaboration as their organizations have shifted. We continue to supply the same flawed remedies for a new disease.

The truth is that real collaboration creates opportunities to escape the constraints and perceived barriers to address complex issues and access expertise on a broad scale. Yes. Using technology, business can certainly re-imagine collaboration. But (and this is a big but) to create the conditions in which collaboration can occur a business has to shed a transactional relationship with collaboration. Yeah. I just said that. Yeah. I seriously doubt any business will embrace that.

The truth is that, as Hamel & Prahalad said (in Competing for the Future, 1994), management needs to shift as systems shifts – and business has failed miserably on this front. One of the consequences to this failure is a continuing failure in Collaboration.

The promise of collaboration, in a technology world, is that it can occur across functional teams within an organization or across organizations. To realize the promise of collaboration, leaders and collaborators alike, need to learn to think strategically and critically about the most appropriate ways to choose tools, adapt processes and work in virtual spaces. Part of that challenge is there is no formula in that the tools, and collaboration itself, changes how we work as well as we change how the tools work for us.

I will admit that components of collaboration should meet ‘finite game’ business needs (leaning toward a transactional need), but collaboration should be emergent, therefore, not transactional in and of itself, but rather opportunistically result driven.

Organizational structure

As Stowe Boyd said: ‘Designing culture’ that has taken hold in the short-circuited world of startup entrepreneurialism. It’s now a given – not subject to discussion or reflection – that

1. organizational culture is an object, a thing subject to design and crafting,
2. leadership should decide what the business culture ought to be,
3. and impose that idea on the organization like an architect designing and constructing an airport, a hospital, or a shopping mall.

I am making up this %, but I would bet 90% of business culture is grounded in a transactional web of connective tissue. There will be values & ethics & a bunch of vision/Purpose-like narrative, but productivity, or proof or performance, is what connects it all. For good or for bad, the default state of any business is ‘we produce or die.’ Yes. That is, at its core, a transactional relationship. Yes. That means business, by default, seeks a fixed value state (which seems kind of nuts when viewed). Organizational structure IS shifting, systems are shifting, but I would argue the transactional tissue is viewed as the glue by leadership. That, my friends, is like putting a governor on a potential Lamborghini engine. That, my friends, is nuts.

Lastly.

Customer relationships

Business has talked about ‘loyalty’ forever. The value of ongoing relationships. Yet. If you tear off all the pretty packaging almost every business views customer relationships through a transactional relationship lens. Its grounded in a “maximize each interaction” mentality. That, in and of itself, ensures a transactional fixed value. Just ponder.

In the end.

All successful organizations adapt by effectively deciding what is necessary to preserve and what should be let go. This is next to impossible to do if the business survives on ongoing transactional relationship mentality – thru culture, thru collaboration, thru structure, thru customer relationships. Period.