—

“It is not the strongest of the species that survive, not the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.”

=

Charles Darwin

—————————-

Survival. A topic we all care about. This quote should make everyone think about Life as well as with their business. I love this quote mostly because those with ‘brawn’ scoff at those with ‘brains’, and the ‘brains’ scoff at the ‘brawn’, when survival (and that doesn’t have to mean life & death, but rather success or failure) is being played out.

Regardless of the side someone is on, both brawn & brain believe they have the advantage regardless of the situation in terms of survival. But. Chuck (as Darwin was called to his closest friends) suggests you don’t have to be the sharpest knife in the drawer nor do you have to be the strongest tool in the drawer to survive. You just have to be flexible. Responsive to what is happening. Have a willingness to adapt to the situation.

Flexibility is certainly an advantage if you have the desire to succeed at anything you do (ask any coach). We all face times when we have to deal with situations that do not “fit in” to our routine or our ‘comfort zone.’ I say “tough noogies” (not sure exactly what that means, but I bet you get the point).

Adapt or die.

Just ponder. One of the most frustrating things in life is when you have done your best and yet things still go wrong. Or maybe you didn’t get to where you wanted to get to (what you were ultimately aiming for).

You have to be flexible.

You have to adapt.

You have to have the ability to fit into a changed situation … or … to modify your behavior & actions accordingly to fit the changed situation.

And if you don’t? If instead you stubbornly hold on to some things that don’t work, and stubbornly repeat mistakes (because it matches best practices or “what worked in that past“) this inflexibility will cause failure (or simply not reaching what it is you were aiming for which is a derivative of some type of failure). By the way, in other words, continuous behavior along those lines means you will not survive.

Ultimately you have to decide to do things differently to experience different results.

Easy? Nope. It can be uncomfortable. It can be emotionally draining.

We know that when we are asked to change again and again, the physical and psychological reaction, which is actually excessive stimulation to the system, puts our ability to adapt under massive strain. All the change produces stress and carries with it a physical and emotional price tag. The more radical the change — the bigger the price tag.

Excessive stimulation has at least three levels: sensory, cognitive and decisional. To help us function <or survive>, each of us has developed strategies, or destimulation tactics, to lower the level of stimulation when we feel uncomfortably close to the limits of our adaptive range. We use these tactics every day, often unconsciously. Yet. By becoming conscious of them we can increase their effectiveness. By examining our own responses to overstimulation we can learn ways of consciously influencing change. We can begin by influencing small events, then expand our influence to larger patterns of experience. All these mental tactics are designed to detach from the shit … and rise above all that you are today so that you can be the best you can be tomorrow.

To do all of this you need to be aware. You need to not only be prepared to recognize when change needs to occur (typically there is a threshold on where you need to stop fighting the change or risk falling so far behind you cannot catch up or just be ‘eliminated’ at that time … oh … that survival thing) but you also need to be ready to change.

Look. Everyone has the capability to change. In fact I have a nifty chart which shows how most people accept & accommodate change.

Its pretty simple but shows that we need to work through the different levels of response to effect change. I would imagine there are several points to be made but here are the two from me:

–          you learn as you move through each phase at each point actually changing how you think about future problems/challenges to further change

–          you can get stuck anywhere in any phase at any time (the nifty chart actually helps show how easy it is to NOT change because you get stuck somewhere).

So. As change is introduced to you & your life you are forced through all four levels. I would imagine the most important thought would be to attain the fourth level as quickly as possible.

Anyway. Survival, and change, pretty much always depends on the most basic first step – believe that you are able to make the changes.  And take the first step.

Without that? You have the thought, but no action.

And the result of no action? Lack of survival again.

All that said. I tend to believe a lot of people will read the Darwin quote and seek to find meaning within ‘survival of the fittest’ bigger picture. I have some strange advice (coming from me).

Think small.

Think day-to-day.

Think “me.”

Think that survival is about adapting to the environment around you.

Think adapting means “initiating a new order of <personal> things ….”

—

“It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things.

For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only luke-warm defenders in all those who profit by the new order.

This luke-warmness arises partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favor, and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had an actual experience of it”.

Machiavelli

=

Bottom line.

Always think about how can you adapt.

By the way, I am not suggesting (and I believe Chuck Darwin wasn’t either) 100% change to adapt (although some situations demand it). Successful change typically begins by pinpointing anchors of stability (one you either have or can develop) which help to make the transition change not only viable, but more likely successful for you.

Regardless. Make change your constant companion and friend.

==========

“I prefer physical exhaustion over mental fatigue any day.”

—-

Clotilde Hesme

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

“There is a construct in computer programming called ‘the infinite loop’ which enables a computer to do what no other physical machine can do – to operate in perpetuity without tiring.

In the same way it doesn’t know exhaustion, it doesn’t know when it’s wrong and it can keep doing the wrong thing over and over without tiring.”

—–

John Maeda

=========

Well. Employee engagement is the key to maximizing productivity potential. Period. We can gussy up engagement with respect, safety, collaboration, etc, but business is about business and engagement has to do with the business of doing business well.

To be clear. I think of engagement on three levels:

• first is vision. Employees engage better, & have more interest to do so, when they not only know where the business is going, but are engaged with the vision
• second is how you go about doing business. Employees engage better, and have more interest in doing so, when they are rested, when they feel ‘psychological safety’, when they believe they are contributing (meaning) and when they get to do what they do with dignity & integrity
• third is energy. Employees engage better, and have more interest to do so, when they aren’t exhausted (mentally or physically) and are fresh.

You will find an infinite number of articles on the first and second. Heck. Even I have written about them. To me, the third is one of the least discussed and most overlooked aspect of engagement.

What do I mean? We talk about business transformation and ‘agile’ and constant innovation and relentless focus on the customer and, well, it all sounds exhausting. Add in when experts suggest leading an organization is like running a race (its actually nothing like it) and, shit, even I start feeling exhausted. Let’s be clear. Exhaustion and business is bad.

So. That said. Leading a business is more like managing the health of a body in which you do want some exercise and you do want some healthy eating and you do want to insure proper amount of sleep. Suggesting you want to run a business like you are in some marathon is silly and misguided. It is just as misguided to think about an organization like a machine with gears and moving parts and keeping it well-oiled and full of gas and shit like that.

So let’s talk about organizational exhaustion.

If you stay away from silly metaphors about what an organization is, or is not, simplistically you are trying to insure your organization is putting forth a proper amount of effort against the efforts you want it, and need it, to be working against. This is a daily, weekly, monthly and annual leadership objective. Different leaders have different styles working against this objective, but, simplistically, that is the objective.

Now. HOW you meet this objective typically takes some experience.

What do I mean? I assume most leaders do not inherently know exactly how to pace an organization. Pacing an organization takes some experience and some practice, some mistakes and some successes and then you zero in on how to do it well <or just keep getting better at it>.

Using me as an example. I liked a hard charging group when I got to a team/group management level. And I, personally, would be ecstatic if I didn’t have to sleep and I could go 24/7. In the beginning, that was my vision for my groups.

By the way, in general, good intentions/bad idea.

But what that meant was that I probably learned this lesson, pacing and applying effort appropriately, too slowly <and I most likely will have a bunch of past team members chuckling painfully in agreement>. Going hard charging all the time is not sustainable — you just have a constantly exhausted group. Effective hard charging doesn’t mean 24/7 it means picking your moments and going hard.

That said, in desiring to have hard charging organizations there are certainly some lessons learned to limit needless organizational exhaustion. Here are a couple I learned along the way:

• I had to be consistent.

It doesn’t get discussed often enough, but expectations go both ways. As a leader setting clear expectations is certainly expected <and I will mention that in my second learning>, but it really helps an organization if you establish clearly what people can expect of you – behaviorally and attitudinally.

Words surely matter.

Setting expectations surely matter.

Actions surely matter.

But consistency matters above all.

No leader is perfect and no leader will make the perfect decisions, let alone good decisions, all the time. Therefore it becomes incredibly important to just be consistent. Your organization, and specifically people, will become better accustomed to where you will be really really good and where you may be slightly off <and they will naturally accommodate both>. In other words your consistency actually offers your employees some direction for what they should do. Your best people will assess situations and know where you are consistently most likely right on, know the things you consistently overlook and know where you consistently leave some spaces for them to ‘do their thing.’

• Keep some strong threads of consistency.

Threads of consistency permit an organization to not have to think about some things. There were some really simple tactical things that I could control.

• What do you mean <clarity in articulation>
• Where are we going <set a visible North Star>
• What do you want me to do <pragmatic expectations>

If you could keep these three things solid and not have people milling about talking amongst themselves on these three questions, you were staying ahead of the game. It permits your organization to progress and not be stagnant. It permits your organization  to not invest unnecessary energy against those things and apply energy against doing shit.

Of course, a leader doesn’t have to do these things.

Of course, a leader doesn’t do these things at their own peril.

The peril? Exhaustion. frustration. Waste energy. Not doing these things has an expense to an organization and mostly that is defined by two things – time & energy. I would point out that both of those things are not infinite resources to an organization. I point it out because if they are finite than you better have them available to you when you actually need them. And that is why I chose to not use an organization as a race metaphor at the beginning, but rather an organization as a body metaphor.

Look.

As a leader of larger organization you can hide your misjudgments or poor decisions in a variety of creative ways; mostly by shifting resources from one group to another or have another department assume some different responsibilities or by shifting some people into the work gaps or to buttress the best people who are flagging with some support.

But that is also not sustainable.

The organization gets exhausted doing all that maneuvering, in addition, they get exhausted by you doing that.

I will admit that I got better at this as I moved up in responsibility. And, I will admit, I partially got better at it simply because I had more moving parts, departments and groups to manage. That is because I loved working 24/7 and I thrived with the energy of solving problems and, well, just energy. In a larger organization there is always something going on, some project or problem or initiative somewhere within an organization that needs attention or needs a little ‘push.’ This naturally permitted me to let one part of the organization ‘rest’ while another part of the organization ‘ran.’

Oh. Think about that a second or two if you will.

What I just suggested is an organization as a well-rounded circle, or the classical myth of a ‘well rounded person’, is simply a myth. In fact the idea of it creates a false, and sometimes dangerous in terms of expectations, narrative in our heads.  As an organization learns and thinks and gains experience it does not expand smoothly but, rather, raggedly. Day after day, despite the fact it may feel like business is a grind or it may even feel too fast <or too slow>  an organization is constantly running toward some thought and experience, or, leaping from danger or something  disagreeable or some problem or some success and suffice it to say it is anything but balanced. And it is certainly not creating any smooth well rounded growth.

My main point?

There is no such thing as a well-rounded person and there is no such thing as a well rounded organization. A leader may certainly aspire to create a well-rounded organization but, even at your best, the organization at any given point in time is some shape other than a circle.

The good news is that this means organizations also naturally get excited to explore the edged forays into interesting things and, in parallel, get snagged on the ragged edges of unexplored thoughts or even second guesses with regard to the lack of smoothness in what is happening in departments, groups and efforts … as well as thoughts and growth.

Yes.

I will point out that this is why an organization can feel slightly uncomfortable on occasion as employees, departments and groups wrestle with this discomfort, as well as dealing with the ragged edges constantly poking at everyone, but I will also point out that is why the things I mentioned earlier become even more important –the consistency, the clarity and the lack of chaos.

I will also point out that his kind of ‘uncomfortable’ is okay. To a leader it is actually a sign that things are going okay and the organization is not stagnant <and good leaders know how to point out good non-stagnancy to calm uncomfortable>.

All that said. I can unequivocally state that no organization is successful when needlessly exhausted. They can be tired at the end of the day, but exhaustion is a symptom not of ‘a good day’s work’, rather, unnecessary mental stress trying to get things going, understand what to do and what to say and kibitzing over why it is so hard to get what seems like normal shit done.

When an organization is running well, whether the 350 million, 350 or the 35 recognize it, there are many days when the 1, the leader, leaves the office exhausted. And the one is exhausted despite the fact that 349,999,900 people, 341 people or 34 people went to sleep that day feeling pretty good about their day and their needs & wants & hopes took one step forward that day and they are a good tired … not needlessly exhausted.

Oh. Despite the fact the one went to bed exhausted, that one will arise the next day fresh because the organization is ready to go again the next day and not organizationally exhausted (the one – leader – draws energy from a fresh organization).

I will end by pointing out that an exhausted group, an exhausted department or an exhausted organization is the sign of poor leadership. And, most importantly, it is a precursor to signs of inefficiencies and declines in measured productivity.

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

“The only thing that has ever made me feel old is those few times where I allow myself to be predictable.”

Carlos Santana

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

General Mark Milley:

“disobedience, when done, must be done with trust and integrity, and you must be morally and ethically correct.”(Disciplined Disobedience)

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

Well. There is no lack of articles on generational gaps in business and, yet, almost every one of them focuses on simplistic “generational characteristics”, “old versus young” and “what millennials want” and shit like that. Sure. Useful but I would argue all young people have always wanted a version of the same thing “do good meaningful shit without all the old people bullshit.”

Anyway.

What no one seems to talk about is the core frictional axis in today’s business generational issue: business philosophy<embodied in how ideas are created & implemented>.

That said. While I will certainly piss some people off by suggesting 50somethings are slowing us all down <impeding progress> I will do so by hopefully using some rational arguments rather than simply ranting.

The foundation for my belief will center on 2 things:

• Compensating
• Compensation

Of course this is, in reality, about ‘letting go holding on’ <with a dose of ‘please move on’>. That said. 50somethings are the biggest impediment AND catalyst for progress.

Let me explain.

Impediment. They cannot let go. They are holding on with a stranglehold sense of fear to what they ‘know.’ I recognize that this is actually a topic on some elder generational life truths:

• No one can do it better than I can.
• It was always better when I was younger.
• It is always worse now than it was before.

Every generation as they get older believes this. Every generation of businesses has a bunch of people sitting in their corner offices looking askance as the young skip down the hallways tapping their proverbial fingers on their desks wondering how to corral all those young whippersnappers to do it the way they did it.

And it can get worse.

The old folk think they are living in the present <their perception> by implementing what is comfortable <the past> therefore their behavior is incredibly difficult to impact because their mind is telling them what they are doing is actually different than what they are actually doing.

Ok. Now that I have blasted 50somethings as being stubborn bitter curmudgeons and the biggest impediment to change, I will take a minute and also note, given the right attitude, 50somethngs can be the biggest enhancer/catalyst of progress. There is a relatively small percentage of 50somethings who have the ability to straddle generations <attitudinally> and have the ability to insert themselves into the younger generation’s minds and desires to strengthen the engine of progress rather than stall the engine.

Please note … I am not suggesting these 50somethings have to be as good as the young at technology or whatever new innovative techniques out there yet to be discovered, in fact, it may benefit them to not be or even try. Their value is in their heads and experience and the nudging of ‘what can be’ using selected knowledge from ‘what was.’

Let’s call it ‘selective best practice learnings.’ Topmodels suggested it was the happy few who could explain things. I have to tell you. I think the market place needs more of these “happy few” 50 year old+ employees than ever before (and I am gonna tell you why). Now. I am not suggesting all 50+ people are the same. And this generalization may be translatable to other age groups but let me suggest there are three groups:

• Over 50 and all they know and believe in is what they were taught when they were in their 20’s.
• Over 50 and they have all the knowledge they need to be on their own and like being on their own (I call these builders)
• Over 50 and have accumulated iterative learning over the years and have a unique combination of old and new (and like renovating)

(note: I wrote a post about Builders versus Renovators)

The first group is lost in the past. They will struggle because their thinking and ideas and even their vocabulary can be out of date. They will suck at transformation or renovation. Their hope is finding someone who needs to work on their internal construct of how to get shit done. But mostly these are the people when we were young we thought were ‘out-of-touch’ from the real world (or chuckled to ourselves because they would throw out up to date buzzwords acting like they knew what was going on).

The second group has accumulated enough knowledge and expertise and confidence where mentally they have flipped from ‘working for someone’ to ‘working for myself.’ They have recognized their ability to build. And they like building (which is different than transforming). They would suck at transforming because they want to run the place and not simply be an enabler for the organization to shift. (Ralph also talks about this within his newsletter as “fear of flying” and learning about yourself). They could possibly be out of touch or they could be leading edge entrepreneurs. But it doesn’t matter because they are now going forward as their own boss.

The third group? They are renovators. Companies should be fighting over these people. They are old but not old. They are experienced but still learning. They have a solid thinking construct but flexible in application. They may have their quirks (because I believe all of us older people start feeling more comfortable in our own skin and therefore are a little less worried about ‘fitting in’) but also tend to be more interested in the result than worrying about step by step how they get there. They can actually make the current buzzword understandable by using past functional learnings to explain them.

So. When I say “fighting for these people” I don’t mean to suggest that companies should be stockpiling these people at the expense of young energetic fresh thinkers and doers. I am simply suggesting that companies need a good tier of these boomer types to transform themselves when, frankly, a lot of companies need to be ‘transforming.’ (and my definition of transformation is leveraging from solid good older characteristics an injecting some new characteristics). I am also not going to suggest there should be a direct correlation between % of boomers in population and % of boomers in the makeup of business organizations. That would seem kind of silly to me.

But the numbers are pretty compelling that organizations should seek that third group of over 50ers (let’s be nice and call them boomers). In 2009 The PEW Center released a study outlining the current generation gap is the largest in the almost 50 year history of the study. Today, an astounding 79% of Americans believe that there is a generation gap in the ways young and old think and believe. Truly the only way to bridge that gap within an organization and eliminate generational divisiveness is to have boomers who can effectively communicate with and motivate all age groups.

There are not many of these 50somethings out there.

—————–

“The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.”

L.P. Hartley

—————————-

I equate it to the fabulous few who can travel to a different country and seamlessly blend into the attitudes & behaviors of the new country.

Generations are, in general, slow to change and adapt in a normal every day situation. Today’s 50somethings are exponentially challenged with change and are not dealing with it very well <i.e., not letting go very well>. I believe it was a French sociologist, Emile Durkheim, who developed a psychographic method to establish different socio-cultural groupings <I believe it is called the Sinus Milieu>.  Anyway. Basically it is a model that challenges us to think about behavior, preferences and cultural practices. The main premise behind the model is called ‘the lock-in principle.’ The principle simply states that if we get used to something we do not want to change our habits <or attitudes an beliefs> even if we are presented with something new or different that might be better. Simplistically it consistently shows <to a point that it is almost an unequivocal behavioral truth> that habit is stronger than the desire for improvement.

This thought partially explains that while 50somethings actually share the same desires as young people they are reluctant to let go of what they “know.” this gets compounded by two things:

1. With the advent of data & technology, the working business model has transformed from a “idea construction” model to a “idea destruction/reconstruction model“.
2. With the internet the gap between older experienced based knowledge and younger theoretical based knowledge has become sliver thin.

JEREMY SCRIVENS

“Over the past ten years, businesses have used Lean, Six Sigma, business process engineering and other techniques to drive costs out of a business. They have also succeeded in driving people nuts. Something really important happened two years ago. The percentage of people who loathe their jobs has been rising and the number of people who love their jobs has been falling. Two years ago these lines crossed. If we don’t find a way to reverse that trend then we are truly stuffed.”

Sliver thin? This is the compensation and compensating thoughts I shared upfront. 

• compensation

While this is about management style as well as purpose ultimately this is about money … not only how we personally get paid <earnings & wealth> but also how the company gets paid <profits, revenue, growth, etc.>. The current 50something management generation is literally and figuratively the generation that got squeezed. This was the generation who had to learn how to do more with less. This was the generation who was also demanded to generate more profits and sales increases … with less.

If there is anything this generation understands better, it is the concept of the squeezed dollar.

Now.  Let me explain. As business evolves and the economic environment surrounding industry evolves the needs of the business leader changes. It is natural to adapt to what the economic environment demands <or be killed if you don’t>. The burden of this business generation? The squeezed dollar <versus the bloated dollar of the previous generation>.

The current generation of business leaders has had to thrive in a ‘squeezed dollar’ environment.

• The squeezed dollar is the unfortunate fact that because of the boomer generation leaders’ wonderful success … the financial community demanded the same results … but the consumer demanded transparency.

Therefore in order to maintain continuous sales growth <which is actually a relatively ludicrous concept> and continuous profitability the current business leader had to find ways to squeeze the same profit/growth out of less dollars <cutting staff while cutting prices while cutting … and cutting … and … well … cutting>. I say all this because this economic pressure creates a certain type of management style in order to be successful. 50somethings learned on the job and actually were quite successful maintaining the boomer ‘earn as much as I can’ attitude <a version of extravagant desire for more> as well as working leaner … on the edge of what an organization is actually capable of.

Compounding this is the next challenge.

• Compensating

There is always a fragile relationship between generations … old holding on to what they know and have while the young are trying to pry things from the old … trying to get them to let go <of ideas, responsibility, things, etc.>.

From a ‘wisdom’ perspective the current generation gap is different, and more challenged, at the moment <although it has been this way in the past … just not within our experienced past>. While this wisdom gap between adults and the youth <in Life and in business> has always existed I will call this unique current gap challenge ‘the war on the adult advantage’ <or false knowledge versus real knowledge> for the sake of my discussion.

False knowledge. This is harsh <and an over generalization> but adults have always made shit up. We pass our opinions and beliefs along as facts … as real knowledge based on real life experience. Let’s call this the ‘years advantage.’ Most likely it is a ‘focus group of one’ knowledge but in the past adults could own this advantage the majority of the time. And at its worst … it is simply a defense mechanism to deflect youth energy away from something we would prefer them not to be focused on or thinking.

Real knowledge. Adults almost always had a real practical technical ‘how to do it’ advantage … mostly because in this case we had seen & done it. And done it many times so that it was almost with true expertise <or at minimum we had the process understood and efficient>. Nothing beats practical hands on experience <remember that old folk>.

The internet has squeezed both.  Today false knowledge can be challenged immediately.

And real knowledge?  Well. With some professional proficiency an adult will always maintain an advantage but with the advent of the computer and technology … many adults have actually LOST the advantage. Ultimately … the internet has squeezed this entire advantage perspective <actual wisdom as well as the learning process itself> to the head of a pin.

Only those adults truly agile and adept at thinking are maintaining this advantage.

But, in general, the 50something response?

We are threatened. The two main pillars of advantage have become toothpicks. So we hunker down. We take an increasingly bunker mentality and batten down the hatches <ok … no more tired metaphors>.

What do the 50somethings inevitably have to hold on to <and put a death grip to never let go of>? Whatever slim margin of advantage we can own, the unassailable portion, is ‘how we learned to do it’ — the process and the mentality and the ‘work’ on HOW we learned what we learned that got us to where we are.

Heck.  We got here this way … so any other way is a short cut <or not the right way>. Uh oh. Why is this an issue? Well. My good friends at topmodels.com helped me out again. They refer to it as “why faith is replacing knowledge.”

“… our world is getting more complicated all the time. Black and white, good and bad, right and wrong have been replaced with complicated constructs that leave most people in the dark.

As the world around us becomes increasingly fast paced and complex, the amount we REALLY know – what we can really grasp and understands – decreases all the time. Today it is more or less taken for granted that we do not understand many of the things that surround us, such as mobile phones and ipads. And even if somebody tried to explain the DNA code to us, we would probably be out of our depth.

We are increasingly surrounded by ‘black boxes’ … complex constructs that we do not understand even if they are explained to us. We cannot comprehend the inner processes of a black box but nonetheless we integrate their inputs and outputs into our decision making. The amount that we simply HAVE to believe, without understanding it, is increasing all the time. As a result we are tending to assign more importance to those who can explain something than to their actual explanation.” <The Decision book: 50 models for strategic thinking

Krogerus & Tschappeler>

Well. That thought scares the shit out of 50somethings. It stands against everything we were taught.

Faith versus actual knowledge? How can you truly understand if you don’t understand <all the innards and stuff>? The young are replacing <some> knowledge with faith … and the old are not letting go of ‘stop and learn the knowledge.’ There is certainly a balance … but 50somethings are not interested in balance … they are interested in having ‘no faith’ because they perceive it as having ‘too much risk’ or ‘not the way we did it.’

<insert ‘get over it’ here>

There is a massive opportunity for 50somethings if they can get their shit together and quit ‘compensating.’ If they simply quit cocooning simply to maintain their adult dignity <their wisdom factor> and seeking to simply maintain whatever slim perceived advantage they can have over the youth <not actually increasing the gap but simply strengthening the fine thin line between the two>.

Today? It is a more hardened thinner gap than in past generations.

The future is always ‘now’ to the young because the future exists in their ideas. Whenever the future ‘happens’ it becomes the present and then immediately the past <kind of my explanation for the excessive restlessness the youth in business have>.  50somethings need to learn to let go and hold on for the ride <as a conductor>.

Ultimately … the old have lost their traditional grip over the young and are holding on harder than ever before. They are over-compensating to maintain control <or their advantage>.

Bottom line on this topic. It really comes down to two things … attitude and respect.

Attitude.

The right attitude <combined with some respect> is the requirement for adapting to change and generations.

With the passing of time each of us changes … experientially and psychologically. In certain situations, younger people do not like accommodating themselves to traditional experiences and in others older people are reluctant to accept the new. In order for a person to change themselves, it is necessary that they not only be convinced of the appropriateness of this change but they also have to have the right attitude. The attitude matters because … well … this shit doesn’t happen overnight <despite the fact everyone seems to think if you don’t make changes immediately you will get crushed>. In order for everyone to adapt organizationally everyone, both generations, need time.  Time to assimilate the new and the old and create the necessary experience as well as process it to make … well … progress.

Respect.

Oddly, I will suggest it isn’t that the young should respect the old, but rather the opposite. I believe the 50somethings need to get their proverbial heads out of their asses and develop some respect for the young and what they can do <that we cannot>. Show them respect and I imagine they will show us respect <if we have the ability to deserve it along with the right attitude>.

In the end.

There is a lot of talk amongst older folk on “changing” and “adding purpose to businesses” but my prediction?  Existing leadership <and middle management> will screw this up mainly because they will only see the short term as an opportunity to get an older, more mature, cheaper employee and not recognize the longer term issues that will arise. They will screw it up because they will focus on ROI & not ROY:

• Lack of ROY <return on youth>: youth and young people are the cheapest innovation engine in any organization. While typically overlooked in an innovation model their innate ability to provide a fresh perspective through fresh eyes is invaluable. Organizations may not recognize their current loss with the ‘lack of youth’ within their organizations but it is having an impact. It has a domino effect within an organization. Without the ‘hidden youth engine’ more pressure will fall on older employees for innovative ideas … and these employees are more focused on ‘safe behavior to maintain employment’ and … well … you can see where this ends up.

Focusing on what we perceive as ‘generational differences and ‘youth attitudes’ <and not the organizational issues> I believe we older folk will not manage this issue well. Mainly I believe this because we will tend to focus on numbers & jobs and not some key psychological aspects <some Maslow stuff>.

There is truly no generation gap with desire to what we want <purpose, meaning, joy of task, being better, hope>, but the real gap exists in the minds of HOW things should be done.

As noted in my construction versus deconstruction posts, it is a new business world out there today and navigating the transition is where the best minds of the older generation should be focused. I could argue we are currently in the business world’s liminal space <uncomfortable, uneasy transition space> and if you agree, well, then we are simply on our way to someplace new & better. I could also argue we need a new business model for a new business world and fortunately for everyone the young are more capable of implementing this new model than any existing generation.

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

“Souls are funny things. They stay constant even when the outside changes, or when the heart makes mistakes.

Souls don’t really care about good or bad, right or wrong — they’re just true.”

—

Miranda July

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

“Lies and half-truths fall like snow, covering the things that I remember, the things I saw.

A landscape, unrecognisable after a snowfall; that is what she has made of my life.”

—

Neil Gaiman

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

“If you cannot find the truth right where you are, where else do you expect to find it?”

–

Dogen

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

Well. I almost called this “if you cannot find the truth right where you are” because it sure seems like we like to look for truth, the harshest truths, somewhere else other than where we are. Ok. What I mean by ‘where we are’ is  within us.

I admit it seems kind of crazy to look anywhere but within because, ultimately, the stability and security and outcome of our souls, ourselves I imagine, need to be grounded in some self truth:

No lies.

No bullshit.

No ‘wishes.’

Just harsh unfettered truth.

In order to be greater than the turmoil of life.

In order to stand unwavering in the storm of life.

In order to not flinch in the face disasters in Life.

Just harsh unfettered truth.

This harsh unfettered truth gives us a space. It’s kind of like the eye of a hurricane.

We draw some lines.

We create some limits.

We place some margins as a buffer.

At the center?

Just harsh unfettered truth.

I use harsh purposefully. Self reflection is always difficult. It’s tough facing some shit you most likely don’t want to face.

And admitting it?               Whew.

That’s where harsh truly comes in.

You come face to face with some shit you more than likely would rather not face about yourself and then, well, you admit that what you face is you. Well. That is, more often than not, harsh.

In fact so harsh you flinch a little.

But, in flinching internally at this point, you are empowered to not flinch when facing outwards.

You have faced your sins.

You faced your flaws.

You faced your failures.

You faced the harsh unfettered truth.

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

“I speak my own sins; I cannot judge another. I have no tongue for it.” 

Arthur Miller

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

I will say this. Any hope of greatness always resides within, not with out. And I would argue the harshest evaluation of your hope’s chances resides within the harsh unfettered truth within.

Now. All of this may sound like personal Life thinking. It is not.

I use these same words these days with business people about businesses and companies.

In today’s world in which there seems to be no black and white and only grays.

In today’s world in which there seems to be no facts and only what is called common sense.

In today’s world in which there seems to be no truth and only lies & liars.

In today’s world … those who strip themselves naked of anything but truth will stand out not for their nakedness but rather for their clarity of who and what they are. These will be deemed the true authentic and the true credible and the true commendable or capable of winning favorable acceptance in people’s minds.

That is a harsh unfettered truth for the few who desire distinction and success in today’s world. Well. It is the harsh unfettered truth for those who want to make their soul a little less tricky.

All that said.

Don’t flinch from your harsh unfettered truth for it contains your destiny. I do not care if you think about this as a person or as a business … just think about it. And remembered. Souls are funny things which truly can only be found by facing harsh unfettered truth.

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

“Just remember, if you flinch from your destiny, you’ll never achieve your true greatness — you didn’t choose to be chosen, but being chosen means you have to choose.”

–

Charlie Jane Anders

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

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

“When a fact begins to resemble whatever you feel is true, it becomes very difficult for anyone to tell the difference between facts that are true and “facts” that are not.”

—-

Katharine Viner

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

“Alternative facts aren’t facts, they are falsehoods.”

Chuck Todd

===========

 “Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?”

Groucho Marx

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

“Perception is a dynamic conflict between the attempts of an outer world to impose an actuality on us and our efforts to transform this actuality into a self-centered perspective. 

Perception is a confrontation between an inward-directed vector of external reality compelling awareness and an outward-directed vector of physiological, cultural, and psychological transformation.

Where these vectors clash, where they balance each other, is what we perceive. This in sum is my view of perception.”

—–

Source: Understanding Conflict and War – Volume 1: The Dynamic Psychological Field

==========

So. I had this piece in my draft folder for months and pulled it out when I heard the term “alternative facts.” Yeah. Not ‘non-truisms’, but real actual ‘alternative facts’.

This is a bastardized version of the false branding concept of “perception is reality.’

My belief is that at some point a long long time ago Trump read the back of some book about branding <because he has never read a book> that said “perception is reality” and he was off to the races creating a hollow universe of ‘perceptions’ in which he could skate along the superficial surface toward riches & fame.

Today, Trump and his merry band of liars, are now taking the perception business to a whole new level of absurdity.

Let us be very clear on some basic Truths:

• Alternative facts live only in an alternative universe.
• Perception is not reality.

As someone who has dabbled in marketing professionally “perception is reality” truly galls me. It is an ugly lie.

And it is even uglier because in an untrained, inexperienced mind … or a misguided lack of moral individual … it can be used to defraud people – unintentionally or intentionally.

Perception is perception.

Reality is reality.

And perception is reality only, and ONLY if you permit it to be so.

Here is a fact.

Perceptions, by definition, are hollow things unless they are truly a reflection of reality. And how can you know if this is true? If you puncture perception, it deflates to whatever reality is. That is a ‘full honest perception.’

Let me be clear <because any real business person who has worked on any consumer brand in the world understands this>.

When you float on the superficial surface of a “perception based Life” you can only get away with it until people get interested enough to actually interact. Because interaction is when the piper gets paid. As one famous advertising person said “nothing kills a bad product faster than good advertising.”

Look. I am not suggesting perceptions, and managing them, is not a viable marketing objective nor am I suggesting that perceptions aren’t important. What I am saying, not suggesting, is that you learn very quickly in the business world that perceptions MUST align with reality or you are screwed. Reality must deliver upon perceptions offered & promised.

For example.

Trump can tell me he is intellectual, smart and knows the best words, but every time his reality, his actions, deliver hollow simplicity, idiot thin-skinned responses and odd word salad verbiage I start questioning the perceptions he is asking us to believe.

The only people I have ever seen try and exist in a ‘perception is reality’ universe have been marketing hacks <who didn’t know any better> and con men <who knew better but wanted to make money and run>.

Perception is not reality and trying to create a universe based on perceptions is a hollow world.

Unfortunately in the universe we live in the American president, from day one to, well, ad finitum, will constantly be trying to convince us reality is not reality, perceptions are what he and his merry band of liars say are truth, alternative facts exist and there is some alternative universe that he, and they, can only see.

We seem to be entering a new era in which truth is what Trump and his administration wants it to be.

Trump was a historically dishonest presidential candidate, a historical dishonest president and his merry band of surrogates <liars> have displayed a persistent commitment to lying – needless lying or necessary lying. Trump is a man who creates his own reality and lives in it … and he and his surrogates are asking us to live in it. Okay, not ‘ask’, he is demanding it.

As his inauguration speech suggested, you will believe in his reality and will live in it and therefore you will be demanded, not asked, to follow his lead within it.

You & I, America and the rest of the world will have to decide whether it will accept this alternative universe or convince him his reality is actually a hollow universe of perversely wrong perceptions.

There are a number of risks at hand.

One is basic society construct – reality is no longer fact based, but ‘feeling’ based.

The other is that Trump anchors this alternative universe based solely on some warped perceptions and therefore those  who elect to follow will follow the pied piper <allegiance to him above all> and not to any ideology, values or principles <not even the US Constitution … because he becomes the sole arbiter of what the Constitution “means to say to us”>. Trump is not a normal phenomenon and his alternative universe of false perceptions and alternative facts should not be normalized by something as simplistic a “politicians have always lied” and “we can never trust the media.”

Politics has always had a tenuous relationship with truth but even in that environment there are limits.

As Jonathan Last wrote in the conservative paper The Weekly Standard … “you can obfuscate, you can misrepresent, you can shade the truth to a ridiculous degree, or play dumb and pretend not to know things you absolutely do know. But you can’t peddle affirmative, provable falsehoods.”

Here is the surprising truth to add.

Journalism has always had a good relationship with truth, but even in that environment there have been missteps which create a false narrative that journalism, as a whole, is dishonest. The majority of journalists are not dishonest, every viable publication in existence has a standard of honesty & proof and while they may tend to a more liberal skewed perspective truth is truth and facts are facts and they treat both with reverence <because their existence relies on that>.

Anyway. This ‘perception is not reality’ truth is going to be challenged like it has never been challenged before.

I will give you the easiest way to puncture a reality/perception gap. Get someone to envision the repercussion of acting, or not acting, upon the perception. What does the day after look like, feel like and … well … be like.

This helps meet the challenge created by false leaders who exaggerate crises or create them with the intent to subvert, and pervert, the constitution, the judiciary process and the system itself.

This helps meet the challenge created by false leaders who offer simple solutions for complex problems.

===

“The simpler past seems more attractive than today’s complex reality, and so people vote [thanks to] inchoate frustrations. They choose simplicity and locality over complexity; identity over internationalism. Politicians promote themselves by giving voice to this. Hence, in addition to Brexit, we have calls for Scottish independence, Catalan independence, and so forth.”

—

Tainter

====

And maybe that is where perception gains traction in a complex world. If complexity doesn’t show simple benefits, or maybe the real benefits are difficult to align in a cause & effect way, perception starts beating reality.

Well. It will until reality catches up to the false promises & false simple solutions offered by perceptions.

The alternative universe can only last as long as the alternative universe can stave off the real universe. Just as alternative facts can only last as long as the real facts can get their shit together and get in the game.

I would note that Trump’s alternative universe isn’t so much about his lying <although that is truly the shiny object we focus on> but rather he’s just wrong in a simplistically naive way about almost everything <and even on the things he has a valid point on and I could construe as ‘right’ he unnecessarily cloaks it in ambiguity & hyperbole so that even his right is wrong>. He rambles aimlessly about anything that happens to pop into his brain and is convenient for him to say at the time. He is not typically deliberate about his lying he is simply authentically living in his own alternative universe and explaining that universe to us.

The universe itself may be one bigly lie, but his explanations are truth about the universe.

Trump is a rambling, bombastic, amoral narcissist. He’s never pretended to be anything else. What you see is what you get. His integrity resides solely on authentically communicating the big Lie <although … in his mind … in his universe … it is the big Truth>.

Oddly this seems to mean, at least to a lot of everyday people, that an authentic liar has more integrity than a calculated communicator.

He is genuine in his belief of this alternative universe.

His perception is actually his reality <just ponder that scary thought for a moment>.

Ok. That is bizarre. Fucking bizarre.

Trump and his merry band of liars use a variety of truth-blurring techniques <i call it “chaff”>. Their objective appears to not only be to control by creating doubts about what is real and what isn’t, but also to create an alternative universe in which whatever he does actually looks like it makes sense.

To quote President Trump himself … Bad! Sad!

There is a much bigger lesson here for everyone beyond whether our new president is capable of telling the truth or whether he, and his followers, even care and accept alternative truths as reality … perceptions are NOT reality.

Perceptions should always be held accountable.

People should be always be held accountable for the perceptions they create and offer.

In the end I come back to the beginning.

Here is what I think as an everyday person. Envision the day after your perception is faced by the harsh truth of reality.

Will you be scared?

Will you be excited?

Will you be happy, sad, or somewhere in between?

Good on you if you come out of these questions excited, happy and looking forward to the reality which perceptions suggested it would be. Just make sure you treat what you perceive with care.

Here is what I think as a business & marketing person.

The gap between perception and reality is the “death trap.”

====

‘In the day we sweat it out on the streets of a runaway American dream …’ It’s a ‘death trap,’ a ‘suicide rap.’  I want to guard your dreams and visions. ”

Born to Run

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

Perceptions create expectations. Expectations are developed to meet personal dreams & visions.

If expectations are not met in reality … people swing back angrily upon the ‘perception creators.’

Creating false perceptions is a suicide rap.

Creating false perceptions is a death trap.

Many of us business folk have the scars to prove this.

Treat what you ‘build’ as perceptions with care.

Perceptions are simply that … perceptions.

Facts are facts.

Reality is truth.

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

“How many people long for that “past, simpler, and better world,” I wonder, without ever recognizing the truth that perhaps it was they who were simpler and better, and not the world about them?”

–

R.A. Salvatore

===========

“There is a trail of existence that follows everyone, threads of life that people spin out and leave behind wherever they go. Threads cross all the time. Threads cross and cross again – time and place if in no other way – even when the people appear unaware of each other. No one pays attention to others around them unless the overlap happens again. Sometimes, people miss each other only by a few seconds, yet they are connected.

Sometimes place is the reason for the overlap, but time is not. Sometimes the overlap is purposeful other times happenstance.

The threads are there, no matter. Ah. When they glow, they are one destiny.” 

–

Inspector O

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

In general, 95+% of us think the past was simpler or let’s say we think it was less tangled.

In general, 95+% of us view the present as complicated, complex and peppered with shit we never had to deal with in the past … in other words … a tangled mess.

Maybe we should view it differently.

Maybe we should view us, the individual, as more complicated, more complex and more peppered with shit than we were in the past.

Maybe we have forgotten the past when we did what we felt was right versus wrong & what felt good and not bad without getting tangled up in a whole bunch of … well … things Life whispers and shouts into our ear.

Maybe it isn’t Life that is more complex, it is us … & we are tangled up.

Now. In my opinion life has a nasty habit of getting us all tangled up. I will not say “confuse us.” It more likely just twists us pretzel-like between suggesting right things to do, wrong things to do, right ways to do, wrong ways to do and, well, what you are supposed to like versus what you actually do like.

All of this tangling makes us view the world as the villain <or the ‘tangler’ as it were>.

Wrong.

Stop for a second and admit that about maybe we are the ‘tangler.’

Why do I say that?

The world is what it is.

We either respond to the world or we don’t.

We either accommodate the world or we don’t.

We either do everything the world suggests or we don’t.

I say that because Life is indifferent to us. It chugs along in a fairly consistently inconsistent way in that it remains linear while everyone crisscrosses each other, all the experiences and moments crisscross, and good decisions and bad decisions made by everyone crisscross … meaning that all of that gets tangled up … in every moment.

The more people we meet the more paths & branches crisscross and cross again.

It becomes a tangled confusion of so many choices and paths and interlinked branches it becomes easy to think of it all as chaos. Especially if you think of people and events as threads and not dots in a moment in time.

Yeah. As your path crosses with others … others who are also making choices — choices of strangers, family, friends, enemies, whomever — their choices do affect our path. And then we walk in to this multidimensional space bombarded with molecules of other’s choices and contextual environment situational type stuff and … uhm … we have to make a choice.

And that is where we really get all tangled up.

While, yes, we have to make a shitload of ongoing choices – small and large and every size in between – the majority of them we make more difficult than we have to. This most often happens with good intentions in that we try and figure out the “best” choice <in the midst of all this chaos swirling around us> and we overthink.

Then it gets worse.

We look to the past and it appears to be a neat set of choices made … and not made.  It often appears in a nice schematic of context in which we simplistically made some choice based on what we saw and experienced.

Oh <nuts>.

The reality is that we made some choice in some situation which looked a shitload like what it does in the present <and what most likely looks like the future>. Yes. It appears to look a lot like sheer chaos — a snarled thread of paths and choices.

Oh <shit>.

We get all tangled up.

Okay. Let me try and help.

In each tangled chaotic web of events, threads and paths, everything is actually bounded by the practical — the practical aspect of what you can actually do, and cannot do, within the choices you make.

This is the actual reality of what can be done.

This is simplicity.

This is the untangled you.

And if you actually untangle you will find some really good decisions and choices available for you. I am not suggesting it will make the repercussions black & white but … well … shit … I do not believe our Life, or destiny, is pre-ordained in a black & white definition anyway. I tend to believe Life is just a huge map of possibilities in which you kind of forge your way through a relatively chaotic Life by being the best tangled you.

Look. I like … no … love the thought that we get tugged by duty <right thing to do> versus desire <some type of self-gratification – spanning from full indulgence to full altruism> as we make all these choices.

And while we certainly can be impacted by others or ‘things out of our control’ … what remains in our control, always, is the untangled choice.

The choice to do what we may with the circumstances at hand.

The choice remains with us.

The time, the moment, demands one thing — to tangle or untangle.

My thought? Choose to untangle yourself. It will most likely make you better and simpler.

———————————–

Alvin Toffler thought:

Two apparently contrasting images of the future grip the popular imagination today. Most people to the extent that they bother to think about the future at all … assume the world they know will last indefinitely. They find it difficult to Imagine a truly different way of life for themselves, let alone a totally new civilization. Of course they recognize that things are changing. But they assume today’s changes will somehow pass them by and that nothing will shake the familiar economic framework and political structure. They confidently expect the future to continue the present.  This straight-line thinking comes in various packages. At one level it appears as an unexamined assumption lying behind the decisions of businessmen, teachers, parents, and politicians. At a more sophisticated level it comes dressed up hi statistics, computerized data, and forecasters jargon. 

Either way it adds up to a vision of a future world that is essentially “more of the same.”

—————————————————

“If a vocal minority, however fervent its cause, prevails over reason and the will of the majority, this Nation has no future as a free society.”

=

Richard Nixon <silent majority speech to USA>

—

As the United State edge its way toward another election day, in honor of the fact a significant portion of the most capable citizens will NOT vote despite the fact the president has low approval ratings <say in the 40% approval rating> and the Senators & House of Representatives <the other elected officials> have even lower approval ratings <say in the teens … less than 20%> I am going to talk about the silent majority and businesses.

First. The concept of “silent majority.”

“a large and normally undemonstrative cross section of the country that refrains from articulating its opinions …”

Second. Most organizations have a ‘large & normally undemonstrative’ employee base.

Yup. Despite what you may read and hear on the internet about ‘the voice of the people’ most employees remain silent <at least in public>.

That said. We, who may have been fortunate enough to oversee organizations, recognize one of those most difficult things in a business organization is discerning whether the vocal few is speaking for the silent majority.

In fact. There has been an entire array of ‘learning & listening’ tactics developed to attempt to tap into the minds of the larger organization mind. They have been developed because no matter how good a leader is there is separation between where they are <and what they do> and where the ‘ground troops’ are <and what they do>. Good leaders pay attention to this stuff mainly for two reasons:

–          A content, reasonably-aligned, organization is an effective organization <and more efficient>

–          Activating the silent majority is like putting your organization into a higher gear <you go faster & exert more productive energy & produce more>.

Now. I suspect that I view this whole ‘activating the silent majority’ quite differently than traditional management & organizational behavior people>.

Most organizational culture people always seem to discuss ‘creating a culture of … whatever” … and then expect everyone in the organization to live eat and breathe it.

Well. Seems kind of silly to me.

Nice vision and certainly everyone should seek to create that cultural north star, but expecting everyone to do and act the same?

Silly.

Why? Because like it or not the world, and organizations are typically reflections of the world, are made up of a silent majority. You may not like it but it is what it is. And trying to change that is typically wasted energy.

Now. That doesn’t mean you cannot create a culture and utilize an entire organization.

Let me tell you what I mean.

–          culturally fostering an “I care” attitude.

To be clear. This is an attitude and not behavior.

Too often leaders confuse the two … mainly because they tend to be results people and want to see tangible behavior.

Silly. Focus on attitude through principles. Your objective is to foster an almost subconscious attitude which permeates day to day business life. The point here is not to measure anything <DOH!>.

Yes.

I just typed that.

This is more about priming the pump than pumping the water.

Sure. I envision if you do this correctly you will see some actual behavior consistent with whatever ‘I care about’ attitude you encourage. But if you start chasing behavior <or encouraging the best of the best behavior to the non best performers> you will actually begin to demotivate the silent majority and lessen your chances to activate when you want to activate.

Which leads me to number 2. Activating the attitude.

–          Strategic ‘I care’ behavior

Remember. I am speaking about the silent majority. If you have fostered an ‘I care’ attitude you can actually strategically ask for behavior. You see .. culture is more about how people do things then it is some nebulous ‘culture’ so if, attitudinally, the organization is carrying around a common set of principles if you actually ask them to do something within that set of principles you have, well, created behavioral traction.

Let me split this into random “I care” behavior and requested “I care” behavior.

One way is to maybe encourage a one <annual> time ‘I care’ behavior. The other way is to maybe set up a system that permits random one time behavior whenever the silent majority wants to exhibit the behavior.

Your choice. I am a ‘one time alignment guy’ myself but there is no real wrong way to do.

I prefer the one time alignment because I believe if you can get an organization all doing one thing at exactly the same time you get two benefits:

–          (1) it is like an organizational chiropractor aligning the backbone of the organizationally attitude & behaviorwise, and

–          (2) you get a one time organizational ‘lift’  from which your challenge is to maintain  <at least a percentage of it> the lift so that the entire organization feels, and sees, some benefit .

But. If you do not like that philosophy … just as with random acts of kindness … if you can foster an ongoing trickle effect that can be just as effective <so don’t let some consultant try and convince you that there is only one effective way>.

Ok. That said.

I decided to write about this today because political stability/functionability in the U.S. seems nowhere in sight. And, yet, there will be an election in which the organization <the people> could actually affect the end functional ability.

And while there are signs of unrest throughout the organization <the country> the truth is that we have not figured out how to activate the silent majority.

The learning to businesses is that polls can only reflect so much. Maybe some overall dissatisfaction. Maybe some overall specifics, but even the specifics get blurry when discussed in detail. A lot of the pompous people call it ‘low information voters’ or ‘the disengaged.’

Silly. And stupid. And wrong.

The majority of people in organizations are NOT disengaged, in fact, they are clearly engaged with regard to what crosses their desk or the assembly line or whatever task they have responsibility to complete in the moment.

They are clearly engaged in making it through each day successfully and hopefully, in some form or fashion, walking out feeling like they had a good day.

Far too many leaders forget his <or maybe in some delusional way they wish it were not so>.

Leaders need to remember something that the US Declaration of Independence states: 

“whenever any form of government becomes destructive …, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.”

Uhm.

This does not suggest organizational revolution. This actually comes to life in a ‘deactivated silent majority.’ And THAT does alter or abolish the organization. It is almost the worst nightmare to any leader — silent destruction of their organization. And it happens because leaders … even the good ones … struggle to discern the few loud from the silent many.

I will go back to politics to make my point. Someone said to me that it seems like the world is more split between extremes than ever before. And America <is almost> evenly split between conservative & liberal.

Well. No. None of that is right.

It was President Nixon who gave the speech in which he spoke of the “silent majority” in American politics.

These were the people who didn’t wave signs or march in the streets. They were the people who quietly went about their lives, going to work, raising their families and hunkered down within their communities. These were the Americans who want their leaders to set aside ideology and do what’s best for the country.

This is America’s silent majority. These are the Americans who watch ESPN and HGTV and American Idol and Modern Family at night instead of MSNBC and Fox.

Business leaders take note. It is exactly the same in your organization.

That said.

The minority is loud.

Typically the minority is fairly articulate.

Whew. Once again.

This means one of the most difficult things to figure out in business management is whether the vocal few speak for the silent majority.

Okay. Here are some things I do know about the silent majority in a business organization:

They are the local community leaders who make a country great.

They participate in community monthly meetings.

They coach the Little League baseball team or they drive their kids to soccer practice.

They have jobs.

They pay taxes.

They have full schedules.

They read newspapers <maybe online> but they don’t have time to get all worked up reading the extreme right or left blog sites.

They want a functioning government, at the local, state and federal level, but especially at the local level.

They want their schools to be good because it is better for property values <and better for their kids>.

They are willing to pay their fair share in taxes, but they are disgusted by how much waste they see in government.

They are willing to give their neighbors a helping hand, but they don’t appreciate people ripping off the system.

They like respectful dialogue and they don’t like the haters.

They don’t feel comfortable with those folks who are extreme with regard to … well … anything but doing the right thing & working hard.

The silent majority doesn’t actively participate in polls or conventions or caucuses … why? … because they have jobs they have to go do.

And maybe most importantly to leaders.

They don’t pick insurgents.

They don’t pick revolutionaries.

They don’t pick dark horses in their organizations as managers and leaders.

Ok.

Business leaders think about this:

–          All the liberals suggesting the people have decided that they are ‘in the right.’ They represent maybe 28% of the adult population.

–          The conservatives who argue the country is split and they will not back down on what is “right” <pun intended>? They represent maybe 24%.

Almost 50% remains silent. They are the silent majority. That is your organization.

Now. This is not an indictment on the silence or a suggestion that everyone needs to step up to the plate.

I am simply making a point. A point that the vocal in your business are the few. A point that it is always difficult to discern if the vocal truly represent the majority.

If you are a business leader and need something to think about, here is what I know about your organization employees. They want:

–          A fair shot at success.

–          A fair shot at living a comfortable life <not a luxurious life but a comfortable one>.

–          A stable life within a stable company.

Many remain silent <I imagine> because the majority <of the silent> probably kind of feel like it is obvious.

Interestingly when surveys and studies actually do get to these people, once you get beyond the gripes about government and greedy business people <both of which they have fair gripes with> they have some relatively simplistic thoughts on Life.

Fairness.

A moral compass.

Stability.

Pride.

Integrity.

Here is a truth that I wish people would remember.

No one, and research shows this time and time again, begrudges the rich who earn what they earn by working hard.

No one suggests that everyone gets a free deal.

No one thinks it has to be easy … but hope it could be a little bit easier.

And everyone wants their kids to have a chance even if they, themselves, may not have it.

Look.

Any business leader will be successful if they can attitudinally engage and strategically create behavior with their silent majority.

My fear is that many business leaders think their organization is NOT silent and they are hearing the streets howl with truth.

Nope. The truth more often resides somewhere in the silence.

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

“We waste so many days waiting for weekend.

So many nights wanting morning.  Our lust for future comfort is the biggest thief of life. “

=

Joshua Glenn Clark

—

So. I almost called this ‘thief of life.’

This began as I sat listening to a business discussion the other day when I realized that I was just hearing one reason after another being vocalized on why something shouldn’t be done. Ah. Please note. I said “shouldn’t” not “couldn’t.” It was a litany borne of either laziness or fear.

Regardless. Here is the scary part <at least to me>. It became a numbers game. Numbers, as in, even if the one reason ‘to do’ was the right thing to do or, at minimum, at least doing something was better than nothing, the logic seemed to come down to this:

‘well, if we have all these <100> reasons to not do it … it seems like a bad idea.’

Stop.

Stop right there.

Doing the right thing is not a numbers game. I can always … let me repeat … ALWAYS find reasons to not do something. I will note that the main reason to not do somethings comes down to “wishing.” What I amen by that is people sit around wishing for something to change that will make the 100 reasons vanish in the blink of an eye and the “one right thing” stands alone in the spotlight of what to do.

—

“The world is not a wish-granting factory.”

Gus <Fault in our Stars>

——————-

But it doesn’t work that way. While I don’t have research on my side <because I am fairly sure no research has ever been done on this> doing the right thing, or the 1 thing which everyone really knows should be done, almost always seems to have to fight a battle of attrition. One in which you can either get pecked to death by ducks, slowly bleed to death through little slices from sharp simple minded ignorant fearful knives, or simply by being bludgeoned over and over again with some blunt dull cumbersome object.

The 1 often seems to need what Lincoln called ‘the full measure of devotion’ to put things into motion for the forces of good

Anyway. The 100 reasons are simply 100 thieves.

They steal life.

They steal honor & integrity.

They steal opportunity.

They steal truth & reason & logic.

They steal it one coin at a time. In the end your pockets are empty.

Look. In most cases and situations doing something embodies infinite potential, and scarily, infinite possibilities or, in pragmatic terms – infinite consequences and unintended consequences. While we don’t like to admit it in this business world of ‘setting objectives to measure against’ is more often a choice, or a decision, which can, and will, have multiple outcomes & consequences.

Yes.

You surely try and herd the choice into the direction and path you desire. That’s kind of what managing a decision is all about. But that is managing movement. Conversely, the ‘100 reasons to not do’ are managing stagnancy. Or ‘non decisions. Both, I may add, have consequences and, whether we like it or not, accountability resides in both decisions and non decisions.

—————

“Every moment has infinite potential.

Every new moment contains for you possibilities that you can’t possibly imagine.

Every day is a blank page that you could fill with the most beautiful drawings. “

John C. Parkin

————

That said. I find this whole ‘let’s come up with 100 reasons so we do not have to do the one thing we should do’ slightly puzzling for several reasons.

Puzzling in that possibilities are exciting and, in general, people like the concept of possibilities. Possibilities represent  hope. And, yes, they are scary <because they are … well … possibilities … not guarantees or promises>.

But. I imagine I am puzzled because if I put ‘possibility’ on a scale, I am fairly sure it weighs more than ‘not a promise’ <not all uncertainties are created equal is my point>. And I understand that a sliver of fear carries a disproportionate weight to its size, but I still sense that in most people’s minds possibility is a joyful burden.

Next.

Puzzling in that society has embraced ‘simplicity’ like it is a long lost child. Well. Let me say it has embraced simplicity & efficiency <to the detriment of all other children society may have>. I say that because the 100 reasons takes a lot of work to come up with and they are complex <when the list is complete> and time consuming to think up and list. Its puzzling we invest so much energy in the 100 when the 1 most likely represents the simplest & more efficient.

It gets even more puzzling especially when examining the fact that “1”, which even if debatable, almost always carries a thread of ‘I want to do this’ feeling within everyone. And that implies organizational or ‘crowd’ alignment in some form or fashion and that ultimately begets <or translates into> some variation of efficiency. Its puzzling because on the other hand, the 100, the doubts, vary from individual to individual.

Anyway.

Suffice it to say. In order to do something, to get shit done, you cannot let the 100 beat the 1. Doing something, or making a decision to do something, is not a numbers game. Just because you can come up with a 100 reasons on why to not do something, if the 1 is right, that is enough.

The 1 outweighs the 100.

Maybe that is the issue. In the measurement world we live in this math doesn’t make sense. I mean, c’mon, how could 1 outweigh 100?

Well.

Doing the 1 thing that should be done always makes sense and I venture to say it will carry much greater weight as an impact.

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

Originally published June 2014

………. axial shift in economics Otto Sharmer ………

————

“To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting.

It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.”

==

Oscar Wilde

—————————

Well. I wrote Society of Fairness in February 2016. I revisited it due to 2 things:

• I just wrote “guilt free accumulation” which explored the shallowness of values versus the pleasures of capitalism
•  just discovered Otto Sharmer and read his piece “Axial Shift: the New Coordinates of Societal Change.”

Both of these pieces explored some of the societal challenges we face but, at their core, both revolve around what we view as fair – for I and We and Us.

To be clear. Fair  and fairness is a much more difficult topic to discuss than one would think. Maybe it is more difficult because I believe we are living through a period of simmering anger. People are angry with government, with capitalism, with media, with religion, with inequality, with immigrants, with Europe, with big business, with Russia, with how they get treated and with, well, everything seems to be changing.

In my eyes all of this is rooted in an overall question, and concern, at an individual level of “with all this change as the world transforms I am afraid change will not treat me fairly.” <this is a derivation of my post of “I get angry when people screw with my hope”>. Therefore we rage against anything we can attempting to insure the tentacles of fairness touch us at some point. In other words. When the world seems t be going to hell in a handbasket we grab on to our basket, fill it up with anything we can grab and protect it with clenched fists.

———

“The most dangerous moments are not when people are their poorest but rather when their expectations of significant improvement are raised … and end in frustration.”

de Tocqueville

—————

Interestingly, the whole discussion of fairness ITSELF creates a sense of anger.

The reason for this is that fairness sounds simple, but is complex. The most basic logic of fairness suggests choosing between which poor people, or who is most in need, are more worthy of the help of the generous and “morally superior” wealthy. That is the mental logic we apply as we attempt to parse out fairness rather than have fair become mired in “equal for all.”

Yet, while even struggling working people will agree those in truest poverty, particularly children, are first in line for ‘fair’ their personal anger is not even partially quenched. They are not quenched because fairness is both an “I” thing AND a “we” thing which is not selfishness, but self preservationness.

A society of fairness is one in which we are fair with each other and the system, in turn, is fair to us.

It is about attitude (and persistently holding onto that attitude).

It is, at it’s core, frankly, not glamorous.

It is the nitty gritty stuff and not the college education and wall street or even the government.

It is about marrying principle and pragmatism and gradual improvement.

It is infrastructure like streets, trains, highways and roads, public parks & community centers, easily accessible fountain water, lower level easy access good public education, stuff like that.

It is basically common sense bricks & mortar actions within a … well … the hard part … an equality based moral order frame.

Jobs is the tangible <which we need> and moral order is the intangible which creates the structure for behavior within the tangible. Jobs may be hierarchical <at the moment>, but morals should not be hierarchical.

These are not problems which can be fixed by simply suggesting rich white folk save the poor or “marginalized working people.” In addition it’s not just about people fighting back against injustice and working hard. It is about personal responsibility AND shared responsibility. It is about people being active positive participants in their own lives and society, itself, positively participating in individual lives.

A ‘society of fairness’ clearly reaches into the heart, and soul, of what most of us care about, it reaches into our attitudes (because it is hard work), but almost immediately runs into the economic obstacles of ‘what is fair’.

I tend to believe all of us know that it doesn’t mean everybody has the same income. It translates more into equality of opportunity. The difficulty resides in putting dollars & cents and tactics & objectives against ‘fair & opportunity.’ No one, and I mean no one, couldn’t simplistically point out the extreme unfairness in today’s society, but the true society of fairness is defined not by the extremes but rather what happens in the majority.

I share my thoughts today not to suggest we shouldn’t seek a society of fairness, but rather to point out that “fair”, in and of itself, is significantly more complex and complicated than when looking at it on a superficial level.

That said. We can do something to make the world the place we want it to be if we get our heads on straight.

What do I mean? I found a fabulous little article at a site called Common Cause Foundation on Values  . But it was in the middle of the article where the author nailed the issue with regard to attaining a Society of Fairness.

==

Common Cause Foundation has recently conducted research in the UK and the US looking at the values people hold, and the values they think their fellow citizens hold.

We’re still analysing this, but here are two early results. Firstly, a large majority of people hold self-transcendence values (generally concerned with the wellbeing of others) to be more important than self-enhancement values (based on the pursuit of personal status and success). But this isn’t seen by most people, who believe that their compatriots hold self-transcendence values to be less important, and self-enhancement values to be more important.

Perhaps this is a key reason why many people don’t get engaged and active, although sharing values that would otherwise lead them to – because they believe that they are in a minority, and that society at large doesn’t share their values. We call this the ‘perception gap’. It’s a gap that many in our media, and many in government, seem to work hard to perpetuate.

==

In America we are certainly living out that ‘gap’ quite vocally, but as we wrestle with fairness and shared self-transcendence values I will note some reality — America has always been defined by a combination idealism and materialism. A balance of the two & it would be silly to suggest ditching one for the other. I would also note both are powerful sources of motivation.

The idealism expresses the best of human instincts in that it sanctifies the fixing America break someone else prioritizing of others over oneself and requires social and political respect. The materialism celebrates individualism.

===

“It is not fair to ask of others what you are not willing to do yourself.”

Eleanor Roosevelt

===

The combination has coexisted because one never sought to fix itself by breaking the other. The natural coexisting conflict sparks greatness, opportunity and progress.

In my words it is organizational alignment of social, materialism and political.

The difficulty with the idealism side of the equation is that people’s idealism tends to translate into, well, it doesn’t necessarily live in the real world. In our idealism, our hope to be the best of the best, we seek some things that aren’t feasible in a practical sense <and, yeah, someone is gonna throw out that practicality is just another word for “too hard”>. My response? It’s not too hard, sometimes it just isn’t feasible. That is because unfortunately ideas are reliant on two things: the power of the idea and access to an infrastructure to embrace & implement the idea. If either side fails to meet the challenge it all fails.

It is irresponsible to offer up ideas for consumption without an infrastructure in place <or a foreseeable path to a rebuilt infrastructure> to, at minimum, accept the idea and, at maximum, implement the idea.

And that is where alignment on fairness tends to fall apart.

What is maybe worse is that not only is it extremely difficult to effectively communicate what I just said but also many people don’t care when they are dominated by anger. They just want solutions – they just want it done.

And if that anger is tied to a real & tangible & personal ‘unfairness’ … well … gradualism never sounds compelling and, frankly, isn’t compelling. Revolution appears much more attractive.

Here is a realistic truth. In 1990 Peter Drucker discussed Salvation by Society <his version of society of fairness> and how a transforming business world was killing it. We now see in the late 2010’s the full repercussions of that transformation. I say that because while ‘fairness’ may begin today its positive transformation will take decades to become re-embedded in our business, and societal, structure and institutions.

Anyway.

I love the idea of a society of fairness. Unfortunately, in today’s world, fair means different things to different people. And demonizing any group of people, even despite their inordinate wealth, doesn’t really seem fair. Good people reside at every wealth level. Good people reside in every skin color. Good people reside, well, let’s just say that 98.5% of the time 98.5% of the people are good <I made up the 98.5% and thought it looked smarter than simply putting 99%>. And the 1.5% bad are not solely in the purview of the mega wealthy.

And therein lies the hope for a Society of fairness. Good resides in the significant majority. It simply lies dormant and needs to be reawakened.

With that I return to Otto Sharmer. What I like about his thoughts aren’t all the specific thoughts (which I could haggle with aspects), but rather the holistic integrated view of creating a society of fairness. It is complex, & I am not sure we are aligned with what ‘fair’ really is, but if we can envision what the totality could look like, well, it can be built.

=====

originally posted February 2016

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

“As in war, chess requires one should preserve what one can,  and sacrifice what one cannot.

Even to the sacrifice of the most valuable pieces to win the game.”

—-

Rachel Caine

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

“I’m sick of people telling me it’s just a “get over it” situation. Fuck you. You don’t know what it’s like in my head. “

—

The Newsroom

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

“When all the world’s a lock, you don’t find a key, you become the key.”

—-

Rachel Caine

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

Ok. This is about sacrifices and how we manage, or mismanage, the sacrifices we make. Simplistically, I tend to believe we all know that if you have to give something meaningful up you should make it count.

To be clear. We make sacrifices all the time.

Shit. Sometimes we don’t even want to make a sacrifice, but Life steps in and actually demands we make one <and we have to deal with it>.

Regardless. The problem is that I would bet <and I am not a betting man> that we squander 90% of our sacrifices. I suggest that 90% number knowing that this number just doesn’t include the small sacrifices, but also some of the larger “life-defining” sacrifices. Yeah … the larger ones. The larger ones include the kind of sacrifice that can be a defining moment — kind of a crossroads defining in a way. Now. I purposefully used ‘defining’ because, let’s face it, many of us every day schmucks can often lack a certain sureness of our own identity and a sacrifice has a nasty habit of making us face that fact and think about doing something about it.

What that suggests is, whether we acknowledge it or not, most of the time we want to make the sacrifice count.

Now. The next problem is with our sacrifice mismanagement.

Almost every one of us has made some personal life changing decision <which included a sacrifice> and went in ‘whole hog’ … and failed. Therefore, we then tend to take our sacrifices and sometimes seek some clarity of self or sometimes seek some collective-type identity by joining some movement or group. In other words, we convert our personal sacrifice into some collective ‘spirit of shared visions & goals’ as a means to not only seek some positive affirmation to our sacrifice, but also to, well, hedge our bets.

Huh? We know we failed in personal pursuit but believe, if in a group, it will be harder to squander the sacrifice, in other words, to not let the sacrifice not count.

Look. I am not going to comment, or criticize, how anyone pursues insuring their sacrifice counts because what matters is insuring that any sacrifice you make doesn’t get wasted.

What I will suggest is that we let far too many sacrifices lay wasted in our rear view mirrors.  I would argue that a sacrifice is like starting the engine and putting everything into gear, but you gotta supply the gas and keep your foot on the gas pedal and your hands on the steering wheel.

If you doubt that we waste them, start by just thinking about all the ‘right things’ we associate with sacrifices.

Shit. We even have sayings to express our desire to make it count once … well … deciding it SHOULD count:

… in for a penny, in for a pound.

… go big or go home.

… all or nothing.

We say all this shit all the time which means, in our heads, that the implication is to ‘go for it’ despite the potential time investment, potential energy & effort investment and potential costs investment.

Yes. Great intentions.

But. We waste it.

Simplistically most of us will run a 100 yard dash in a 5 mile race. And then we look at the 100 yards and say “whew, I gave it my all … I went big … I was all in.” And for a 100 yards you were. The problem is that the finish line, assuming there is a finish line at all, is … well … there is another … uhm … 8700 yards to go.

Yeah. Another 87 100 yard dashes.

That’s why making sacrifices count is so hard. Almost everyone will go for it, for 100 yards, in which one has given a meaningful sacrifice. It will feel like you gave it a good college try.

A smaller percentage maybe will do the 2000 yards in the race, i.e., just suck it up and go for 20 100 yard dashes. And feel like you gave it a good college try.

And a much smaller, much smaller, percentage of people will do the full 88 100 yard dashes and finish the 5 miles and make the sacrifice really count.

Well. I will say that sacrifices really do come down to you. As in the quote I used upfront: if you make a sacrifice you don’t look for a key, you become the key that unlocks “making it count.”

Lastly.

I will note all this talk about investing the energy means we actually fuck up the whole concept of sacrifice. We fuck it up by suggesting making it count relies solely on energy & focus.

Here is a truth: many true sacrifices demand real sacrifices.

What I mean by that is there are situations where you have to decide that if you want to do something or get somewhere you have to be willing to make whatever sacrifice will get you there – any sacrifice.

This makes me remind everyone what I noted upfront — chess is a great metaphor. Many times you sacrifice a rook, a knight, maybe even the queen, the most valuable piece, to win the game.

That is ‘going for it.’

That is ‘go big or go home.’

It’s not just running the entire 88 100 yard dashes, but also sacrificing something else <sometimes, not always> to get to where it all really counts.

And maybe that is my point.

We sometimes are fairly flippant with regard to ‘sacrifice.’

And other times, when big sacrifices are forced upon us, we are not flippant with regard to our intentions to make it count, but because we did not choose the sacrifice (it was thrust upon us) the internal engine isn’t focused on making it count as hard as if we had actually chosen to make the sacrifice.

Regardless. All I truly know about what I have written about sacrifice is it all means 90% of the time we do not really make sacrifices count.

That’s a shame. We should make sacrifices grudgingly and in doing so seek to make them count when made.