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

“The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.”

–

Albert Einstein

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

“We need timeless principles to steer by in running our organizations and building our personal careers. We need high standards — the ethics of excellence.”

 –

Price Pritchett

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

Ethics are our morals in action. Ethical behavior is the system we develop framed within our moral code. Our moral code, or our morals, are a system of beliefs emergent from our values. Values are the foundation of our ‘right/wrong judgement’ which create some belief system. This is personal, an individual decision, not universally accepted.

“values are our measures of importance, whereas ethics represent our judgments about right and wrong”

(Shockley-Zalabak 1999, p. 438)

It may seem like I am parsing thought here, however, in the business world all the words get tossed around flippantly (interchangeably) – particularly when it comes to culture. It is important because culture is emergent, not dictated. Culture is a collection of individuals, with individual values, who act in a coherent behavioral fashion, within an organization (where the systems enable or suffocate the individual behavior). I say this because this is when “principles” comes into play. Principles encourage a specific coherence not by dictating but rather by establishing some common agreement. In other words, despite each person having their own value prioritization, the organization establishes its value prioritization (establishing not what to do, but what not to do).

Look. Here is a truth.

We don’t really like to admit it but Life, in general, more resembles a constant teetering on the edge of a slippery slope than anything else (especially with regard to ethics, i.e., “doing the right thing.”). Life, and business, constantly, relentlessly forces you to make, well, ethical choices. Now. They may not look like ethical choices, but if you look real closely you will see the face of ‘right or wrong’ staring at you wagging its finger. We don’t look that closely because it would force us to admit:

• Right & wrong is often contextual
• Right & wrong is often not a clear black or white
• Right & wrong is often measured, ultimately, in consequences not actions, yet, we are demanded to choose right or wrong and act now

You will most associate this constant teetering (also a recognition of being on the slippery slope of fading ethics) as “just this once” behavior. We don’t really like to admit it because ‘just this once’ tends to be used to explain away some of our more dubious behavior and decisions.

This ‘dubiousness’ gets couched in a variety of ways. Safety. Utility. Benefits (functional and ‘to me’). We find a lot of ways to justify our behavior, decisions and attitudes before we ladder up to ethics. As my friend Faris Yakob (see image) suggests it is almost a Maslow-ian decision model. Its not that we ignore ethics or even not care about ethics its just we prioritize a number of things before we get to ethics. This suggests ethics is not a foundation from which decisions emerge, but rather are a final, fairly wide, box in which a decision has to be checked against.

source: Faris Yakob

If that is true, then ethical fading is commonplace, yet, justified by ‘pragmatism’ criteria. I bring up pragmatism because, whether we admit it or not, unless you actually think about ethics, morals and values (in a non-meta philosophical way) then it becomes a little more difficult to understand how principles can play a fairly important pragmatic guardrail role. The truth is that ethics are constantly challenged, in context, by safety and utility. For example, would we steal to feed our children or lie to keep us safe.

Sound moral judgment is rooted in strong values and acted upon by our ethics. An organizational judgement, a collection of these individuals, is herded in common principles.

Principles, yes, before you despair, principles guard against ethical fading. Principles are the cornerstones of your ethical building. Without principles you have no solid ground to stand on in a world constantly trying to tip you over into a variety of holes, slippery slopes and dead-end tunnels.

‘Principle’ is defined in Nuttall’s Concise Standard Dictionary of the English Language as, “n. the source or origin of anything; a general truth or law comprehending many subordinate ones; tenet or doctrine; a settled law or rule of action; to impress with any tenet; to establish firmly in the mind.”

Principles protect, in a very fragile way, against ethical fading.

They do so in a number of ways

1. They establish a foundation, or a moral filter, for ethical behavior. Maybe call them the ground rules of how you assess what is right versus wrong
2. Unfortunately, the foundation is a framework not a “how to do” manual. Therefore upfront they help define exceptions to the ground rules and, yes, we will always find some exceptions. Some ‘blurring’ of the guardrails as it were.
3. Unfortunately (part 2), this blurring, while not always creating ‘just this once’ behavior, it CAN create just this once behavior which is, well, the slippery slope of ethical fading. In this situation principles can actually be the solid lily pads of ‘no more’ certainty from which one can stop the slide down the slippery slope of ethical fading.
4. Unfortunately (part 3), principles, while resilient, are not immortal. Facing the onslaught of ethical fading they can, well, fade and once they have made their last stand you are screwed. You are on the slope and the only question left to answer is how far down the slope you end up.

So, despite their fragility, let me talk about principles.

“The most important ingredient we put into any relationship is not what we say or what we do, but what we are. And if our words and our actions come from superficial human relations techniques (the Personality Ethic) rather than from our own inner core (the Character Ethic), others will sense that duplicity. We simply won’t be able to create and sustain the foundation necessary for effective interdependence.”

Stephen R. Covey

To me principles revolve around a discussion of soul (selling your soul ). Some people may disagree with me but, to me, soul represents the intersection of I & We. It gives us life energy (call it our subconscious passion). It what joins us together with an external shared common vision – kind of our common value proposition for Life. It creates a connective tissue for, well, acting in a humane fashion with other humans. It is within this intersection in which we seek the common ground between morals, ethics and value and arrive at a coherent principled behavior as a community or business organization.

Let me suggest 4 cornerstone principles (not ranked, just foundational):

• Inviting culture premised on affection for humanity. Lives are to be lived for others (therein lies where we gain meaning), not just for our own success and advancement. We must model lives that matter if we want to nurture into living lives that matter. We believe that we are not islands unto ourselves but social beings who need community to flourish and become our best selves. Believing you are in, and of, community.
• Commitment to character demands involving oneself into multiple traditions and frameworks for what makes up a good life (contextually expanding your view). This means accepting a responsibility to pose questions which introduce one to a variety of cultures and contextual questioning.

Believing that character takes involvement & commitment & work.

• Do good. I imagine I am suggesting that if you do good you will contribute in a meaningful way (some call this a purposeful life). We must simply follow Aristotle’s advice, or Emerson, that “the purpose of our examination is not to know what virtue is, but to become good.” The point is not merely to study the good, in a detached and academic way, but to invite oneself to develop as a person of character.

Believing that a virtuous life is not found in attitude, but behavior & actions.

• Be curious about everyone and everything. Keep your head in a swivel as context changes. Exhibit a dedication, imagination and commitment to context as the fertile ground for intellectual growth, knowledge and ethical resilience. Ethical resilience is NOT rigid ethics, but rather strongly held principles which can accommodate the nuances of cultural context (reflective of cultures surrounding the person and decision). This principle, in particular, does not dictate character, but is intended to provide a compass to help each person find their own path and to grow in their awareness of self (and others).

Believing principles are not steadfast and unmoving but rather depending on adapting to new learning.

I will note that all the Principles are solid in belief but adaptable to time, knowledge and context. This is a recognition that we, humans, are not of self but rather of something bigger – society, community, connectivity.

Yes. This suggests Principles are not simple, but complex.

This leads me to leadership.

Leadership can be of one’s own life or it can be in combination with other people. Regardless, someone must develop some skills for successful leadership – for self or for group.

The first is the mindset that leaders see leadership as a skill that needs to be continually developed and improved (active listening, giving feedback, talking to people).

The second is a recognition that certain things happen under the surface and have a significant impact on the performance of the team, such as interpersonal dynamics, the way individuals work, disputes and tension between people (typically originating from the past). Leaders have to have the skills to bring these things to the surface and resolve them.

** note: this is also true of self and inner conflict

The third is power and inclusion. Power dynamics effect any social structure (you are misguided if you don’t believe this). You have to recognize, and acknowledge, power dynamics in order to be inclusive, empathetic and create complete connections. If you elect to ignore the relationship between power and ethical behavior, i.e., how power stresses individual values prioritization and behavior toward goals, you will ignore the truth that the more power you need, the more likely ethical fading is to occur.

That said. In old structures (hierarchy) power can be directed, but in future organizations power emerges (networks evolve) and leadership is expanding potential from emergent power dynamics. This will demand a different type of character. This type of character navigates the I, we, larger We dynamics of an interconnected life, business & society.

“Character, like oxygen, is most noticeable when it is missing.”

Richard Reeves

The new powerful leadership will not lead with power, but rather principled driven energy and instead of just accumulating wealth/profits/achievements, seek to accumulate outcomes to be proud of.

Look.

These are very strange times. I would not say it’s the worst of times, but it seems to be a world that demands binary, black & white stances despite the fact navigating ambiguity and uncertainty is the path to not only success, but progress. What I can say is that holding onto something in a black and white way in a world of swirling colors, and grays, creates an ongoing sense of uncomfortableness. Maybe worse is attempting to hold onto binaries you will slide down the slippery slope of ethical fading without even noticing until its too late.

And maybe that is where I will end. You would think ethical fading would be associated with gray and the graying of morals and choices, but its not. Ethical fading occurs one black & white step at a time.

In the end.

We often speak of “principled leadership” or desiring leaders to have principles. I would argue each of us, to be successful, need to grapple with our own relationship between values, ethics and principles. Because, in the end, while we may be grounded in our values and measured by our ethical behavior what will matter will be the principles which make all of these decisions coherent to our Life – what we will, or will not, do. Yes. Refusal of “ethical fading” suggests “we are what we refuse to do” or, as Paul Chippendale stated, “we are what we refuse to adapt to.”

===

Only the curious will learn and only the resolute will overcome the obstacles to learning. The quest quotient has always excited me more than the intelligence quotient.

Edmund S. Wilson (1895-1972) U.S. author, literary and social critic.

===

“A teacher affects eternity; he can never tell where his influence stops.”
Henry Brooks Adams

===

Back in 2010 when I developed an online children’s education platform, I spent a lot of time defending online education for young people on a variety of levels. One level was passive learning or what I called “learning by lurking.” I argued then, as I still argue, that any web-based platform has the ability to create learning through a unique aspect of web based collaboration which is that given the ease of access there will be active participants as well as passive participants, but all participants are learning. At the time I also suggested that this belief assists in reducing the children out of school numbers, increase literacy and most likely reduce future conflict all through the collaborative aspects of a web-based platform. I still believe all of that.

Which leads me to talk about learning by lurking again because of this article in Neuroscience News, latent learning, where they say “it has been very difficult to diagnose when latent learning is occurring, but this research was able to differentiate between latent learning and what people learn during explicit teaching.”

Let me get a thought out of the way.

I have written a variety of articles on how collaboration is misused in the business world. Misused in that I believe ideas are driven by individuals and collaboration often dulls the edges of individual ideas (under the guise of improvement). On the other hand, the traditional education system is ignoring the benefits of collaboration for learning or maybe better said “the gathering & sharing of knowledge” particularly with regard to the global youth. What I mean is that there is an opportunity within this context where children, utilizing a web platform, could be driving the ideation (versus the current system where teachers facilitate learning and ideation). Yeah. I am suggesting a version of self-directed learning.

Anyway. A web based children’s education, where physical is wrapped around online rather than vice versa, collaboration represents an opportunity because:

1. The existing way we view the education system, based on brick & mortar, is archaic. For a variety of reasons, collaboration included.
2. The existing education system is archaic from a sociological perspective (creating a healthier collaborative mind).

“We are now at a point where we must educate our children in what no one knew yesterday, and prepare our schools for what no one knows yet.”

unknown author from an education article

It is possible archaic is a strong word, but maybe we should be using stronger words as we discuss education children (and improvements). What I know for sure is the current global education structure misses the opportunity to globalize socialization of knowledge/education. What I mean by that is the existing brick & mortar inherently diminishes some education opportunities because of the face-to-face “clique” challenges. I will come back to that last thought because it is a humdinger of a thought.

• Collaboration and education

Collaboration when discussing the internet is obvious. I am going to avoid the obvious and utilize a twist on the idea by taking advantage of global consumer trends.  Two trends called Casual Collapse and Mass Mingling.

1. Casual Collapse and Education

Casual Collapse is the current seeming ongoing blurring of many beliefs, rituals, formal requirements and laws that have defined specific societies.   And it continues to collapse because of the internet (to be specific – the cross-cultural sharing of information and knowledge empowered by the internet) and all this is happening without causing any apocalyptic aftermath. This is important because people grow up immersed in consumer culture, but as everyone becomes savvier about ‘what is happening and what people are thinking’ half way around the world they begin questioning the status quo conventional thinking through a more global perspective. Casual Collapse is not a negative trend (although some people may feel it is), but rather it is indicative of a variety of things. Let’s just say the web is a layer on a natural progression happening – the urbanization of emerging countries.

There’s an obvious link between the broad spread of more liberal attitudes and increasing urbanization globally (in Africa alone in 1980 28% lived in cities while today its 40% – 40 million people). As new arrivals find themselves distanced from traditional social and familial structures, and are exposed to a wider range of alternative goods, services, lifestyles, opinions and experiences, their tolerance to these alternatives grows, as does their interest. The web simply accelerates what would have been happening naturally. I am certainly not suggesting that everyone becomes overwhelmingly liberal as soon as they move to the city, but there is a clear trend for urban populations to have more socially liberal and tolerant views on a wide variety of issues.

2. Mass Mingling and Education

I am certainly not suggesting a Global mind nor is the intent to create a “global mind” or even a “Global society.” I am discussing the benefit of a global collaborative education, therefore, I am discussing collaboration as an extension of having a global perspective in solution-seeking.

This is a big difference then creating a global mind. This is about fostering innate curiosity and sharing knowledge where children are then empowered to create their own ‘mind’ within a broad perspective.

So how the heck does that lead, or encourage, collaboration?

Nothing is more powerful within the individual child’s mind than curiosity.

A web based education initiative should encourage/enhance Collaboration that cultivates curiosity.

Most dictionaries define curiosity as something like “a state in which you want to learn more about something”, but it is also about being comfortable with uncertainty and not knowing, whilst at the same time being motivated to explore and discover more. It is a human characteristic that as soon as you think you know something with certainty you no longer want to learn more about it, i.e., you are no longer curious. But children are endless vectors of curiosity and it feels like tapping into the infinite online information world permits us to tap into an unfillable well at this age (as long as we nurture it) and expand the finite mind.

“The important thing is not to stop questioning… Never lose a holy curiosity.”

Einstein

Mass Mingling thrives on curiosity:

Most of the time, when we make a mistake, or see someone else making a mistake, our automatic reaction is to start making judgment and blame – we tell ourselves off, beat ourselves up about it, and we might even give someone else a hard time if we see them make a mistake. This only has the effect of triggering our stress response, which causes our thinking to become more rigid in our thinking.

Mass Mingling permits millions of young children to browse socially through information, existing knowledge and mingle with other’s thoughts – making mistakes along the way as they mingle.

This curiosity needs to be nurtured by teaching children that mistakes are just information and feedback from the real world, letting us know how things are in the real world, and telling us what’s working and what’s not working, what the blocks and obstacles to progress are, and offering cues to opportunities to solve problems and meet needs that other people might have. In this global world children will be exposed to the idea that their mistakes can be the very things that lead you in the new direction that turns out to be way better than you’d previously conceived. To be clear, reprising the theme of this piece, this can be done passively or actively. A child can learn these lessons by lurking or they can learn the lessons by active participation. I would argue permitting children to choose their learning path enhances intrinsic curiosity without dampening it with external forces. But ideas & innovative enlightened thinking does not arise out of a vacuum. It must be supported by a culture that encourages people to experiment with ideas and products. Original thinking and novel ideas should be affirmed and honored and cultivated. Even if it is simply original/novel in the eyes of the young. Learning shouldn’t be viewed as “difficult and frustrating” and we should have less focus on tests because it equates learning with results.

• The value of Casual Collapse & Mass Mingling

A collaborative group of kids who have learned together, made mistakes together, learned FROM each other and maybe even laughed at, if not with, each other creates stronger respectful individuals within an interacting global community AND local community. It is a fact that education at an early age is indispensable in equipping citizens with the abilities and skills to engage critically, and act responsibly.

“Education everywhere is a social construct. It is not an industry or a vocation. People come together to provide skills competencies and abilities for their children to succeed.”

==

“If we can find that right way to keep that disparate group of people working together; if we can find that right ecosystem at a national level to actually implement, we’re going to make a tremendous difference. And that’s a difference that’s not there to drive revenue. It’s not there to create new product streams. It’s there simply to create a better world.”

(note: this can actually be found in my Global Generation how to make it happen & fund write up).

• Socialization and a web based Education

Beyond collaboration ‘missed opportunities’ let me go back to how brick & mortar is archaic from a socialization perspective. Existing education systems are a breeding ground for a caste system. Kids are brutal in a face-to-face system and, yes, online can be just as brutal in a different way. That said.

Who you are and how you dress and what you say (even the language you speak) becomes secondary to “what you say and what you think” in an online learning community. Sociologically this means that ideas and thinking create the caste system; not physical presence.

• The natural anonymity of online tools frees us from tacit biases or self-doubt and encourages individual leadership.
• Asynchronous tools allow global work teams release from the bonds of time zones to tackle projects with increasing effectiveness and productivity.
• Social networks now become visible through community tools allowing financial, time, human and other organizational assets to be redeployed toward developing innovative approaches to unique problems, rather than reinventing solutions to problems that have been previously solved.

And before someone begins slamming on “decreasing social skills because of the internet” take this factoid:

PewInternetResearch: “Our research shows face-to-face time between teenagers hasn’t changed over the past five years. Technology has simply added another layer on top. Yes, you can find studies that suggest online networking can be bad for you. But there are just as many that show the opposite.”

In my eyes the value of an educational web world is that it permits a child to regularly place themself in unfamiliar situations, or with unfamiliar people, and provides the opportunity to be exposed to ideas and views that they’ve not been exposed to before.  And all of this provides an opportunity for real-life evidence/knowledge to challenge existing certainties – and open the way for curiosity.

We have the opportunity to integrate the newest forms of interactive technology with children’s natural curiosity (and a generation that has web abilities almost beyond our understanding) to create natural conditions in which collaboration can occur.

Which leads me to Learning by Lurking.

Twitter has certainly taught us you don’t have to be an active participant, you can be a ‘lurker’ and participate (or build a viable network system and have people be involved). And in education’s case it isn’t creepy, it can actually benefit a dormant mind or a personality that doesn’t feel comfortable stepping forward. In other words, all have the opportunity to benefit from the few great minds.  And providing an opportunity for the few who don’t have a voice (but have the mind) to be able to finally step forward at some point. Online permits some of the best minds, but possibly not the most socially acclimated, to rise and maximize their talent.

Such places could even be more than just schools, but genuine hubs for related activities for the entire community. With a global connection to the net – maybe not the net but another layer (along the lines of facebook which is also another layer of net) an education/informational platform awaits to be activated by a mind. Another ‘lurker’ (or maybe better says ‘anonymity’) aspect of the web enabled platform  is that it permits mistakes, maybe some spectacular mistakes, with little or no social repercussions.

Now. Am I suggesting face-to-face social skills aren’t important? Nope. They are. But I would still argue a collaborative learning environment teaches additional social skills. In addition, at its most basic level we are teaching our children the way they need to act within a learning construct at such an early age that when they grow up they will not depart from such behavior because it is ingrained (positively).

Behaviorally the child’s mind experiences the right way of dealing with issues & thinking & ideation so that it becomes a natural instinctual act. It becomes habits that produce profitable outcomes in their adult years (hopefully in the form of ideas & accomplishments).

This idea is truly about teaching kids, beginning at the preschool age, relationship-building collaborative skills that creates a mental foundation on how to deal with others AND educate.

Even prior to a child entering a traditional classroom (should that opportunity exist) there are opportunities to teach them how to interact and ideate with other people in a positive way – actively or passively.

I also believe, in my heart of hearts, that this is the best way for humankind as a great way to preserve and instill languages and cultures to counter the homogenization of urbanism combined with globalism.

When collaboration takes place between people who realize the benefit of smooth working relationships then higher creative achievement and productivity is accomplished. Healthy cross-functional teams working in concert for the greater good eventually translates into efficient operations, regardless of whether in an academic, work, social or home environment. In the end, society benefits from groups performing productively with another. Of course, teaching the basics of all of this at the preschool age means a greater likelihood of kids continuing positive collaboration abilities as they progress in life. And I do believe that the structure of web based schools/schooling with children as young as five or six in which they can express their opinions, share thinking & ideas and ultimately propose their own solutions creates a solid foundation for a ‘community individualism drive/intent’ generation of citizens. It is this kind of attitudinal construct which offers unlimited opportunities for leadership and engagement.  And it is this type of education structure which, by the time those five- and six-year-olds reach an appropriate graduation age, they will have a profound and enduring understanding of what it means to be in a collaborative society and have the ability to contribute within their own community as well as a global level if given the opportunity.

This is an idea of molding a people from diverse origins, cultural practices, languages, into one collaborative group of thinkers, within a framework which has to be democratic in nature (because it crosses any and all geographic boundaries, yet it can be absorbed within any cultural construct.

And by doing so it mitigates conflicts and adversarial interests without oppression and injustice but rather through expanding brain power. I imagine I am suggesting that even if young only ‘lurk’, and learn passively, the world will benefit. Ponder.

=

“I am not a speed reader. I am a speed understander.”
Isaac Asimov

==

One of my biggest gripes with the world is its obsession with intelligence. This gripe gets compounded with society’s traditional assessment of intelligence tied to traditional education, books read, accomplishments, degrees, awards, etc – and IQ of course. The entire intelligence discussion seems based on the assumption that intelligence is fundamentally intrinsic exposed by being goal-directed, i.e., a feature in and of the individual. We tend to view intelligence as a box everyone walks around with. But what if it isn’t? What if intelligence is subservient to the environment?

Which leads me to speed understander.

It was Alvin Toffler who said “the illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.” In other words, literacy is an ability to absorb learning, and understanding, and adapt. So maybe you don’t do it at ‘speed’ , but you are an evolving understander. And then this is where speed comes into play. I do not believe the world is actually moving any faster than it has ever, even in business, but I will say that the faster you understand something; the faster you can do something. So the only reason the world may appear to be moving faster is that with the ubiquity of most information, the ones who ‘speed understand’ just move faster. Circling back to my opening question, the reality is that their intelligence is contingent to the environment.

Which leads me to reasoning.

‘Reasoning at speed’ is a skill, art and is the fulcrum of bad or good decision making. The human issue isn’t really making decisions, it is more about reasoning. We are always in a finite predicament of having fixed finite limits on our cognitive resources. Sure. Computers and technology can actually augment our cognitive resources (most typically by absorbing some of the data information mashing), but ultimately any speed understanding an individual is capable of isn’t constrained by their intelligence, its constrained by their cognitive limits. Go beyond your cognitive limits and even by reasoning, you can be wrong. This doesn’t mean that we should abandon reasoning, but rather understand the limitations of what we call reason as well as understand the limitations of our, or an individual’s, ability to reason. I tend to believe everyone can reason given enough time, but there will be a spectrum of reasoning abilities based on different time constraints. Circling back to my opening question, the reality is that their intelligence is contingent upon time.

Which leads me to reality.

Reality is unlikely to be as we believe it to be which means that we should approach everything with just a bit of skepticism. When someone says “I understand” maybe we don’t immediately assess intelligence over that. Maybe we see intelligence as a shifting objective as well as shifting asset. Maybe we accept there is a spectrum of ‘understanding’ in that at its most foundational level it is an understanding that the logic ability simply must satisfy the minimal inference condition. Reality IS understanding. In fact, understanding kills false perceptions uncovering reality (which I could argue we need in today’s world more than ever). In fact, understanding is at the core of, well, intelligence because intelligence cannot be captured in any IQ, intelligence is excellent reasoning applied in reality. Circling back to my opening question, intelligence is contingent to reality.

Anyway.

The world is complex and it most likely will not get any less complex and no matter how much we attempt to analyze the complex system hoping to attain some version of singularity (some true alignment) I seriously doubt we, or anyone, will get there. It seems like the best path forward is to increase our diversity of knowledge and skills necessary to adapt in a dynamic, often emergent, fashion. In other words, increase our ability to understand. I do believe the world will be run by speed understanders at some point. Not the speediest, per se, just a spectrum of speed understanders. The people with the ability to absorb emerging knowledge and information which reshapes what they THOUGHT they understood and shapes a new ‘understanding’ which begets some choices, actions and creates progress. But. That’s me. Ponder.

===

“People think of education as something they can finish.”
Isaac Asimov

==

Sometimes life happens slow, then really fast.

==

“It is hardly surprising that dead rabbits are pulled out of the hat when nothing but dead bunnies have been put in.”

William Nordhaus, economist

==

The opening image sets the stage for discussing new products and innovation to point out that the term “new products” can be a sweeping term covering a long list of possible market introductions.

I’ve been thinking about new products and innovation (one would hope they are related because I’ve been watching Silicon Valley – painfully chuckling at times) and read this fabulous piece: Web3, the Metaverse, and the Lack of Useful Innovation.

Throughout my career I have worked with technology incubators, large company new product groups and just basic businesses who created new products and brought them to market.

Which leads me to say I have seen more bad ideas then is most likely healthy for me.

But new products are really important to existing businesses in that profits from new products tend to account for a substantial amount of the bottom line of businesses (note: there is a point to be made here about efficiencies and squeezing out profit from existing products in the market but that is for another day). We have all seen the simplistic surveys online showing “reasons why new products fail” as if CPG companies haven’t studied new products in depth. It’s a bit crazy. So, having pulled out an old folder with a bunch of notes scribbled in it about new products from my experience with P&G and other companies, let me say some things about innovations and new products. To be clear. I will share some dated information that I am too lazy to update mostly because I am 90% confident, in principle, the conclusions are the same today as they were then.

Suffice it to say successful new products all deliver a meaningful and perceivable benefit to a large enough market to be sustainable financially and are different in some meaningful and perceivable way from alternatives. The main principles that form the foundation for successful new product programs:

1. know what your product stands for and make its benefits superior
2. discover latent consumer insights which are tied to a specific need
3. ensure the product benefits align with latent insights
4. ensure market readiness
5. make sure it has the ability to scale out (have enough of a market)

Most of that seems fairly basic, yet, the hard realities are that a great majority of new products never make it to market. And those that do face a failure rate somewhere in the order of 25 to 45%. The figures may vary depending on what industry and how one defines a new product and a failure. Some sources cite the failure rate at launch to be as high as 90%, but most of those figures tend to be wild overstatements based on dubious surveys. My guess is the true failure rate is about 35%. Regardless of whether the success rate is 55% or 65%, the odds of a failed launch is fairly significant. I would be remiss if I didn’t note the news gets a bit worse because this doesn’t even include the majority of new product projects that are killed somewhere in process long before launch, yet, have already involved considerable expenditures of time and money. One old study revealed that for every seven new product ideas about four enter development, 1.5 are launched, and only one succeeds. Another study revealed that for every 11 new product ideas, 3 enter the development phase, 1.3 are launched and only 1 is a commercial success in the marketplace. The commonality between those two studies is only one success.

Which leads me to new product failure is fairly easy to identify through a number of reasons:

• Poor planning: it doesn’t really fit into the company strategy, expertise or distribution strengths, or margin, or ROI, market analysis is inadequate, poor timing or the company fails to face up to competitive strengths
• Poor management (tied to poor planning): product doesn’t fit the company character guiding these activities, no management sponsor, no management information system to effectively communicate throughout process, wrong department leads the introduction program, budget and time constraints due to something unanticipated or management direction is vague
• Poor concept: the concept itself doesn’t appeal all the time in the form of execution being evaluated, no unique benefit or one that is unique enough, maybe offers too many benefits and has no simple strong reason for being; maybe it does have unique benefits but fulfills little need; poor price/value relationship; out of sync with the market, maybe too innovative/different
• Poor execution: personality becomes point of difference rather than function or intrinsic benefit; maybe product defects, technical problems, or product over engineered, over/under package; misbranded; mistargeted; mistimed for character of market
• Poor use of research: most often this is because research is done backwards, i.e., attempting to prove out a technology (search for a benefit) rather than assess an existing need
• Poor technology: this typically drives poor execution in that the product, functionally, doesn’t offer a significant enough meaningful benefit
• Poor timing: new products can be too early to market (ahead of natural adoption acceptance) or too late to market (following without a significantly superior benefit)

But. That said. Simplistically, new products fail when consumers do not want to buy them. This is why if you are involved in new products, you really should be problem solvers rather than just idea generators.

Which leads me to a lesson to technology folk.

Technology is actually learning a lesson that the Consumer Packaged Goods industry learned a long time ago. More products can mean more sales, but you have to be smarter about your new product that you offer to the public. In 1964 there were about 1,300 new product introductions in supermarket/drug stores. In the early 1980s the packaged goods industries were introducing around 3000 to 5000 new products a year. By the 1990’s, we saw this number jump to about 18,000 to 20,000 and now we were over 25,000 a year. To be clear. Maybe only about 10% of new product introductions are truly new; for the most part they are extensions or additions to existing products/product lines (see opening image). The incredible thing about this phenomenal growth during that period (1960 to 2000ish) is that failure rates, while high, did not increase. It seems like consumers were finding space in their lives for five to 10 times more products per year than they were in maybe 1980. This suggests that the market likes to experience experiments as well as have been convinced specialty or ‘niche use’ has efficacy value. It’s like the culture has grasped the nature of change and finds value through experimenting with new products. But every business needs to remember with as much as 40%+ of new product ideas hitting the trash can, it’s just tough to swallow the failure rates and invest real money. In fact, I remember a number that there was an estimated 46% of all the resources allocated to product development and commercialization by US firms are spent on products that are cancelled or fail to yield an adequate financial return. There was an old study with some rough splits of innovation costs across stages in the new product process but basically it suggested for every $1million spent on product innovation, roughly only $150,000 is spent on exploration and screening research or even idea generation, i.e., the initial attempts to qualify the idea. This is kind of nuts. This also suggests ideas searching for a market rather than a market defining an idea. This whole section is something technology folk should ponder long and hard.

Which leads me to markets decide the fate of a new product.

There was an old study looking at General Electric products and the conclusions with regard to technological and market variables that decided their fates. The products had several things in common that created a well-defined product prior to the development phase and into market introduction:

1. Market needs were recognized and R&D was targeted at satisfying those needs
2. When a technological success did not meet a specific market need the product was adapted to suit an identified need (or dropped)
3. Involved managers communicated the possibility of a technological breakthrough clearly to all other departments whom, in turn, facilitated the identification of a real market need
4. Communication existed between engineers, scientists, and all other departments involved

But the bottom line, which I think some technology startups ignore, is the lessons that CPG has given the new product world that are timeless:

1. A unique superior product in the eyes of a customer (not the creator), one with a real differential or distinct advantage in the marketplace**
2. A strong market-orientation building in solid market knowledge and sound market inputs, and an undertaking of market research and effective marketing launch tasks done well
3. Technological synergy (both development and production technology) and competence in the technological tasks fundamental to the success of the product

• ** in the wayback machine with P&G we knew that new products with overall superiority (as indicated in consumer testing), met their objective 1.5 to 2 times more often. A strong product also almost doubled the repurchase rate.

Which leads me to efforts and assumptions.

In the early stages of any new product project, we make many assumptions in order to justify the project.

• We make technological assumptions: we assume the product is technologically feasible; we map out a probable route to the technical solution, manufacturability at a certain cost is assumed and so on.
• We make marketing assumptions: we estimate market size, growth, and need; we expect that the product’s features or performance will really be superior to competing products, and that while the world may not beat a path to our door the world will at least open the door of possibility of purchasing. We make competitive assumptions.

Based on all these assumptions someone gives a “go-to-market” decision and then most efforts tend to be devoted to verifying and validating the assumptions (rather than adapting as we learn more). That said. One of the most interesting factoids I remember from my way back machine with P&G is that about 75+% of total efforts ($ and work time) goes into technological and/or production activities while only about 15% is devoted to marketing activities (most of which goes into the launch).

I imagine my point on almost all of this is most new product innovations fail because, well, a business imagines a market, imagines a need and imagines a real benefit offered, and the market tends to choose how to spend its hard earned money not on imagined, but reality. Ponder.

====

“… if you look beyond the tumult of sensational headlines and well-publicized atrocities, there’s a quiet trend of improvement throughout the world.

But although it’s sometimes drowned out by the drumbeat of fear-mongering, the progress that gives rise to hope is real and ongoing.

Adam Lee

====

As we near another Christmas I don’t know if it is because I associate hope and hopefulness with Christmas or that I tend to pay attention more to the good things happening in the world (the sometimes unnoticed small steps of progress) than I do the bombastic voices of ‘everything is bad’, but despite all the noisy shitshow stuff happening, I do believe there is a quiet trend of improvement happening before our eyes.

I say that recognizing it is tough to be optimistic these days. And I don’t mean because of what is actually happening in today’s world, but rather because if you are optimistic you run the significant risk of being trampled by a herd of cynicism, pessimism and those unwilling to believe the future can be better than the past. That said. I believe the bigger challenge we face is a general reluctance to believe people can change or should be forgiven.

There is a quiet voice of positive being overwhelmed by a loud voice of ‘nothing can be good’

I mention this because I just reread an old Pope Francis Christmas homily. It was positive, hopeful, instructive and a request that we look beyond decadence and selfishness in order to raise all of human kind to a better place.

It is the kind of message you would hope a religious leader would give.

And then I made the naïve mistake of scanning the comments underneath the article <in several papers>. An overwhelming amount of comments were negative.

Either they:

<a> suggested the message was misguided <somehow some people saw it as anti-capitalism>,

<b> suggested the Pope was a hypocrite <because he represents a church with millions in assets>,

<c> the church had no basis to offer hope because of past transgressions or

<d> religion is bad and therefore what religious people say is simply fantasy <even if it is a good message>.

It is like people were seeking reason to not accept the positive message.

Let’s be clear. The Catholic Church and its history is strewn with moments of sin. And, yet, the Church has a Pope who not only accepts it, but is trying own its history. Should we judge an organization by the moments of transgression & sin <albeit they can be heinous transgressions on occasion> or by the true intent & soul of the organization and its voice for the future? That is a big question with an answer bigger than I can offer.

That said.

I find it disheartening that we cannot accept positiveness and hope without trying to burden it with cynicism or pessimism.

I find it disheartening we can’t accept heroic acts from non heroic people – when we view them in totality.

Good is good.

Hope is hope.

Heroic acts can be done by flawed people.

We shouldn’t discredit the words or the thoughts as we seek to diminish the bearers of the words & thoughts. Maybe we should seek to find the good in what someone says rather than find reasons to point out why the words are flawed or the deliverer is some insincere fraud.

This leads me to the bearers of the words & thoughts.

– Changing to do something good is being slowed by people who suggest someone cannot change.

====

“People tell you who they are, but we ignore it because we want them to be who we want them to be.”

Mad Men

====

Well. Surely doing good today doesn’t absolve you from something you did bad yesterday. And, yet, I could argue those who have made bad mistakes in the past, and recognize them as bad, are most likely the most qualified to lead today.

I scan the headlines of the papers and there are a shitload of flawed people saying a bunch of smart, positive, hopeful things.

I scan the headlines of the papers and I see article after article diminishing the people who are saying these things by pointing out past transgressions or their ‘lack of consistency’ with regard to their beliefs <so why should we believe their positive thoughts>.

Smart flawed people, who maybe had flawed ideas in the past, are often smart enough to realize they need to change or make changes.

I would like to point out that the difficulty seems to arise not in the person who has changed, but in those around the changer/doer. While the best of the best changers seek to build the new, ignoring the old, we the people, continuously fight back with the old.

Can someone actually leave the old baggage behind and move on to do better things? <a question we should all be asking ourselves in today’s world>

We seem hell bent on not letting people even try to change.

I would like to remind people of several things:

Andrew Carnegie, whose Pinkerton men shot down workers at the Homestead strike in Pittsburgh, also left the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and an international network of public libraries.

John D Rockefeller, whose use of troops against Colorado mineworkers led to scores of deaths, including of women and children, created his foundation, so creative for young people worldwide.

Alfred Nobel, arms manufacturer and “marchand de mort extraordinaire”, set up the peace prize.

Regardless. I fully understand why some people want to hold on to the ‘better days of the past’ and nostalgically wish we could go back to many of what are perceived as ‘better ways of doing things.’

It is natural and, honestly, comforting. But I don’t understand why we far too often hold on to the ‘bad things from the past’ and pessimism/cynicism and constantly burden people who, sincerely, want to do good things, show change, and offer a better version of themselves with the intent to create a better version of the world.

Far too many people today do not see much to be upbeat about. They simply see a lot of existing problems getting worse. And because of that they are tending to gather around anyone promising a return to an imaginary past era of greatness.

Some of the best leaders today are those who were in the past, and in the past flawed, and now are new versions of themselves and do not want to return t some past but try and create a new future.

People change.

We should allow them to change.

Especially if they are one of the valuable few who see the good and hopeful and optimistic in the world. For they are the ones capable of showing us light when dark can appear to be winning. In fact, many of these people accept the quite improvements, enable the quiet improvements, and facilitate the progress that humankind deserves. Maybe we just need to stop the noise and start quietly embracing good improvement. Ponder.

===

“We find the true person only through group organization. The potentialities of the individual remain potentialities until they are released by group life. Thus, the essence of democracy is creating. The technique of democracy is group organization.”

Mary Parker Follett, The New State

===

I just had a conversation about employees with a good friend of mine who runs a business where “A clients need A players” came up. To be fair, he quickly said “I know you believe all employees have at least some A-level qualities/skills.” I do. Generally speaking, I believe most businesses squash the A-level ability in most people and the waste of human potential is immense. Certainly, some people have specific skills better than other people and ambition fluctuates person-to-person (ambition should never be conflated with skills), but, there is such a waste of human potential particularly in what many call ‘the workers’ or the blue-collar jobs or what leadership typically deems “the doers.” The bottom line in the discussion I was having was “I can’t tell you if you should be hiring anyone, or even who, if I don’t know if you are maximizing the people you have.”

But let’s get to potential.

In the 1980s Professors Edward Deci and Richard Ryan from the University of Rochester defined the six main reasons people work: play, purpose, potential, emotional pressure, economic pressure, and inertia. Since then, most research has suggested the first three motives tend to increase performance, while the latter three hurt it.

• Play is when you are motivated by the work itself. You work because you enjoy it, e.g., creating learning programs or problem solving how to break through to each person. Play is our learning instinct, tied to curiosity, experimentation, and exploring challenging problems.

• Purpose is when the direct outcome of the work fits your identity. You work because you value the work’s positive impact on, or for, other human beings.
• Potential is when the outcome of the work benefits your identity. In other words, the work enhances your potential.

Since these three motives are directly connected to the work itself in some way, they will improve performance to different degrees. If we want employees to have the cognitive ability, flexibility and agility needed to solve complex problems and collaborate effectively (whether face-to-face or remotely) as well as being able to develop and apply qualities such as critical thinking and creativity, we need to consider what we can do to enable those abilities to flourish and thrive and potential seems to be a rich mine for personal progress.

Which leads me to leadership (or nudging).

The conscientious nudger seeks to design systems and processes to help people make better choices for themselves. That said. Any choice architecture begins with sensemaking. For example, losses loom larger than gains in our minds and this steers motivation within sensemaking and choicemaking. Potential is found not only in curiosity & learning but in accepted risk and acceptable losses. All of this can be crafted in effective sensemaking. What I mean by that is if everyone makes sense of situations in the same way, or with similar characteristics, the choice architecture (and its boundaries) is crafted by the sensemaking and not through any leader (this is called The Law of the Situation). Therefore, the leader simply nudges people with a common sensemaking framework toward potential solutions, nudges curiosity and nudges probabilistic thinking so that people can explore – which is where potential is always found.

 

“Having a better theory of emergent organization would have a lot of practical benefits, allowing us to generate or simplify sets of rules that will result in productive ends.”

John Miller, Science of Complex Systems

==

Unfortunately, too many leaders inhibit people from asking questions that once seemed too absurd to consider and thus they prevent people from probing for patterns and insights that once resided in the realm of the unknowable. Potential explores limits and imitations. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t acknowledge limits but in doing so it should not amount to a dismissal of potentials.

Which leads me to principles.

Any time we seem to discuss A players, B players or any types of players we inherently create a warped competitive environment. I am not suggesting a business shouldn’t encourage some competition but it should be competing without feeling like it is competition or you are being competitive – you compete with stagnancy & entropy. This is when you are simply attempting to maximize your own potential and skills assuming your best will be, well, your best – win, lose or draw. This also assumes you believe your best will demand everyone else to bring their best so that even in a competitive environment if you ‘lose’ it Is simply because everyone played it the best they could.

So let me offer some principles:

• Human potential represents an organization’s main source of productivity

• Technology augments people, people don’t complement technology, potential emerges from augmentation

• An individual’s potential is not defined by one skill, but rather all skills/abilities (of all depths/dimensions) an individual has

• The highest organizational productivity, progress, profitability is found through maximizing opportunities efficiently and, simultaneously, effectively maintain productivity, progress & profitability

I tend to believe if you follow these principles you will just have team players, no A, B, C or whatever, and you will increase the probability these players will maximize their potential and, as a consequence, the business successes will increase. Ponder.

====

“So the universe is not quite as you thought it was.


You’d better rearrange your beliefs, then. Because you certainly can’t rearrange the universe.”

Isaac Asimov

====

We talk about changing the world and ‘rocking the universe’ not only when young, but in discussions where we are thinking about maximizing our potential or maybe we do it simply to convince ourselves we can do something that matters.

In other words …

We have a plan.

Ok. Maybe its not a specific step-by-step plan, but we have a general schematic of a plan which showcases key lines and dimensions of what, where and how.

It is kind of a rough blueprint sketched out on a cocktail napkin.

Uhm.

But then some stranger randomly puts their drink on your napkin and the ink runs a little and there is an obnoxious ring cutting thru a key line or two. In other words, things get a bit fuzzy.

In other words, basically the universe you had planned against has conspired against you in a seemingly random way.

Yeah.

The universe is as it is. Despite all your wishes and dreams and desires to disturb or disrupt the universe you, well, you cannot. The universe arranges itself without consulting you or your plans.

That doesn’t mean you don’t have any control of what happens to you nor does it mean you shouldn’t attempt to shape things so you may achieve what you desire, it is just that sometimes you need to rearrange your beliefs.

Now. I write a shitload about maintaining you character and the core of who and what you are as well as maintaining a focus on the more important things <because a shitload of unimportant things are gonna be bright shiny objects that can easily distract you>.

To be clear. The universe is not something that is distracting; it is a consistently inconsistent environment in which distractions appear. Despite that, you need to stay the course of who & what you are and all the while rearranging some of your beliefs with regard to … well … what I will call ‘strategy & tactics.’

Simplistically, in my mind, you reside in this consistent inconsistent universe maintaining your individual ‘brand essence’ <distinctly different than personal branding> and grounded in a sense of purpose, i.e., what you want to contribute and maybe an idea of what matters to you, and rearranging your strategy & tactics to accommodate the universe.

This may sound intellectually challenging and mentally tiring and … well … a lot of work <when you were kind of hoping Life would be a little simpler>.

Well.

It is kind of tiring.

But that is kind of the price of living a full Life, well, okay, maybe at least some kind of ‘non-stagnant’ life.

I imagine everyone has a choice.

Try and stand still and weather the universe as it rearranges itself or attempt to move <forward, sideways, diagonally, or whatever direction you can  – because progress is not always ‘forward’>.

Most of us?

We just go on.

We step forward, backwards, diagonally and sideways, all with an eye on whatever version of progress we may have in our heads.

We do so because … well … what is the alternative?

====

“You just do it. You force yourself to get up. You force yourself to put one foot before the other, and God damn it, you refuse to let it get to you.  You fight. You cry. You curse. Then you go about the business of living. That’s how I’ve done it. There’s no other way. “

Elizabeth Taylor

Anyway.

It is quite possible that the business of living is grounded in the thought of ‘rearranging your beliefs’ because the universe is certainly not going to rearrange its beliefs.

Ponder <but do some rearranging while doing so>.

===

“What people don’t understand doesn’t exist.”

Jan Carlzon

——–

“Chance favors the connected mind.”

Steven Johnson

===

Ok. We chase a lot of things in business in search of ‘advantage’. We sometimes chase them so blindly and relentlessly we don’t even recognize the rabbit hole we have started running down. Differentiation is one of those rabbit holes.

Now. I have a warped perspective <it includes rabbit holes> with regard to differentiation and differentiating in the business world. I think it’s a shit objective. Ok. It CAN be a shithole objective. But suffice it to say I believe chasing differentiation is … well … yes … often a rabbit hole.

To be clear. I don’t dislike differentiation and I believe a well differentiated sustainable idea can dominate a market. But. Chasing differentiation seems to take on some fairly absurd efforts to attain the objective. In addition. I worry about differentiation as an objective because it points people in the wrong direction. If I were to kill this whole differentiation thing, I would begin by saying “define, define, define.” Define yourself with such a clear distinctive thought that permits you stand up and say ‘here is who I am.’

Here is the deal. Sometimes you may look similar to someone else. But more often you will look like ,well, you. And in a sometimes complex fragmented world where everyone is shouting how different they are <and people are becoming more & more cynical> distinctness can win. And more often than not you will also be, well, different. In addition. In today’s world about the only sustainable differentiation isn’t a thing, it is knowledge, thinking & what you have done with what you learn.

Regardless. The meaningless rabbit hole. In our blind pursuit of differentiation we can make some fairly absurd decisions with regard to thoughtless specialization, nuanced differentiation and niche definition. In our blind pursuit of differentiation we can gleefully land on some ‘spot’ and declare differentiation victory only to have it all negated because of lack of alignment throughout all aspects of operations. Attempted, or false/meaningless, differentiation is useless and distracting and a rabbit hole.

Bottom line on differentiation is the reckless pursuit of it encourages us to lie to ourselves, i.e., convince ourselves of ‘true difference’ when it is simply meaningless differentiation. And therein lies the worst of the rabbit hole. Pretending to not see the truth, or maybe <to be kinder>, to pretend it is what it isn’t.

—————

“… the person who pretends to not see the truth is committing something much worse than a mortal sin, which can only ruin one’s soul – but instead committing us all to lifetimes of pain.

The truth is not just something we bring to light to amuse ourselves; the truth is the axis munid, the dead center of the earth. When it’s out of place nothing is right; everyone is in the wrong place; no light can penetrate. Happiness evades us and we spread pain and misery wherever we go. Each person, above all others, has an obligation to recognize the truth and stand by it.”

Jacque Silette

—————-

That last point is semi-important because many business people simply ignore truth as they pursue this elusive <and debatably poor objective> thing called differentiation. Far <far> too many business people embrace acceptable doubt and the possibility that a stupid belief might have something going for it in the pursuit of ‘differentiation’ all the while completely ignoring something that makes you distinct <but possibly not different>, or, let’s call it ‘an obvious and rational truth.’ People ignore it because they believe it will get you nowhere.

Trust me. These are the meetings and discussions in which I often sit dumbfounded and silent and thinking ‘wow … the rabbit hole just gained a whole new crowd of loons.’

—-

“…I was calm on the outside but thinking all the time.”

A Clockwork Orange

———-

Our relentless pursuit of differentiating most often than not leads to an unimportant product feature <not what customers consider valuable>

–——-

“Differentiation is a unique quality, perceived or real, of a good or service that distinguish it from a competing good or service…”

Your Dictionary.com

——–

Look. I fully realize that the need to be distinctive and competitive are the reasons why the company needs to think about differentiation.  However, differentiation can take on so many faces there is no reason you should end up chasing down some rabbit hole for some elusive ‘this is what you MUST seek’ objective as defined by one expert <only to have another expert state unequivocally you need to chase another completely different shiny object>.

Suffice it to say, I can almost guarantee whenever someone brings up differentiation it is more often than not simply code for “please enter this rabbit hole.”

Next. The perfection rabbit hole. On a parallel course is a similar group chasing perfection often ending up in the same rabbit hole as the differentiators <can get awful crowded in that business rabbit hole>. The pursuit of perfection is an insidious rabbit hole. Its stench seeps into the darkest corners of an organization. And while the stench is enough to make anyone’s stomach heave most organizations have people with no real ability and yet strive to maintain an aura of ability under the guise of ‘seeking perfection for the good of the organization.’

More good employees are actually LED into the perfection rabbit hole than employees who actually CHOOSE to dive into the perfection rabbit hole. That said. Organizations are built over this particular rabbit hole. Every organization. It is the unfortunate burden of every organization to deal with the pursuit of perfection.

————–

“Just because you took longer than others doesn’t mean you failed.”

Hassann

—————

Maybe that is my biggest point about rabbit holes and business. Some of the things we seek most in business, whether it be differentiation or perfection or whatever silly thing you have decided will better your business, always seem to take longer than what you want. We get impatient. And if we get really thoughtful about this whole impatience we would realize that our aggravation is with Life and not any inability within ourselves <or even in assessment the foolish pursuit of this un-real reality objective>.

Note:

we SHOULD be more thoughtful about this more often … mostly because if we do not far too many of the wrong people get fired <the right ones> and too many of the wrong people <the wrong ones> get praised and encouraged to maintain the ‘pursuit’ for the good f the organization.

Regardless. Life does not suffer fools lightly. Life is oblivious to your impatience <and relatively indifferent to you in general>. And Life bleeds into any and every organization.

How does Life deal with the fools and silly impatient people? Rabbit holes. It gives us rabbit holes to chase after silly things and dive into in our relentless pursuit of attaining “it” and waste our lives wandering aimlessly within.

But here is where Business and personal Life diverge.

In personal Life you are responsible for the stupid choices you make. Choose to enter a rabbit hole and the issue is all yours to own. In business you can actually get shoved into a rabbit hole whether you want to or not.

All I can tell you is that when I hear someone leading a discussion about ‘how are we different’ and ‘what’s our differentiation?” I start swiveling my head around scanning for rabbit holes.

All I can tell you is that when I hear someone in the hallway espousing the need to pursue perfection I start swiveling my head around scanning for rabbit holes.

 All I can tell you is that when I am in a meeting and someone is discussing both differentiation and perfection I don’t swivel my head, I just sigh, because I know I am already in a rabbit hole.

That is business … and rabbit holes. Ponder.

==

“Stop looking for happiness in the same place you lost it.”

via creatingaquietmind

==

“Well I guess it’s only life,

It’s only natural we all spend a little while going down the rabbit hole. “

The Shins

==

“We don’t create a fantasy world to escape reality, we create it to be able to stay.”

Lynda Barry

==

Ok. We chase a lot of things in Life. We sometimes chase them so blindly and relentlessly we don’t even recognize the rabbit hole we have started running down. Happiness is one of those rabbit holes.

Whoa !

WTF.

Happiness is a rabbit hole?

Well. Suffice it to say happiness is a tricky thing.

Having it is awesome.

Seeking it is … well … a rabbit hole.

The search injects us with most of our everyday stress which means most of our stress has nothing to do with what we have, but rather what we don’t have <seeking what we want in other words>.

And while wanting a new car or some shirt or the cool new phone is a tangible ‘want’ <and not even close to sending you down a rabbit hole>; happiness is much more elusive. In fact. Much more elusive than you would imagine <or want>.

First. Our brains struggle to remember happiness in a realistic way. Semi-happy moments in the past take on a Life of their own and become exponentially happier in the memory. Yeah. Happiness has a wary relationship with reality.

Second. Our brains relentlessly tug at and tease out the minutiae found in unhappy moments. This, ultimately, translates into the fact we cannot seem to forget unhappiness and inevitably, because of that, do anything – include some absolutely absurd things – we can to avoid it.

Therein lies the rabbit hole. Life is not meant to be avoided.

Shit.

Life cannot be avoided <whether you try to or not>.

What do I mean? While we seek to control our own destiny and write our own fates … others grab our Life while we aren’t looking and write whole chapters for us that we can only look at and say “WTF” just before the inevitable ‘not written by us’ happens.

———

“Life is like a library owned by the author.  In it are a few books which he wrote himself, but most of them were written for him.”

Harry Emerson Fosdick

————

And all that ‘not written by us’ stuff keeps on getting in the way of what we want to write about happiness for our Life as well as it gets in the way of erasing the unhappy shit. This particular rabbit hole, this relentless pursuit of happiness, makes Life particularly difficult.

———-

“It hasn’t been easy, and it never will be. After all, every day is also a chance to slide back into the darkness. To live in ourselves and our regrets, instead of this moment. To run away from those that would help us and let self-hatred drive us back into isolation, despair, and destruction.

Nick Spencer

——

Every day is not easy and actively pursuing happiness shoves our happy ass in a slippery sloped rabbit hole faster than you can blink an eye.

Ok. As a corollary to chasing happiness, lets maybe call this the other rail on the tracks down into the frickin’ rabbit hole, is chasing simplicity <often believing this ‘elusive simplicity’ will lead to happiness>.

Is this a paradox in Life? Shit. I don’t know, but I do know the more we seek simplicity the more complex things tend to get and … uhm … the less happy we become.

Whew. Boy oh boy, talk about the slippery slope leading down to the rabbit hole of self-hell. Seeking simplicity is it.

Simplicity entices you day by day and even hour by hour. And each day you do not attain simplicity the more and more you look at it as some type of failure and you try harder and harder for something I am fairly sure you just cannot attain. Or if you can attain it … well … it doesn’t come from a book or some formula or even some sage advice from a friend, it is something more earned by living and attempting and finding.

Simplicity seems so simple and yet it inevitably takes much much longer to master than you feel it is supposed to.

Simplicity seems so damn easy that we, well, get impatient when it doesn’t happen.

Let me state that differently. We get impatient with Life. Uh oh. It’s not like we can dictate the pace & flow of Life <I will come back to this>.

The next problem?

Even if you actually DO attain some simplicity you are aggravated it took so frickin’ long. This is compounded by the fact that simplicity is one of those weird things that as soon as you attain it you start hearing other people say “geez … why did it take you so long to figure THAT out?”

————–

“Just because you took longer than others doesn’t mean you failed.”

Hassann

—————

<I use this quote to close the rabbit holes business post too>

And maybe that is my biggest point about rabbit holes and Life and reality.

Some of the things we seek most in Life, whether it be happiness or simplicity or whatever silly thing you have decided will better your Life, always seem to take longer than what you want. And we get impatient.

And if we get really thoughtful about this whole impatience … we would realize that our aggravation is with Life and not any inability within ourselves <or even in assessment the foolish pursuit of this non-real reality objective>.

Life does not suffer fools lightly. Life is oblivious to your impatience <and relatively indifferent to you in general>.

How does Life deal with the fools and silly impatient people?

Rabbit holes.

Life gives us rabbit holes to chase after silly things and dive into in our relentless pursuit of attaining “it” and waste our lives wandering aimlessly within this hole with slippery walls and minimal handholds to help us climb out of it.

Well. That summarizes reality … and rabbit holes. Ponder.

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

“Success is a lousy teacher.  It seduces smart people into thinking they can’t lose.”

Bill Gates

=====

“We’re all working together; that’s the secret.”

Sam Walton

=====

Original commenter:

It isn’t scientists’ role to package facts and theory for the general public, let alone the most willfully ignorant.

Response commenter:

Surely scientists have some responsibility to make their findings understandable to the public?

Otherwise how do their findings get incorporated into policy?

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

With so much discussion going on about “the working class” it may become easy to ignore the implicit backlash against ‘intellectualism’ or ‘the out-of-touch elite.’

I do not believe there is an anti-intellectualism crisis.

I do not believe we have reached an era where any influencers who are smart, or intellectual, are dismissed as the reigning voices of truth & expertise.

But.

I do know that elites, or so-called elites, are despised and the opinions of experts are disregarded in favor of emotions or gut feelings, i.e., feelings are as important, if not more important, than facts.

And I do know that Michael Gove once said “people have had enough of experts.”

Whew.

Not only is that a bullshit quote; it is a scary thought.

Look. I could walk into a crowded blue collar bar and after some discussion I could be construed as ‘thinker not doer’, uhm, despite the fact I have over 30 years of doing practical experience.

And therein lies the issue.

Depending on how you articulate your experience you can sound intellectually elitist <too smart for your own good> or you can sound pragmatically hard working. And within those two bookends is a fairly wide spectrum.

In fact. It is within that wide spectrum where there has become a blurring of … well … everything actually, but, in this case, true experience & expertise and ‘elitism.’

This is creating a horrible thing in society and our culture.

If you have gobs of experience, you are labeled as out of touch with the everyday schmuck.

If you are an everyday schmuck you are immediately labeled as anti-intellectual and, far too often, less educated.

This is a horrible situation for everyone <because no one wins>.

Simplistically education and experience are two different things. We should certainly value education wisdom, but it shouldn’t diminish experience wisdom <and vice versa>.

And that is where the whole communication and communicating aspect comes into play.

For if neither side can clearly communicate their value then, unfortunately, everyone assumes the worst.

It would be far too easy for me to suggest that if someone has the experience, and the wisdom that comes with it, they should be able to articulate it and communicate it in a way that anyone would not feel condescended to or diminished or simply out-of-touch with either hard working or ‘thinker’.

But experience doesn’t necessarily translate into effective communication. Effective communication is a skill, and an art, in and of itself.

But this gets even more challenging when both sides have a pair of perception filtered glasses on as they view the opposite they are seeking to communicate with.

My prime example is easy – climate change.

The simple fact is that climate activists cannot sell their story effectively. Typically they fall back on … well … facts and numbers. This is deemed as ‘arrogance’ especially because they get frustrated you don’t see the truth in the numbers <which seems obvious to them> and you are deemed ‘ignorant’ as you get frustrated because you aren’t a scientist and don’t want to extrapolate numbers — you just want a simple truthful story.

Even non-science people  recognize that cherry-picked statistics and trends & projections are not the same as long-term accurate predictions and effects. But if the case is so strong it must be possible to bring it forth in a compelling way combined with compelling measures to address it.

That said.

The most egregious act with regard to elitism versus experience actually takes place when people smart enough to know undermine other people smart enough to know within the leadership we seek to take our cues from <or let’s label them what the everyday schmuck would call ‘the ruling intellectual elite’>. This ‘people smart enough to know better’ battle is a devil’s bargain with desire to being valued. The problem is by diminishing the value of their ‘competitor’ they actually undermining all value and, well, everyone’s value. Some would suggest this is ‘not seeing the forest for the trees.’

I would suggest this is actually a doom loop. If every day people have no one to trust with regard to their experience, they become anxious. And, then, in this state of anxiety, many of those same people no longer trust the experts <let alone anyone attempting to lead by thought leadership>. If you cannot trust experience it all falls apart because then gaining experience just doesn’t matter <or specific experience doesn’t matter>.

In addition it seems to foster an environment in which individual thinking is discouraged, the value of scientific/researched fact is diminished and, contrary to belief, the power shifts to some authority figure who leads through opinion rather than fact <and people follow off of ‘feelings’ rather than truth because feelings have become equal to facts>.

That said, all things being equal, it means this issue comes down to its most basic level <a real divide of ‘us versus them’>.

Here is where the biggest gap in skills & experience exists.

Survival skills.

Survival in corporate America is significantly different than survival in … well … let’s call it basic survival.

If all of urban/suburban America lost their microwaves and fast food restaurants … well … they would be screwed.

Sure.

Most people know how to light a fire <with a match>, wash underwear and make soup, but that basic skill set is not even close to the survival skills of the majority of the world let alone rural America.

Therefore, experience is measured in two different ways: basic survival versus ‘elitist’ survival. And neither side values the other’s skills equally, or maybe worse, they devalue the other’s skill set.

It’s a dangerous state of affairs.

We are shortchanging our ability to shape events by having each side believe they are the only ones capable of shaping the events.

We are shortchanging the people who are much more confident in the assessments of what to do and when to do it.

We are shortchanging the people who understand that in any situation and in any choice there are winners and losers and just because you may have lost doesn’t make you a loser.

And, of course, we shortchange the people who don’t have the experience to lead by undervaluing the experience that they do have and what they have to offer in terms of thinking & ideas.

We don’t know what we don’t know.

And in those words of wisdom resides our biggest challenge with regard to this crisis of elitism versus experience. We need to figure out how to better articulate expertism and experience because if we do not the inexperienced will seek to take on the responsibilities of the experienced … and we will be doomed to fail.

Ponder.

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

“The pen may indeed be mightier than the sword, but the wordsmith would do well to welcome the blacksmith back into the fold, so that artisan craftsmanship the world over may fend off the ravages of industrialised homogeneity and bland monoculture.”

Alex Morritt

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