————

“I’ve seen plenty of your kind … you Americans.

Refugees from that brave new world you have over there.  Pilgrims in search of your Mecca … only you have no Mecca.

You’ve rejected one world and can’t quite smuggle your way into another so you wander like lost souls among all the libraries, museums, palaces and cathedrals of Europe … never quite seeing or catching hold of anything that lies outside those musty, but god knows elegant, interiors. It’s called ‘finding oneself’ I believe … as if a self can exist at the end of some tourist’s itinerary like a pot of gold.

Yet it’s kind of a fear isn’t it? A fear of Life.”

=

Celestial chess

—

“I have a deep fear of being too much.

That one day I will find my someone, and they will realize that I am
a hurricane.

That they will step back and be intimidated by my muchness. “

=

Michelle K.

———

So. Muchness. Muchness is what resides within each one of us. The problem is Life, in general, encourage us to exhibit, well, much less. Therefore we seem to spend a lot of time in the wretched hollow between our muchness and what we believe the world can accept of our muchness. In other words, we are always seek to constrict not expand.

Oddly this creates a lot of self reflection. A lot of “who am I”, finding onself and defining what is the right level of public muchness. We search as in “as if a self can exist at the end of some tourist’s itinerary like a pot of gold.” Far too often finding one’s muchness, paradoxically, seems a lot like stagnancy. There may seem like a lot of movement in that you may be moving around a lot <going places, visiting libraries, museums, palaces and cathedrals of Europe>, but in actuality, you are stagnant … personally.

All the movement appears to be some kind of search within oneself, but you are doing it by seeking ‘out-of-self’ things. Worse? Your self search often gets judged by what cues the ‘out-of-self- things provide you. Its almost like the search makes you a refugee from yourself. You invest energy not on progress but rather in searching backwards or ‘within’ <by viewing within the past for insights> to find ‘something.’

Well. This all seems crazy to me. Seems like maybe by the time you finish your search the rest of the world has moved on by. I would suggest time may be better served by something in which typical ‘finding oneself’ discussions do not appear to encompass — the word ‘disturbing.’ As in maybe ‘disturbing oneself.’ As in disturbing the universe. Kind of like shaking the personal etch a sketch a bit and in doing so be willing to shake the societal status quo of “what you should expect” etch a sketch..

By the way, to me, the fact ‘disturbing’ rarely is included in any ‘finding oneself’ discussion is crazy. Mostly because emotion is the energy for change and I would argue emotion is the engine for muchness.

Ok. What the hell am I talking about? The roots of disturb is the latin word – Emovere.

===

<latin> emovere: to disturb

===

Emotion literally means disturbance. The word emotion comes from the Latin emovere meaning “to disturb.” Therefore, emovere can be seen as a version of how we find ourselves. A combination of emotion & disturb is the creation of one’s muchness.

Look. Disturb may sound, well, disturbing or maybe a little extreme but, what the hell, you spend gobs of energy going out and about having rejected one world and can’t quite smuggle your way into another so you wander like lost souls.

The whole idea of ‘finding oneself’ all with the overall intent to seek opportunities to find out about ourselves and discover your muchness, i.e., what we are made up of and what we can be.

Disturbing, at its core, is about shifting shit so that opportunities can be uncovered.

This leads me to a guy named Pittacus … one of the Seven Sages of Greece. While each of the seven sages was supposed to represent an edict of worldly knowledge <Solon of Athens was actually “know thyself”> it was Pittacus who proposed ‘you should know which opportunities to choose.’

—

Other Pittacus Quotes

“It is hard to be good”

“Know when to act”

“Seize Time by the forelock.”

–

Disturbing is the energy which creates opportunities <not wandering the world of libraries and museums> and then … well … you gotta know which opportunities to choose.

Shit. No wonder we decide to try and find oneself by wandering the world, it sounds a shitload easier than disturbing, recognizing opportunities, than actually knowing which opportunities to choose. In fact all that sure sounds like there is lots of room for errors or missed opportunities are even a lot of bad choices.

Well. That’s the deal if you want to find yourself and let the world see your muchness.

It ain’t easy. And there is a lot of room for mistakes and bad choices. You gotta keep your eye on the prize.

Oh shit. The prize. The prize is actually finding being oneself – being your muchness.

Now. ‘Muchness’ is a great thing for you … uhm … but can be scary for others around you.

However. Not everyone, in fact, I would suggest the majority of us never discover our maximum muchness. Most of us just find crumbs of our muchness <and are quite satisfied>.

Some of us just get a bite or two of our muchness <and that is even more satisfying>. And then there are the few who actually find ‘oneself’ and all their muchness. Which leads me back to where I opended today:

————

“I have a deep fear of being too much.

That one day I will find my someone, and they will realize that I am
a hurricane. That they will step back and be intimidated
by my muchness. “

—————–

Well. This makes me think that maybe the reason most of us go about finding ourselves the wrong way is because most of us fear becoming the hurricane we could be. Muchness is scary. Muchness is not only a little scary to ourselves but absolutely can be intimidating to others. Hence … “you can be a little too much on occasion.” Frankly, this is where it gets tricky. When you hear that you naturally pull in your muchness. Which is a little nuts. Nuts because YOU can handle your muchness its OTHERS who cannot – its their issue and not yours.

Anyway.

I imagine my real point in all of this is that while finding oneself is not easy once you embrace your muchness it gets difficult.Here’s what I do know.

—

disturb + recognize opportunities + choose the right opportunities = muchness

—

Let’s be honest. Most of us, even if we are really lucky, will only find crumbs of our muchness. Yup, even if we do most of the formula right … just crumbs. And that is manageable. And while crumbs sounds … well … crummy. It’s not. They represent glimpses of our greatness. The muchness inside us is the best of our best … the best version of I … the greatness within.

And even if we only get a glimpse of it? Well. In the immortal words of the coach in the movie The Replacements:

==

“Greatness, no matter how brief, stays with you forever.”

Gene Hackman <the replacements>

==

Finding oneself truly has to be done with some intent of finding some greatness <I mean, c’mon, why else would we invest energy doing it?>. It’s all about finding whatever glimpse of greatness, of muchness, we have within us <and most everyone has at least a glimpse>. And why wouldn’t we seek to find ‘oneself’ the right way?

Fear.

The opening quote suggested ‘a fear of Life.’ Well. I would suggest it would be more ‘a fear of Muchness’.

Regardless.

Suffice it to say that Self, or our’ muchness’, does not exist at the end of some tourist’s itinerary like a pot of gold. And that said … remember … if you truly desire to ‘find yourself’ don’t head out like a pilgrim in search of your mecca just think one word – emovere.

In other words … Disturb.

Disturb your world and your universe and watch for the opportunities and don’t fear your muchness and, mos importantly, don’t let the outside world’s fear of your muchmness make you make your much a lesser version of what it can be.

Embrace your muchness and disturb the universe. I could think of worse advice.

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

“Emptiness which is conceptually liable to be mistaken for sheer nothingness is in fact the reservoir of infinite possibilities.”

——-

D.T. Suzuki

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

“When one gets quiet, then something wakes up inside one, something happy and quiet like the stars.”

———

W. B. Yeats

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

So. In one piece I wrote, “to do or not to do“, I offered my personal view that “I am a harsh judge on motivation for a decision” and someone asked me about that.

Well. To begin on decision motivation I would suggest that great decision making is about emptying the mind. And, no, I am not talking about stilling the mind or even uncluttering the mind. In this case it about emptying the mind of egoist <what will feed my self belief> & appearances <what will look good> & appeal <what will gain approval> type stuff.

That said.

Contrary to popular opinion being a business leader is partially a popularity contest and, thankfully, partially not. Your popularity matters in that if you are not liked at all no one wants to follow your leadership. This has to be balanced by the fact making business decisions should never, okay, rarely, be dictated by what would make you popular.

Therefore a business leader has to recognize the delineation in their mind as they ponder decisions.

In business you, of course, have to be watching employee ‘approval’ surveys and organizational cues with regard to happiness, optimism & confidence, but, you have to purposefully empty your mind of all that stuff when it comes to a business decision – in particular on bigger decisions.

Any leader with half a brain knows they must avoid reckless decisions and ineffective energy-sucking initiatives that do little but make people feel good about themselves in the moment.

Any leader with half a brain knows that a bad decision piled on top of another bad decision only deepens a precarious situation and increases the odds you get the business in a situation that has no viable path up & out of it … let alone even create a scenario in which there is actually a viable idea on how to end the slide down <this is a recognition that decisions are not transactional but rather mutually inclusive of each other>.

But that is where emptying the mind matters. The brain has to be empty of popularity or ‘what will look good’ or any egoist aspect <like “will I look strong/decisive/smart/etc.>  which inevitably try and pry their way into your thinking process.

Yeah.

Sure.

Truth is.

Optics matter.

It sucks.

But they do.

But you have to set them aside for a bit.

Because by emptying the mind you clear away the crap in order to see the ‘right decision to make’ regardless of optics, popularity or likeability.

Okay. If optics & popularity really do matter <like I said upfront>, than why do you do that?

Because the truth is that once I have the right thing to do I can dress it up in some snazzy outfit to make it, optically, look more popular and likeable. And any business leader with half a brain can do that. All this leads me back to my point about judging business leaders based on their motivation.

First.

If a leader feels boxed in, squeezed into having to make a decision, well, there is no real ‘box’ except in that persons’ head. That is a truth. Optically, from the outside looking in, people can construe a box and the leader may mentally say “shit, I am in a box of my own making and I have to do something”, but I struggle to find a situation like this in which you actually have to do something. The optics may not look so fantastic and you may take a hit on popularity, but, any leader worth half a shit knows that any box that can be built can be unbuilt.

I judge harshly those who decide to believe they are in a box they cannot unmake.

Second.

Ego. Well. Let’s just say that any business leader worth half a shit has some ego. They have to. It’s part of what makes them feel confident enough to do a job which the majority of people would hesitate to do. And with ego comes along some nasty side effects – how do people feel about me and see me. The good business leaders take what I just wrote and make it “how do people feel about my decisions and see my decision.” They stop worrying about “me” and worry more about “my decision.”

I judge harshly those who decide believing “feel about me & see me” is any part of their decision.

Now. This motivation is a tricky judgement and, as I noted in ‘to do or not do’, you cannot judge the decision because it is what it is, but should focus on the pre-decision & the post-decision behavior in order to best assess & judge a decision maker’s motivation <albeit if someone has a history of decisions made, a pattern, you can assess the ‘pre’ fairly accurately>.

Post decision behavior is typically incredibly enlightening.

Say, for example, approval is important. If that is the case then a decision rewarded with greater approval will most likely encourage future decisions.

Or maybe someone wants to look strong. If their decision is rewarded with feedback of “strength” you can almost begin expecting more of those types of decisions.

Or maybe it is likeability. If their decision is rewarded with “happier people” you can start expecting more decisions that facilitate that response.

I imagine my point here is that evaluating someone’s motivation begins and ends with an evaluation of the relationship between the words & the actions. An action can look appealing but you have to lay the words alongside and do a match. For it is within the gaps & the connections in which you can get a sense of the motivation.

You can absolutely get a sense for motivational decision cues by how a business leader describes a decision they made. Oftentimes a leader will use the words they want to hear or are important to them in how they describe what they decided … “we needed to show a sign of strength and, therefore, we decided to do ‘x’.”

That kind of crap.

Words used over and over again are the words they will incorporate into motivations for a specific decision.

To be clear. This ability to empty the mind is not easy. And its difficulty will vary by who you are – the narcissists never can and the humble will almost always. But the truly good business decision makers — the ones who make the best decisions as in “the right decisions” <as in “doing the right thing”> — will always be able to empty the mind. They will always be able to clear the bad motivations and see their way to the ‘right’ objective driven motivations.

Lastly. Philosophically I have always liked the leaders who are able to empty the mind to make decisions because, well, as the Yeats quote suggests — they are the ones most likely to see the stars too.

—

“Getting over a painful experience is like crossing monkey bars.

You have to let go at some point in order to move forward.”

=

anonymous

—

This is about business leadership but I’ll begin with business itself (because what is business leadership, but understanding the business of people).

Business: the business of monkey bars.

Business is all about monkey bars. Yes. Many people will point out its about process, systems & efficiency and they would be partially right. That’s the foundation for sustainable profitable business. But once that foundation is built, from there on out, it is about monkey bars. Now. A lot of people will not agree with me. They will be the people who see the framework as a network of highways & wireframe in which people & ideas & work traverse making right & left hand turns.

I don’t see it that way.

The process & wireframes are simply hamster wheels. Jump on and you get some speed, but no velocity. The speed & work & going around and around can make an organization feel good, feel like they’re doing a lot, but it really doesn’t get you anywhere.

Inevitably to gain some velocity, get somewhere, achieve some lift, you have to navigate the business of monkey bars. Make the leap from the lanes in your network to new place & new people. Make the leaps outside the existing wireframe to new places & ways of doing things.

Simplistically those leaps are Monkey bars: strategically, tactically, projects & people.

Simplistically those monkey bars are letting go and taking a leap of faith you will grab the next rung.

Well. There is nothing simplistic about that. Businesses don’t like making leaps and they really detest swinging out from the nice safe rung they are holding onto, letting go of a rung and grabbing onto another.

I will say whether a business detests it or not, monkey bars are not meant to hang on to just one rung. The whole idea of monkey bars is getting from one end to another swinging from one rung to another and letting of the past rung to get to the next one.

If that isn’t metaphorically what business progress is about, I do not know what is.

This leads me to Leadership.

Navigating monkey bars with people.

My favorite leadership quote is:

“Consider becoming the type of energy that no matter where you go, or who you’re with, you always add value to the spaces and lives of those around you”

I thought of that quote because that type of energy is different than the business of navigating monkey bars. Navigating monkey bars isn’t really about energy it’s about reaching across from where you are to where you need to be. Its faith. It’s risk. Its uncertainty. Its doubt.

That said. There are so many leadership views, definitions, articles, etc. your head will spin. Go on twitter, hashtag leadership and you will be barraged by a gazillion good, and not so good, leadership thoughts you will wonder which to use.

We all have our favorites. I would argue none of them matter particularly if you want to think about Monkey bars. Monkey Bars is about pragmatic progress. Not inspiration, nor energy, nor necessarily fulfilling meaning or potential, it’s about letting go and moving on.

While most Good leadership articles discuss developing ‘tools’ for the team to verify which actions have value, and, crucially, which have not (affirm & assess behavior) when it comes to Monkey bars it may be more relevant to think of Tupac: “at some point you just have to leave the pieces behind and move the fuck on.”

Monkey bars demands you empower people to move on. But it’s a different moving forward. This one isn’t about walking or taking baby steps or giant leaps, but rather about letting go and having faith you can find another thing to hold onto. And, like monkey bars, it is not just once to get to the other side but a series of ‘letting gos’ to make it where you want to go.

Which leads me to leading in a monkey bar world.

Philosophically it would be great of you, as a leader, could actually place someone’s hands on the next bar and get them going. That ain’t the way it works. A leader’s job is to encourage letting go, have some faith and grab onto the next bar <even if they aren’t sure there is a next bar or know exactly where the next bar is>. To be honest. I’m not sure if this is objection management (eliminate objections to swinging out), unstuck management (getting people to unfreeze) or fear/uncertainty management (it will be okay, there is a safety net, the next rung is solid, etc) or idea management (make the next rung look like such a great idea it actually ‘pulls’ people to swing to it) or some combination of all.

What I do know is that this type of leadership CANNOT be about control, its about faith.

People monkey bars

You are dangling by one hand and reaching for another bar and … well … there will be a moment of uncertainty and reaching. But. That’s the gig. That’s the deal.

Letting go is the monkey bars of life. Letting go also means letting go of “fear” (not sure this is the right word but let me stick with it). Letting go is a double whammy to people:

• Fear of leaving what is known & comfortable. Fear of leaving what you may be good at and what you have proven to others you can do. fear of leaving an environment in which you KNOW you can survive.
• Fear of, well, the unknown. And its 2 unknowns:
  • The space between the rungs
  • The next rung itself

Suffice it to say letting go isn’t simple. In fact, it’s exactly like the first time you try the monkey bars. It takes some faith and confidence and, ultimately, desire to just go and swing out.

—

“All the art of living lies in a fine mingling of letting go and holding on.“

Havelock Ellis

—

I have one thought for people here. You have to stop looking at the space between the bars.

It actually helps to view with things in black & whites. Fear thrives in the gray of unresolved emotion and feelings. It festers there. Eliminate it.

Process monkey bars

Process is inherently not about Monkey bars, but rather concrete solid highways. Well. At least that is the way most businesses view it. They are wrong. Most process is not linear A-B-C-D-etc, but rather solid lily pads which should be used in different configurations depending on challenge and context.

This is counterintuitive to most business people. They see iterative doing and not monkey bar doing. The truth is efficiency & effectiveness are maximized by properly utilizing the Monkey bars.

Ponder that.

I would venture to guess no business school says what I just said.

Ideas (or innovation) monkey bars

80% of innovations and ideation are iterative. They are improvements upon what is. Extensions, shifts, lifts, etc. These are like constantly tuning up the engine. 20% are monkey bar ideas and innovations. None, I may add, are out of the box ideas or innovations.

The 20%. The big ideas are swinging from a rung on a solid construct, letting go and grasping another rung across a space. The rung is separated by space, but the innovation is strong enough for the organization to hold on to. Please note. You are making a leap, but not outside a box. Please note. This actually increases likelihood of success. Just as scary (letting go and grabbing onto something you trust will hold you), yet, the leap is made within a construct the organization can withstand.

Just ponder.

I would venture to guess no innovations guru says what I just said.

In the end.

1. Business loves linear solid tidy things. they are safe, theoretically predictable and typically showcases the characteristics of efficiency. But not everything can be reduced to a 5 step process, a 6 stage model, or even a production schedule. That is why I believe the power of the Monkey bars concept is it is tangible and intangible. Where it gets interesting, is that it enables us to understand how to move away from slow and incremental improvement, to leaps of improvement.
2. People hate change (but mostly for a different reason than you may think).

“A root cause of resistance to change is that employees identify with and care for their organizations. People fear that after the change, the organization will no longer be the organization they value and identify with — and the higher the uncertainty surrounding the change, the more they anticipate such threats to the organizational identity they hold dear. Change leadership that emphasizes what is good about the envisioned change and bad about the current state of affairs typically fuels these fears because it signals that changes will be fundamental and far-reaching. Counterintuitively, then, effective change leadership has to emphasize continuity — how what is central to “who we are” as an organization will be preserved, despite the uncertainty and changes on the horizon.”

https://hbr.org/2018/08/research-to-get-people-to-embrace-change-emphasize-what-will-stay-the-same

Monkey bars maintain their structure you simply swing from one run to another. Same playground, same structure, heck, even the same kids playing with you, just another run. In overcoming resistance to change and building support for change, leaders need to communicate an appealing vision of change in combination with a vision of continuity. Unless they are able to ensure people that what defines the organization’s identity — “what makes us who we are” — will be preserved despite the changes, leaders may have to brace themselves for a wave of resistance.

So. In the end?

Letting go in business is certainly hard – and healthy.

Just be sure you don’t avoid the monkey bars because of this following thought for it would be a shame to suffer solely because it was familiar:

—

“People have a hard time letting go of their suffering.

Out of a fear of the unknown, they prefer suffering that is familiar.”

=

Thich Nhat Hanh

—

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

“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.

One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless yet be determined to make them otherwise.”

F. Scott Fitzgerald

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

Contradictions. My favorite topic (certainly in business). Now. This is a tricky conversation in business because most business people like one-dimensional thinking & ideas. Yeah. That sounds harsh but at its core is the argument of “stand for one thing” combined with “simple is success”. Both of which ignore the fact most people find contradictions interesting (therefore cognitively retain the imprint better) and simple doesn’t necessarily mean ‘one thing’ but rather ‘understandable.’ I would also argue contradictions, or multidiemensional is more relatable. My main example of this is in discussing Brand Personality where the whole idea of ‘one thing’ is absurd.

Regardless. I personally love the idea of ‘owning a contradiction’ because it is a descriptive phrase that invokes people to hold two opposing concepts concurrently.

And more importantly? It is a smart idea. And I don’t care who you are, you like smart ideas <everyone does>.

Everyone likes ideas that make you think. A contradiction, or an idea capturing a contradiction, is an idea that makes you think.

Patient quickness.

Make haste slowly.

Big and fast.

Small but powerful.

Less is more.

That kind of stuff. Literally, I imagine we are simply discussing oxymorons.

But. I will get back to that (because I am curious and looked up all that stuff). Owning a Contradiction is excellent for when you are talking about brand positioning and company’s value propositions and what people think about an organization (or product or service).

A contradiction offers something that may seem counter intuitive and make people cock their heads a little bit and think “how do they do that?”.

From an organization value proposition standpoint (what is it we do best – with a skew toward functional) owning a contradiction is kind of the holy grail.

In particular you love to zero in on some aspect of more for less.

(Think of that as the holy grail value proposition sweet spot)

What do I mean?

That’s like …

More happiness-satisfaction less worry.

Get more Services at less cost.

More nutrition in least (smallest) portion.

Do more with less (plus/minus relationship).

Do most with least amount of money/budget.

Large global resources attention to small details.

“who say you can’t be big and nimble?”

Stuff like that.

If you can build an organizational culture and innovations and attitudinal structure with something like that at the core you are golden. Now and for the future.

Anyway. Whenever I bring up owning a contradiction, at first blush, everyone loves the idea. The challenge is when people want to “understand it.”

So. Inevitably you get the smart(ass) question … ‘are you talking about an oxymoron or a paradox’?

(yikes. Here is where I need to search dictionaries for help)

Oxymoron or Paradox. Here are the two definitions.

An oxymoron as “a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in ‘cruel kindness’ or ‘to make haste slowly’.”

(c’mon … who uses ‘locution’ in a sentence … jerks)

A paradox is defined as “a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth”.

Uh oh. That didn’t help me. Is one a figure of a speech and one a sentence? Geez. ‘Self contradictory but in reality expresses a possible truth.’

Now. That sounds good. Unfortunately if I research oxymoron I get more of what I am talking about with owning a contradiction despite the fact the explanation for a paradox seems … well … righter.

The Oxymoron is a figure of speech that deliberately uses two contradictory ideas. This contradiction creates a paradoxical image (okay. They just used oxymoron and paradox together ???) in the reader or listener’s mind that generates a new concept or meaning for the whole.

Some typical oxymorons are:

–          a living death

–          sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind

–          a deafening silence

–          bitter sweet

–          The Sounds of Silence (song title)

–          make haste slowly

–          conspicuous by his absence

Ok. It gets worse (trying to understand what it is supposed to be) when you look at these.

The following seem more like paradoxes to me, but they all are from a book called “Oxymoronica” by Dr. Mardy Grothe.

—

I can resist everything but temptation.

Oscar Wilde

=

Don’t be too clever for an audience. Make it obvious. Make the subtleties obvious also.

Billy Wilder

=

Just be truthful – If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.

Barbara Stanwyck

=

Please all, and you will please none.

Aesop – 6th century BC

=

Nothing is permanent, except change.

Heraclitus – 4th century BC

=

Okay. Regardless. Owning a contradiction (to me) is not only smart but it articulates something in a way that it actually becomes a figure of Speech (which also has a literal definition by the way)

Uh oh. Another definition. Figure of speech? A figure is worth a thousand words (A picture is worth a thousand words)

—

Figurative language:

One meaning of “figure” is drawing” or “image” or “picture”. Figurative language creates figures (pictures) in the mind of the reader or listener.  These pictures help convey the meaning faster and more vividly than words alone.

We use figures of speech in “figurative language” to add color and interest, and to awaken the imagination. Figurative language is everywhere, from classical works like Shakespeare or the Bible, to everyday speech, pop music and television commercials. It makes the reader or listener use their imagination and understand much more than the plain words.

Anyway. I come back to “expresses a possible truth.” Owning a contradiction (when you aren’t making it up and it is something of value) is figurative, a paradox and most importantly is communicating the possibility of a truth.

Something meaningful but contradictory all to the benefit of whoever you are communicating to.

In a way it is quite possible I like contradictions because they aggressively and interestingly attack people’s ignorance. They make you think of things that may not seem possible, but become an interesting ‘truth’ (and we learn something). To me that is the cognitive power of a contradiction.

Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance.

Confucius – 6th century BC

I will admit. Contradictions are personal to me. Lunch bucket intellectual is my contradiction. Bring a blue collar work ethic day in and day out but relentless intellectual curiosity to seek insights and ‘truth.’ I guess I am also a generalist specialist.

All that said.  Bottom line? Any time you can own a contradiction you are more interesting ... as a product, as a business or even as a person.

So.

This is about marketing and communications and plain packaging versus branding … as well as truth and deceit.

— 

“In theory, everybody buys the best and cheapest commodities offered him on the market.

In practice, if everyone went around pricing, and chemically testing before purchasing, the dozens of soaps or fabrics or brands of bread which are for sale, economic life would become hopelessly jammed.

To avoid such confusion, society consents to have its choice narrowed to ideas and objects brought to its attention through propaganda of all kinds. There is consequently a vast and continuous effort going on to capture our minds in the interest of some policy or commodity or idea.”

=

Edward Bernays

—-

“All of us who professionally use the mass media are the shapers of society.

We can vulgarize that society. We can brutalize it.

Or we can help lift it to a higher level.”

=

Bill Bernbach

———————–

I wrote about this for two reasons:

1. Awhile back the Guardian had a small editorial on plain packaging <because Great Britain is thinking about having plain packaging for cigarettes>. Within the short thought piece it poses the question of “what if there were only plain packaging … for everything?”
2. I have been thinking about the moral responsibility of people in advertising & marketing communications

Well.

Both topics are relevant to anyone in the professional communications industry not just from a true business perspective but rather a philosophical ‘what do I really do for a living’ type perspective.

Why? One of the hot topics among young people when I speak to them is “the moral depravity of capitalism” and its flag bearer “the morally corrupt advertising.”

Regardless. A discussion about plain packaging for everything spans capitalism, brands & branding and people themselves <how much they can actually be influenced to do something they don’t really desire doing>.

I remain steadfast in this discussion.

Capitalism, in and of itself, is not morally corrupt. Only people can be moral or immoral.

Advertising, in and of itself, is not morally corrupt. Only people can be moral or immoral.

Regardless of my steadfastness, plain packaging for everything sparks an interesting discussion about not only the morality of marketing & advertising but the role, and importance, of brands in people’s lives.

I will begin with the Guardian editorial:

—————-

== The Guardian == 

Unthinkable? Plain packets for everything.

Brands allow us to choose, but they also sometimes stop us choosing wisely – perhaps everything should carry a warning

—

Could the plain wrappers, which the government has said it will introduce for cigarettes, be usefully extended, to other potentially harmful products?

Alcopop could be divested of its deceiving glamour, fatty food could be labelled as just that, sugar could be generically dispensed. Whisky would just be a brown liquid in a bottle without pictures of terriers or a chap striding along.  Marmalade would just be a brown substance in a jar (after all, when you buy oranges they often put them in a plain brown paper bag).  Ice cream would no longer carry names reminding you of heavy handguns or novels by Mark Twain. Except, of course, in very tiny letters at the bottom of the pack. High heeled shoes could be stripped of their fashion names and carry a warning about muscle strain and bunions to come.

Fast cars could have their badges pruned.

The more we extend the list the sillier it becomes.

Yet we know how many designs for marijuana packets were patented in the hope that it would be legalised: the magic wand of branding could then be waved over them to bring big profits to these far-sighted entrepreneurs.

Brands allow us to choose, but they also sometimes stop us choosing wisely.

Perhaps the problem could be tackled more directly by simply attaching a label to everything saying that branding should be taken with a pinch of salt. Naturally a label like that on an actual packet of salt could cause confusion, so that one might have to say in that case that branding could be a snare and a delusion.

————–

I imagine beginning the discussion you have to use the end of the editorial – branding could be a snare and a delusion. Those words give this conversation a lot to grapple with.

Brand <and branding>.

Exchange Value.

Deceit.

Caveat emptor.

Influencing.

Information and disinformation.

Now. The issue of morality & responsibility has been discussed for decades.

The most famous public discussion may have occurred sometime in the 1950’s. Printer’s Ink <a magazine I believe> published an editorial Toynbee Vs. Bernbach on Advertising <oddly, in this day & age where you can find almost everything online … I can’t find a copy of it … therefore I am dependent upon a sole bad hard copy I made years ago>.

The summary?

—–

Arnold Toynbee:

Advertising is moral mis-education.

Advertising is an instrument of moral, as well as intellectual, mis – education. Insofar as it succeeds in influencing people’s minds, it conditions them not to think for themselves and not to choose for themselves.

It is intentionally hypnotic in its effect it makes people suggestible and docile. In fact, it prepares them for submitting to a totalitarian regime.

Bill Bernbach:

Only people are moral or immoral.

Advertising, like so many technologies available to man, is neither moral nor immoral. Is eloquence immoral because it persuades? Is music immoral because it awakens emotions? Is the gift of writing immoral because it can arouse people to action?

No.

Yet eloquence, music and writing have been used for evil purpose.

No, advertising is not moral or immoral.

Only people are.

—–

When I discuss capitalism & advertising I place both of these thoughts on screen and suggest people have to make a choice.

Are people sheep … or smart enough to make decisions on their own?

Are all people who do marketing & advertising immoral?

Well. After all those questions you realize that plain packaging isn’t the issue and that the topic is complex.

Suffice it to say, selling shit <marketing or manufacturing>, is always about balancing sales & ethics & values. The moment you lose sight of that is the moment your moral compass, or business, goes off the tracks. And you have to pay attention to your moral compass if you are in the communications business because there is gobs of research showing that the degree of brand loyalty increases sharply from the age of ten, and peaks around the age of 30. There is gobs of research showing that the degree of emotional involvement a person invests with a brand increases their irrationality.

Why the hell did I include those factoids? Because that means if you are in the communications business <this includes packaging by the way> you have a responsibility. That responsibility is being ethical & being truthful and not being deceitful.

Basically people know and love brands.

People know the names of brands, remember what they see and hear about them and form opinions of them.

And people actually do NOT like plain packaging — they like all the wrappings around the shit they buy. And, I would note, the trappings are important because brand value <which creates a version of a relationship> don’t form in a vacuum. To create real brand value you have to create strong attitudinal foundations. Some suggest an attitudinal foundation is a ‘bond’ <I do not but it makes the point>.

I cannot remember who built this “brand loyalty pyramid” but , in general, it says pretty much the same thing as every ‘loyalty pyramid’ you will see when you walk thru the door of any credible communications company:

—

• Presence: does the consumer know anything about the product or service?

• Relevance: does it cater for their needs?

• Performance: does it deliver?

• Advantage: is it better than others in some way?

• Bonding: nothing else can beat it.

—

All consumers, whether kids or adults, form brand relationships in this way.On a side note, interestingly, research shows that among kids, around half of all brands change their typology every two years, highlighting an extremely rapid ‘migration’ of attitudes. But, in general, Millward Brown research shows that brand allegiance changes very little across the generations. In two out of three categories, adults and kids are bonded to the same brands. Many brands manage to tap into needs and desires that transcend the age of the consumer, and many do this through careful product segmentation.

I included a lot of this stuff because we use the word ‘brand’ often in a very simplistic way and it is a very non simplistic concept. It has to do with perceptions, attitude and expectations which inevitably lead to specific behaviors.

All this gets me back to plain packaging and, conversely, discussing ‘brand.’ Plain packaging suggests everything is equal. Toynbee would like that. Everything equally good and equally bad. Unfortunately for Toynbee, whether you believe it or not, the shit we buy varies in quality.

Could we exist, or subsist, on the lowest quality? I am fairly sure we could.

But our everyday existence is made up of more than simply existing. What I mean is … how dull would life be if that is all there was?

To be clear, even within the lowest income purchasers, those who have a heightened sense of survival, there remains hope for something better and the occasional indulgence of something better. Non-plain packaging permits a manufacturer to showcase ‘better’ or ‘different’ so we, the people, can make choices.

Ah. Making choices. People make choices. Non-plain packaging helps them make choices.

Professional communicators also make choices. This leads me to something called … “Do this or die.”

Do this or Die is a manifesto written by Bill Bernbach <one of the founders of the advertising agency Doyle, Dane & Bernbach – DDB> and it is written to those who CREATE advertising and messaging — the professional communicators in the world. It is a directive ‘the creators of messaging’ to create inspiring truthful meaningful messaging. He suggests in his manifesto to the ‘creators’, those who should bear the burden of ‘non deceitful messaging,’ that the people are not a nation, or world, of stupid people.

People are smart. And maybe ‘the people’ can be tricked once, but very very rarely twice.

“DO THIS OR DIE” is a warning, a promise, a call-out to the lazier advertising and marketing and communications professionals.

A warning to the ones who accept and produce mediocrity.

A warning to the ones who don’t understand the power of truth and the ones who compromise ‘truth’ in the interest of sale or ‘false differentiation.’

Do this or Die. What we professionals communicate must be truth:

==

“… the messages we put on those pages and on those television screens must be the truth. For if we play tricks with the truth, we die.

Now. The other side of the coin. Telling the truth about a product demands a product that’s worth telling the truth about. Sadly, so many products aren’t. So many products don’t do anything better. Or anything different. So many don’t work quite right.

Or don’t last.

Or simply don’t matter.

If we also play this trick, we also die.”

==

This means, to me, discussing plain packaging is discussing the symptom of a larger problem. It becomes not a discussion of marketing or communications or even capitalism; it becomes a discussion about people and doing what is right versus what is wrong and choices.

I love this discussion with young people.

It is a hard discussion in which they may approach it with some naiveté but they also approach it with truth in hand. Truth that while there are moral and immoral people in the world and that even moral people will slide down the slippery slope of mediocre ethical behavior under the guise of either <a> not knowledgeable enough to do anything better, or <b> everyone else is doing it.

In the end.

Let me say I despise what Arnold Toynbee suggests with regard to people.

I refuse to believe people aren’t smart enough to make knowledgeable decisions.

I refuse to believe people can be influenced to such an extent they desire things they shouldn’t desire.

I refuse to believe people can be manipulated to do wrong things <but certainly can be inspired to take positive actions>.

I do believe communications can influence attitudes.

I do believe communications, done well, can affect behavior.

But I don’t believe communications can make someone do something they don’t want to do … nor convince them in any consistent way to do wrong things.

Just as you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink, communications can lead someone somewhere <immorally or morally>, but inevitably a person makes the moral or immoral choice.

Now. Here is something I am emphatic with when talking with young people <and as often as I can with older people>.

I do believe professional communicators have a higher responsibility than other folks.

I do believe … all of us who professionally use the mass media are the shapers of society.

We can vulgarize that society.

We can brutalize it.

Or we can help lift it to a higher level.

Plain packaging? Why am I against it?

Well. I would lose an opportunity to help lift society to a higher level.

That’s what I tell people.

And that is what I believe.

===

This old post is not about communicators … but business responsibility to shaping society.

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

——

“Cowardice” and “self-respect” have largely disappeared from public discourse.

In their place we are offered “self-esteem” as the bellwether of success and a proxy for dignity.

“Self-respect” implies that one recognizes standards, and judges oneself worthy by the degree to which one lives up to them.

“Self-esteem” simply means that one feels good about oneself.”

Dignity” used to refer to the self-mastery and fortitude with which a person conducted himself in the face of life’s vicissitudes and the boorish behavior of others.

Now, judging by campus speech codes, dignity requires that we never encounter a discouraging word and that others be coerced into acting respectfully, evidently on the assumption that we are powerless to prevent our degradation if exposed to the demeaning behavior of others.

These are signposts proclaiming the insubstantiality of our character, the hollowness of our souls.

=

A NATION OF COWARDS
Jeffrey R. Snyder 1993

———————–

“Tragedy in life normally comes with betrayal and compromise, and trading on your integrity and not having dignity in life. That’s really where failure comes.”

=

Tom Cochrane

———————-

So.

What is the biggest failure in today’s world? What is the biggest tragedy <or possibly ‘travesty’> in today’s world?

In my mind it is quite possibly our betrayal of integrity and dignity. It could quite possibly be the fact we have shelved dignity to some dusty shelf all the while proclaiming the insubstantiality of our character, the hollowness of our souls.

Look.

I am a hope guy, but on occasion I look around the world and find hope is buried underneath a lot of despair. Ok.  Certainly buried under a lot of ‘less than desirable’ behavior by people. And while it is easy to seek blame in politicians and leadership and religion it is harder, but possibly a truer and more valuable exercise, to look at ourselves and individual action. I would argue that within looking at ourselves, undertaking this personal reflection, one has to wonder about dignity in today’s society.

The idea of dignity seems simple enough. But it is actually fairly complex.

——

dignity:

“elevation of character, intrinsic worth, excellence… nobleness of manner, aspect, or style.”

Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary

===

===

Words associated with dignity:

“prestige, esteem, repute, honor, glory, renown, fame”

Roget’s Thesaurus

——–

Well. As I think about dignity I think <or it feels this way> the meaning of dignity has shifted over time. Oh. I don’t mean this as a generational thing. I just mean it as that over the span of decades dignity is being defined, and thought of, differently. I cannot figure out why because while dignity as an idea is a timeless one it has become wrapped in a ‘dated’ aspect.

To me dignity should be unshifting. It should be a conviction with regard to how one lives, and values, Life.

To me it retains a belief of a some higher potential of acting within some moral excellence construct. Something that resonates throughout everyone’s actions.

Am I too idealistic? Do I ask too much of people? Well. I would ask everyone: what is Life if not meant to be faced with dignity?

In fact. Dignity seems, to me, to be of higher value than wisdom or enlightenment or even respect. Dignity is part of the soul of which resides within each of us … it represents the substantialness of individual character. In other words … it is the foundation upon which all else is built. It is a foundation which one could argue provides the strength to face the inevitable of Life.

Life is often is a battle against the inevitable <and feel free and define inevitable any way you would like>.

Regardless. To face the fate Life gives us is to have the courage to live even if it means not doing everything that everyone else expects we should have done, and even ourselves might have wished, and do so with perhaps more dignity … than wisdom.

Now.

To be clear when I discuss this betrayal to dignity, to me, we have surrendered our sense of dignity — it was not taken away.

———–

“One’s dignity may be assaulted, vandalized and cruelly mocked, but it can never be taken away unless it is surrendered.”

Michael J. Fox

——————-

Suffice it to say we have surrendered in the most despicable way — we have become silent with regard to dignity. Yes. Silent. We just don’t speak about dignity often these days. And without speaking … the silence has become overcome with other words & thoughts. Overcome with words & thoughts like wealth and power, success and fame.

These are selfish esteem characteristics <or selfish aspects of character> which represent the hollowness of the soul. In addition. Lost in their glamor & fame is that they are outcomes of behavior not outcomes of character and, yet, I sometimes believe we confuse the outcomes.

As one online writer said … “we have become convinced we are nothing but packets of protoplasm governed by selfish genes, clever monkeys with college degrees and business cards plying across highways rather than trees.”

I don’t argue that living in today’s world that it isn’t difficult to activate your selfish genes. The world almost demands you do <’no one will take care of yourself but yourself’>. But by permitting the selfish genes to take over we have foregone some very important Life aspects.

Things like:

Living with dignity.

Dignity of actions.

Dignity of attitude.

Dignity of self.

While it certainly seems like we are in a ‘selfish driven world’ <or at least an “I-driven” world> … when I think about dignity <which I imagine I do far too often> I admit that I am a little surprised that dignity has fallen down so far on our list of ‘desired character attributes.’

Why am I surprised?

Well.

Getting back to the “I-driven” world — dignity, at its core, is closely connected with the idea of individuality. It is associated with how one sees oneself as well as how one reflects upon one’s distinctness, or clarity of self as seen by others, in Life. And I, or self reflection, is a pretty powerful motivator with regard to character.

Individuality means self-control and self-mastery, freedom from the sway of passion and prejudice, the ability to actively determine oneself.

In fact … I could suggest that to live with dignity means to be one’s own master. Ruler of your own empire as it were. Certainly master of your own destiny.

Unfortunately Life is infringing on all our “I” objectives.  It seems like the grind of everyday Life is making us think less of our own ‘empire’ <that would be our character and self respect> and more about what we think of as ‘survival’ <just making it through the day>.

That is scary to me. Scary for not only civilization but scary with regard to … well … one’s soul.

Sure. Discussing dignity may sound strange <if not frivolous> in today’s world when our frantic struggle to make ends meet hardly allows us the time to ponder such lofty things. But if we do pause a moment to give this question a little thought, we would realize soon enough that it is not merely the idle musing of someone with too much time on his hands. The question not only touches on the very meaning of our lives, but goes even beyond us personally in that it impacts culture.

For if it isn’t possible to live with dignity then life is simply measured by outcomes < wealth and power, success and fame>. I find it hard to imagine that the sense of the idea of living with dignity doesn’t have some intrinsic value to who and what we are as people.

—–

So many roads, so much at stake

So many dead ends, I’m at the edge of the lake

Sometimes I wonder what it’s gonna take

To find dignity.

Bob Dylan

—-

Look. I know Life is far from simple. And ‘dignity’ is challenged daily by a Life that is difficult and complex and filled with conflicts <decisions and choices> and moral ambiguity.

Every day, even though we may only see our ‘to do list’, we face numerous crossroad moments each of which offer a potential step toward either good or bad <evil>. And often you cannot see down the path you have just taken a step on. This moral complexity can sometimes make life a pretty painful struggle, but at the same time it also creates a fertile opportunity for growing a healthy dignity.

I would suggest it is at, and within, the everyday ambiguous crossroads moments, choices & decisions in Life that we can either rise to the heights of greatness or fall to almost incomprehensible depths of ‘less than.’

This can become an even more overwhelming thought as you recognize these everyday crossroad moments continuously branch out from the present moment and choice and all the while each choice depends on us as an individual to choose.

I would actually argue that deciding to face Life, and people, with dignity can make this all easier if not simpler.

We face the choice with dignity … or we don’t.

We face the choice with blame … or respect for our responsibility within the moment.

We face the choice, each as a smaller moral choice, as a building block for not only our individual dignity … but a larger building block for the dignity in human life.

Now. I am not suggesting that dignity either comes easy or without a cost.

———

The fight for justice against corruption is never easy. It never has been and never will be.

It exacts a toll on our self, our families, our friends, and especially our children.

In the end, I believe, as in my case, the price we pay is well worth holding on to our dignity.

Frank Serpico

————————-

I included this quote to remind everyone that each crossroad is fraught with peril and that corruption can be tangible as in crime or intangible as in the soul of Life itself. At each crossroad .Life, and choices, attempts to corrupt your dignity. And maybe that is why we elect to not discuss dignity as much as we should.

I don’t know.

All I know is that dignity SHOULD be discussed more and we should recognize it has value and we should understand dignity is not easily won. It is won through deeds and choices.

===

“Honour is purchas’d by the deeds we do.”

Marlowe

===

And its victory brings a reward that isn’t measured in some tangible outcome but rather through a quiet personal Life dignity which can sometimes only offer an affirmation a Life well lived.

Anyway.

Living a life of dignity is not easy. You have to say no to those around you, you have to say no to society and you most importantly have to say no to yourself. With the sheer amount of everyday crossroad moments each and every one of us faces … we need to maintain a certain discipline to maintain our dignity.

===

“Self-respect is the fruit of discipline; the sense of dignity grows with the ability to say no to oneself.”

Abraham Joshua Heschel

==

Dignity is a self-thing … what I mean by that is … well … it is a measurement of self. Not really an external measurement. Dignity is actually a combination of attitude & behavior … an acceptance and an action. Dignity is accepting the things ‘not done’ or things we need to apologize for:

Words.

Actions.

Omissions.

Dignity is measuring oneself’s actions … failing to step up, or step in, or step to someone’s side <when they needed it>.

Dignity is standing there and say you’re sorry. Say you’re sorry, say why you’re sorry, and take all the blame. No less, no more <without including anything that places even the tiniest amount of blame back on the other person>.

Dignity is recognizing you are a work in progress … seeking to be better than before … and accepting it publicly.

And maybe that is what I wish we would remember most about dignity … and talk about it … and aspire to live a more dignified life. Living life in the best way you can, the most honorable way possible and, well, just try to be better than the day before.

——

“He felt he was himself and did not want to be otherwise.

He only wanted to be better than he had been before. “

Leo Tolstoy

===

In the end. Maybe this is all I really need to say about Dignity.

Dignity, in the end, is understanding that no one is your enemy … except maybe yourself.

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

Originally posted March 2015

————————–

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

“Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it.

—

Dwight D. Eisenhower

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

Whew. In business, getting out of the way, if you are even mediocrely qualified or actually good at what you do … this may be one of the most difficult things to do.

What am I talking about?

Get out of the way of someone who knows what they are doing.

Now. This isn’t about ‘planting your own ideas in someone else’s head” <which you see a number of articles on if you try and google this topic, by the way, interestingly I couldn’t find one article out of the gazillions on my topic today>.

This is simply getting out of the way of someone who actually knows what the hell they are doing. This topic actually came up from a young person who actually asked ‘why don’t stupid people get out of the way of the people who actually know what they are doing.” My immediate response was relatively flippant: “because most stupid people don’t recognize they are stupid … about something.”

Okay.No one panic.

I followed that quickly with “listen … most people truly aren’t stupid … they are just blind to what they may actually not be as good at versus someone else.”

But. So, often, out of the mouths of babes comes truth. We often sit in our office, or in a meeting with a group of people, and if someone could read the thought bubble over our heads they would stare <mouth agape probably> when they read “why the f%$& won’t these stupid people get out of the way so someone who knows what they are doing can get this done?”

C’mon. Admit it.

We have all done it.

We have all thought it.

But here is the other side of that coin. It is really really difficult to admit you are one of the ‘stupid people’ and should be getting out of the way.

<by the way … I am simply using stupid as a harsher place holder for ‘less qualified’ or ‘not as good as’>

First. Reminder.

Most people are not stupid <even in business> and the odds are you aren’t stupid … it is simply a way of expressing your frustration and it isn’t literal.

Second. Well.

It is difficult to get out of the way for a number of reasons but let’s pick two:

<1> Yourself and … <2> someone else.

Huh?

–          Yourself.

This is ego. As well as society <a little> I imagine. But let’s discuss ego first. Getting out of the way implies you are not good enough or qualified enough … and you will not only feel like shit … you will look bad to everyone else.

You kind of have to discipline yourself a little to be able to get out of the way. This type of discipline is not easy.

Society does not support it and the drive to intervene in the process is rooted in how we were brought up, what we have seen around us and reinforced in our culture … as in … accepted behavior of those who are successful.

It is a difficult challenge to overcome the slightly narcissistic impulse to show off ‘your game’ and instead step out of the way and accept you can simply be there … without everything depending on you.

It is difficult for someone to not only know there are better circumstances you can be in but also that there’s a better way to do something.

It is difficult to think that if you actually step out of the way you may learn something and become better <mostly because you feel if you pass on this opportunity you will never get the opportunity again>.

It is difficult to decide in the moment, from a self interest perspective of actually wanting to better yourself <and do what’s right> that, technically, you are actually getting out of your own way.

None of this is easy because these types of decisions boil down to how you see yourself and how much value yourself. Maybe I could say instead … how comfortable you are with yourself.

If you think about it, if you can shed all the angst and society and all the ‘here is how you are supposed to act’ type bullshit, your actions reflect what you want for yourself and what you feel you deserve. In the end … as with almost everything it seems … getting out of the way and yourself is mostly about character. Oddly enough … it is difficult to be honest with yourself.

Next.

–          Someone else.

Ok.

This is a version of yourself … this is assessing the ‘someone else’ who wants you to get out of the way. Beyond the fact you may be admitting that someone may be better than you at something else … you are actually evaluating that someone else.

Uh oh. Typically, we suck at that. We suck at that because we typically judge our co-workers on the wrong criteria – the past.

Sure. If they have delivered on what they promised in the past, it does count for something. And their resume of past behavior and performance can count <albeit resumes are dubious things at best>.

But how much should it REALLY count? Because, uh oh <a BIG business truth here> most expertise is situational.

As in discrete. As in mutually exclusive.

Uh oh. What that means is you cannot judge based on anything historical but rather you have to judge within the moment and the situation.

Wow. That sucks. And we suck at doing that.

Ok. Beyond dealing with yourself and someone else.

When we do get out of the way we feel compelled to praise <this is actually a self ego thing>. Frankly, praising someone in the work place is … well … sometimes painful <particularly with a peer>. And if it isn’t painful it is certainly uncomfortable. Most of us are not skilled enough to be diplomatic and sincere without being condescending or, I cannot find the right words, suffice it to say most of us just plain suck at praising effectively in the work place.

And honestly … there are some good reasons why we suck at it. The behavioral reason <not the immature reason> is that we worry <and know from research> that the praised-for-every-achievement employee ends up reflecting a happier, more successful and highly self-esteemed employee, but more likely, the employee will become a ‘pleasing mode’ model employee <one who is driven to success not by personal curiosity but rather by the desire to earn praise by simply living up to expectations>.

Whew. Looking back at what I just wrote … that sure sounds cynical. Or maybe it just sounds shallow in referring to how people think or act. Take solace in the fact that it really isn’t because it is mainly a subconscious thing. We all do it to some degree it is only the people who consciously suck up and seek praise by ‘being a sheep’ that aggravate us.

Now. Living up to expectations isn’t a bad thing in the scheme of things, but it also doesn’t represent the kind of dynamics you want in a growing & expanding employee <or in a business in general>. You prefer to inspire someone to WANT to do something not HAVE to do it <for some personal gain>.

Anyway.

Getting out of the way is more difficult than most people think. For some good reasons and some bad reasons. Regardless of the reason, suffice it to say, we suck at getting out of the way.

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

“Think of value creation, not valuation.”

–

Pranav Marwah

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

I believe we need to spend more time these days discussing value creation before we begin talking about, well, anything else. I believe this for three reasons:

1. Today, it’s often about efficiency. Or minimizing to maximize. Minimize what to put in and then how creatively you craft the features. We should remember production is more about economical/efficient input and selling is more about thoughtful ideation. Regardless. I believe we need to talk more about maximizing without just talking about efficiency.
2. I worry we talk about “things” because they seem like the right thing to do, not because they will add value <based on our vision/mission>. I worry we don’t talk more, and understand better, about what value we provide people. Oh. A business typically knows what they see as value provided, but very rarely turn the telescope and see what value a possible customer desires <or receives>. I worry we don’t talk more about value creation.
3. Unless everyone wants to enter into a race to commodity business needs to start engaging in an effectiveness discussion. Efficiency is inherently about attempting to provide value by stripping away obstacles or the unnecessary. Effectiveness is inherently about persuading people some things are actually necessary for quality, enjoyment or substance to meet your outlay of investment (cash).

I would begin with the fact we know there is a relationship between velocity & value creation. As I noted in ‘obsession with velocity’, velocity is always about decisions. What I mean by that is there is never any lack of things to do in a business, but some just aren’t worth doing.

Velocity projects fall into 2 slots:

• value creation initiatives which increase velocity of value offered (transactional value opportunities)
• velocity initiatives which increase the velocity of the organization itself & indirectly enhances value (structural value elevation)

Make your project decisions wisely. Velocity is all that matters not only because it guarantees progress, rather than simple “hamster in a wheel” speed, but it also inherently gravitates toward value creation.

Regardless.

Value creation comes in two basic constructs: structural and transactional and revolves around efficiency and effectiveness.

Here you go. Just ponder.

efficiency and effectiveness

All value begins, and ends, with efficacy or the balance between efficiency & effectiveness. Many people when viewing his grid for the first time ask who would ever want to (a) be in the lower left hand quadrant or (b) be below the line at all.

Many business, and specific products, live & die off of efficiency. There is nothing wrong with that. In addition, a low cost provider will care less about effectiveness because their inherent ‘value’ is found in cheapest. I would argue everyone wants some balance but there will always be at least one incredibly efficient, not as effective, business and there will always be at least one incredibly effective business where efficiency is just not that important. Similarly, I could argue a business in & of itself can have all of these things within their business and the collection of them all make up the larger value creation offering.

Regardless. Look for your unique balance and, well, choose wisely.

structural value creation

This is the x axis. Efficiency to left effective to right.

Structural value can be generated through efficiency or effectiveness. Efficiency means your structural change reduces costs (tangibly or intangibly like time). Effectiveness means your structural change increases value to a point that increases price or offer opportunities for premium transactions/offers.

For example, adding 5G in a city is a structural value creation. It lifts everything to a higher value. Digital transformation is also. It’s an infrastructure change which provides structural value creation.

In addition. A structural value creation may, or may not additionally offer specific transactional value creation situations. What this means is incremental value for a specific transaction over and above the basic structural value creation.

transactional value creation

This is the Y axis.

Efficiency at the bottom, effective at top.

Organizations often seek bite sized improvements, therefore, may explore ways to offer distinct transactional value creation.

From an efficiency standpoint these could be things like frictionless engagement, speed, or any improvement which increases convenience or ease of use.

From an effectiveness standpoint these would be things which increase quality of actual transaction. Better products, more effective outcomes, etc.

For example. You could create a video platform, or an AI platform (to show traditional and technology) which enhances a specific transaction to a point in which you could create value (additional sales) or simply charge a higher price.

Value Proposition vs. Employee Value Proposition

Once identifying the value creation one offers a business you develop a value proposition ( a way to communicate what value you create). I would suggest this is an exercise not just for customers but also as a hiring criteria. You want to attract customers who desire what value you offer and you would like to hire people who contribute to your value creation proposition.

In its simplest terms, a value proposition is a positioning statement that explains what benefit you provide for who and what effective/efficient way you do it. Your value proposition isn’t meant to appeal to everyone, but it should have a value appeal of some distinction (not necessarily differentiation).

Lastly.

Now that maybe I’ve given you some things to ponder let me say, frankly, we don’t speak often enough about value creation dynamics within organizational modeling & business construct. Value creation, at its core, is all about people – what they do as well as what they think. Huh? When an individual feels like they are doing something of value & their value can be maximized, the organizational value creation inevitably is maximized. I would argue if you focus on the value-creation-structure the people will believe they are part of value creation and the formal structure will either fall in place or will be simpler to match up to how the value is created.

That’s it.

Value creation. I just don’t see how any business can have an effective vision or mission if they haven’t gone through this exercise. If you don’t have this conversation and go through the rigor, well, it seems like you run a major risk you will not get what you deserve – revenue, profit, customers or even employees.

===========

“Never dare to sell your soul for money, because no amount of wealth would buy you an air conditioner in hell.”
―

Edmond Mbiaka

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

Ok. This isn’t a religious post. Nor is this about selling your soul to the devil. Its nothing really that deep.

Ok. Maybe its deep .. just not that kind of deep.

This is simply about how far someone is willing to go to sell something in business. Or maybe better said how far someone will go to get money, or fame or power or something they desire?

What got me thinking about this? Business life. If you ever want to learn what your soul is worth go work at a smaller to mid sized advertising agency (although I envision a lot of people in sales also face the question at some point or another).

—

“Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company.”

Mark Twain

—-

While I chuckled when I read this quote it was admittedly a painful chuckle. Painful because I cannot tell you how many times (suffice it to say … too many for fingers and toes) I have been in new business meetings when it was painfully obvious that whatever new business we were discussing was so wrong for us as a client.  And yet the conversation kept rolling around and rolling around under the guise of “they would be a good client” (because they have money).

Don’t get me wrong. I like money. But not all money is the same. Some money fills your soul and some empties your soul … by soul I mean your inner value compass.

People who are defined solely by money can argue this until they are blue in the face. In fact … they do … there is even a selling “event” called selling your soul.

“The live Selling Your Soul event in NYC is over, and we’re all rolling on a wave of vivid business-building bliss. It was a high-gloss experience, where we intimately unpacked Burning Questions on messaging, marketing + online money-making, the myth of work-life “balance,” fearless price-raising, prosperous collaborating, and getting Witnessed for what you’re worth.”

Attitudinally one of the owners summarizes it by “I make my own economy” (philosophically, I actually kind of like that thought).

And (to be fair). That same owner uses money to balance her moral compass: “I kicked off GirlUp with their first substantial donation, proving once again that lots of cash can = lots of impact. Philanthropy is the bottom line.”

Yet. Here is my struggle with her philanthropic angle. I would argue with the owner in that philanthropy is not her bottom line. Her bottom line is money. And she uses her money to create her balance (note: although their website is strewn with words & thoughts that their soul is defined by a combination of fame & fortune so it seems like the philanthropy is just a ‘thing’ done to ease their soul angst).

Regardless. I wish it were that easy for me. Because it is not.

Look … I recognize the issue … who wouldn’t want to be recognized or have a generous income or a dream vacation home?

Face it. We all do. But at what price? And does the end justify the means? And, obviously, WHICH end justifies the means? That is what I mean by emptying your soul or filling your soul. Because in the end (whether that be mid life or at ‘the big finish’) you are judging your actions not by tangible things but the intangible balance of self worth (I purposefully chose ‘worth’ because it is some combination of fruits of labor and self esteem).

It is interesting because I have seen a variety of ways people justify how they sell their soul but one word continues to stand up as the face of behavior over & over again:

“winning”

To these people its all about winning. Winning at any cost. Or just being able to say “I won.” But (here is the news) winning is not always good.  There IS such a thing as a bad win. Unfortunately, the people who define their soul by winning don’t see that (or they may but justify their actions based on “we won”). Am I suggesting this aspect should be about fair play? No.  not really. This is about playing by your moral compass.

“money”

The thought that everything leads to some magical pot of money that will erase all of their problems. These people believe that fancy cars, designer clothes and big houses will make life better. This person may try to balance it with some philanthropic aspect (typically toward the end of their lives – see Andrew Carnegie as prime example) but they are consistently willing to ignore any moral compass within their pursuit for money.

“fame”

Yes. The spotlight is a dazzling temptation. And that same spotlight can blind you as to the wreckage around you. But to the one seeking fame maybe that is the beauty of being in the spotlight – the only thing you can see under that glaring light is yourself. What can I say more than that? I guess if you really want someone to worship you maybe consider becoming a benevolent dictator instead.

Oh. And the worst of all?

“being liked”

This is a sneaky one and may sound odd associated with selling your soul. Think about it: maybe its you want people to like you … so you sell your soul to the highest bidder (again, especially IF they are someone who holds a prominent position, this is an action leading to personal moral decay … if not total destruction). This one is insidious in that it creates self definition by having NO self definition. You may as well have sold your soul to the highest bidder … just make sure it isn’t the devil.

Anyway. In the end I know the decision I have made.  And that is always to be true to myself.  Tell the truth.  Seek good wins (not any win).

And I have found I cannot work places that don’t feel the same way. Not really just because of me … but because I find that companies that sell their soul doesn’t create a corporate culture which I like nor a culture which I ultimately believe is healthy.

And lastly. And maybe most importantly to me. I don’t believe it teaches young people growing up in business the right thing.  The senior ‘leaders’ (and I use that term loosely in this situation) simply do not recognize the repercussions of their decision to ‘sell out.’ And that is a shame.

The hell to be endured hereafter, of which theology tells, is no worse than the hell we make for ourselves in this world by habitually fashioned our characters in the wrong way.” -William James

“Habitually fashioned our characters in the wrong way” as the hell we make for ourselves.

Whew.

That is good.  Really good words to think about.

I do not believe ‘what is the value of our soul’ or describing being directed by your inner values compass could ever be articulated better.

Selling your soul, even in business, just to get something to have it (regardless of the practical or unpractical reason) is making your own hell you will have to live in.  And when you get to that hell maybe you can convince yourself you are a warm weather person and enjoy living where it is always hot … but … you are in your own personal hell.

I know I cannot convince all leaders of organizations to recognize this (because when a leader is in a personal hell it reaches out and encompasses his/her organization and poisons it … either slowly or quickly).

But I do know we can make personal decisions about this:

Be yourself.

Say no and mean it.

Subdue that which tries to destroy you.

Avoid the temptation to do what you know is wrong.

Face the truth that you are doing nothing but being untrue to yourself if you get blinded by money or fame.

In the end, in every decision, each person has to hold on to the core value of what defines themselves at their soul. Because every decision either diminishes or grows your personal purpose. And, yes, these decisions in organizations also unify or separate a group of people even more strongly than a similar language or history (at least in my eyes) because, well, this is part of what some people call “a business purpose.”. When people live by their core values and convictions the “center” is stronger.

And. If you don’t have a center, don’t you just fall apart as being just parts?

So. All that said. I am not a big self reflection guy … but I do believe it is worth a minute or two to identify what is your soul, or your core if you don’t want to get hung up on the word soul because, if you don’t, you may end up selling something you don’t want to, uhm, like your soul.

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

“Any system of ethics must account for scarcity. If it doesn’t, humanity would perish due to misallocation of finite resources, including one’s own body.”

—-

Daniel Alexander Brackins

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

“If somebody never gets enough of you, they will always want more”

―

Ashly Lorenzana

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

I recently was asked to help a Brazilian design & brand consulting company expanding their business into the United State after they read my thoughts on Velocity in business (in particular my thoughts on the Velocity Zone).

It was a fascinating discussion in which I was, once again, reminded of the attitudinal differences between the United States and other countries.

While a Brazilian attitude with regard to how their work should come to life (a stronger attitude with regard to vividness & distinction) in this case it came down to abundance versus scarcity. I often found myself sitting back just thinking about how Brazil viewed the world thru a scarcity lens. It had a sense of urgency with regard to not just ‘use it or lose it’ but rather ‘if I don’t use it I will not survive.’ And that is where I gained my deepest insight – survival. In an abundant world survival may not be accepted as a fait accompli, but it certainly feels like it is more likely. In a scarcity world you almost feel like survival is a moment by moment aspect of life. This isn’t to suggest desperation but it does suggest two things:

• Enjoy the moments you have and maximize them (this comes to life in a business attitude of distinctness, boldness & distinction)
• Not fear of death but more aggressiveness in the moment to survive (this comes to life with grabbing what exists now rather than thinking something better may come along tomorrow)

Anyway.

It led to Velo. It’s a Portuguese spin on Velocity.

About Velo

We made up this word because, to us, its meaning is new. Velo is velocity with a Brazilian twist. Let’s call it the Portuguese version of Velocity.

We arrived at the term because we believe America business view is tainted by the concept of abundance – an abundance of opportunities, resources & money. It doesn’t mean all businesses actual have an abundance of money & resources just that in the back of their minds they believe America is abundant therefore attitudinally they don’t approach things through a scarcity lens. This affects decision making, strategic approaches, brand positioning and messaging, design , messaging and even budget allocation.

Abundance versus scarcity attitude

In an abundant world options are limitless, in other words, miss an opportunity and another will arise. Let’s call this a “limitless supply of water” attitude. Water is abundant so when presented with a glass of it unless I’m desperately thirsty it’s just a glass of water.  In a scarcity world a glass of water can mean life or death.

Now. In America we talk scarcity, but think abundance. This ‘abundance of options’ attitude affects not only our general attitude but also behavioral decisions – business decisions. We sift thru options with a slight lack of urgency. In Brazil one cannot simply talk scarcity but act upon it to insure you get your glass of water. Options are limited and you maximize the ones you do have.

We think of velocity in the same terms. Velocity is a scarce resource and demands a versatile view of communications, design, branding combined with a bold view on crafting a distinctive idea & brand. Velocity falters under an abundance attitude and can quickly become just speed – hamsters on a wheel in an abundant world. Velocity thrives within a scarcity attitude by assembling minimal viable teams with minimal viable products utilizing minimal viable assets & resources applying communications principles & thinking to maximize opportunities as scarce moments in time.  That’s a mouthful but suffice it to say Velocity thrives in a minimalist view.

Comunicação and scarcity

Comunicação is a little different than America communication. It’s a little bit bolder and distinct (remember, resources, including time & money are viewed as scarce therefore need to be maximized). The design has more vividness. The strategy is a little more bold. The branding is more distinct. The communications have a little more edge. Generally speaking the ideas are treated as a scarce resource not to be wasted with ‘safe’ thinking & doing, but rather vivid thinking that demands people pay attention.

Criatividade and scarcity

Criatividade is a little different than American creativity. In a scarcity world everyone is expected to be creative (remember, resources are scare therefore need to be maximized) therefore creativity comes to life from unexpected places in unexpected ways. There are no thinkers and doers in a scarcity Criatividade world, just doers who think & thinkers who do – all the time. Creativity is only abundant if you maximize the scarce resources at hand.

In an abundant world options seem limitless and discussion can actually be infinite all of which just ends with a less creative ‘safer’ solution. In a scarcity driven world options are treated as limited so discussion is finite with bolder, more vivid, creative solutions.

Think: Value on the Move

The essence of Velo is enabling value transactions to happen as effectively and efficiently as possible. By treating the world thru a scarcity lens we maximize time, resources, minds & skills to generate brand velocity.