==

“Progress lies not in enhancing what is, but in advancing toward what will be.”

Kahlil Gibran

==

“In his pursuit of the dream, he was being constantly subjected to tests of his persistence and courage…”

The Alchemist, Paulo Coelho

==

We often discuss focus in terms of the present, but what about focus and the future? To be clear. I most likely have a different view on focus. I see focus as a 6 lane highway in which you are always moving forward. The center line is the moments of clarity (crisis, emotional investment situations, when things feel ‘the rightest’). The remainder of the time you’re staying on task (your horizon point) somewhere on the highway focusing on what is relevant to your survival and your progress.

In my mind today’s world seems less about focusing than it is active versus passive engagement with information.

• Passive engagement means flickering focus on fragments of interest/relevance or ignoring what is unimportant to your task (and, yes, you can miss some things but they don’t really impede your progress).
• Active engagement is seeking things to focus on to enhance your progress on the task (but you pick these things on the move because stagnant means getting run over).

That said. Engagement is focus. Ok. Its about focus. Returning to that highway, the 6 lanes matter because I think to forge your way thru a chaotic world you will get bludgeoned to death if you treat it like a straight-line gauntlet (note: you die in gauntlets). You actually have to be, well, ‘serpentine’ in interacting with information. You have to focus while moving so you don’t get overwhelmed by information. The key here is in the pursuit of progress, or ‘the dream’, you are advancing. That may seem like an odd way to discuss focus, but let me suggest we could learn a lot from young people about focus. Watch one play Call of Duty. Their ability to focus in a multidimensional way WHILE always moving forward shows a dimensional sense of focus we could all aspire to.

“Why are we so full of restraint?

Why do we not give in all directions?

Is it fear of losing ourselves?

Until we do lose ourselves there is no hope of finding ourselves.”

Henry Miller

Which leads me to focus and structural corruption.

Suffice it to say most people enter an occupation with a variety of aspirations aside from receiving a paycheck, and then discover that work is structured so most of those aspirations will be unmet, in fact, they cannot be met.

Suffice it to say most people enter into almost everything in life with a variety of aspirations aside from focusing on achieving some result, and then discover that life is structured so most of those aspirations will be unmet, in fact, they cannot be met.

This simplistic suggestion is the foundation for why people are disillusioned with work, life and the systems undergirding everything. This is, at its core, structural corruption. Oh. Structural corruption doesn’t materialize out of nothing.

“It begins with a private but clearly stated agreement within a small group to cut corners, to find ways of doing things that appear to be in its favor but fail to account for their broader implications. The behavior then spreads to the wider workforce that hasn’t been party to the original consensus, but which now views the practices that have resulted as standard operating procedure. Often years pass before it becomes clear that the breadth of the original agreement to engage in questionable conduct exposes the entire organization to compromise and reputation loss.”

See. that’s the problem with focusing on short term objectives. Short term objectives accept structural corruption, forces constrain systemic compromise, and tamps down the highest potential in the results. That means you can focus on the short term to your heart’s desire and I can guarantee you will never attain the highest possible outcomes (let alone attain aspirations). Focusing on advancing toward ‘what will be’ sees beyond structural corruption and envisions new ways of doing things and thinking about things. That is What I would call “advancing focus”.

Which leads me to advancing.

“Advancing” takes work, demands resilience and focus. Shit. Reshaping structural corruption takes work, demands resilience and focus. Why?

“Anyone who believes that we’re just going to leap into some sort of glorious new age is very unrealistic … far-reaching turmoil can be expected, as individuals and institutions either adapt to, or resist, change.”

Alvin Toffler 1990

To be clear leaders and governing elite talk about leaps all the time. The problem is that most of the ‘elites’ “attack everything in life with a mix of extraordinary genius and naive incompetence, and it was often difficult to tell which was which.” The consequence of this is for people to retreat rather than advance. Yeah. Self and community become the last defensive outpost on the barren battlefield of certainty, security, and safety. The battlefield air is further sapped of oxygen by the feeling the pursuit of a wealth is how the war is waged where nothing is measured by the quality, quantity, and ethics of productive labor but rather fealty to the amoral forces of global capitalism. This all creates a sense of quote do it yourself end quote individualism and a zero-sum attitude making any real safety elusive and fragile. And this is where I circle back to structural corruption. Because structural corruption has even seeped into the pores of what we view as a community. The seduction of a community in today’s world is a sheltered vision of the future dominated by the present because it is only within the present where individuals in the community can actually see and feel the cozy tranquility of certainty security in whatever freedom they may believe is accessible to them. The truth is the most promising kind of unity is one which is achieved and achieved daily by collaboration, debate, negotiation, and compromise between a variety of values, desires, preferences, chosen ways of life, and self-identifications. This suggests that unity is an outcome of coherence and not a given condition of similar collective interests. Structural corruption subverts the best of community and shapes it into a simplistic desire for defense against an uncertain unsafe world. This means two things about advancing.

• Advancing demands focus and work. In addition, advancing rarely incorporates retreating from the world. That is where focus comes in. The world offers an infinite amount of challenges and people only have finite energy. Active advancing is inextricably tied to effective focus.
• To advance is in some way to refuse to play the game by whatever rules the system suggests is a moral/ethical crime, i.e., against norms not just laws. The system encourages people to not see the game is not played the same way anymore. What I mean by that is it is no longer played between the bigger and the smaller, but between the quicker and the slower. Those who were able to accelerate faster and gain velocity are the ones who actually catch the power needed to be able to beat structural corruption.

This is where mass and gravity step in. To defy structural gravity in any meaningful way, a mass of coherent communities need to collectively fly, but that’s another piece for another day. Today let’s encourage focusing on advancing toward what will be.

So, I hesitated to end with this thought because Antonio Gramsci was a renowned Marxist, but the thought seems relevant: “the way to overcome cultural hegemony is by creating a new culture that is not based on the values of the ruling class.” And maybe that’s what it takes to advance towards what will be – a new way of thinking and a new culture. Ponder.

======================= 

“It’s easy to make a buck.

It’s a lot tougher to make a difference.” 

—–

Tom Brokaw  

============================ 

“In a dream world, everyone is treated with the same amount of respect. But until we reach that goal, I will lend my ear, I will lend my voice to any boy, girl, man or woman who does not feel like they can protect themselves.”

———-

Jennifer Lawrence

===========

Well. When you get to my age you sometimes pause and think “has anything I have done really made a difference.”

I tend to believe it is a reflective thing we naturally do because most of us have invested gobs of energy in some career, gobs of energy outside of the workplace with home & family responsibilities as well as gobs of energy in at least some ‘self fulfillment’ stuff.

We kind of want to assess life in maybe an ROI type way. That ROI idea may sound a little weird, but starting all the way in grade school where they pound into your head you should be involved in extracurricular activities <on top of schoolwork> all the way throughout your career you tend to measure your Life in an “energy-to-achievement” ratio way.

To be clear <part 1>.

We draft resumes being encouraged to espouse “differences we made on a business” wherein we take basic responsibilities, shit we are paid to do, and stretch it out into some dramatic outcome. Our professional lives seem to be driven into some simplistic ‘where I made a difference’ encapsulation which sadly derives it of the true rich & royal hues.

And, yeah, that matters. It matters because it is, more often than not, in those swirling colors where you personally find satisfaction – and meaning.  Yet, almost all of us distill our differences into simplistic black & white terms, or, in other words, we are encouraged to sell ourselves as “I am a good ROI.”

Now.

To be clear <part 2>.

This ‘pause & think’ isn’t about doubting any personal ability, or smarts or even accomplishments. I assume I am not that different than most people my age that I assume I have some ability, some smarts and some accomplishments.

The ‘pause & think’ is more about the ‘degree of.’

Am I really that good?

Am I really that smart?

Are my accomplishments really that good?

You start thinking about whether you have truly made a difference or if your “wins & accomplishments” were simply pedantic grind-it-out every day shit and that your losses were losses that didn’t mean anything anyway. Or, in other words, we are encouraged to think of our lives as “was I a good ROI.”

Now.

If you truly think about that you start thinking about what you have done and ROI.

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

“Hey, if I am going to lose, let me lose doing something.”

Sam Seaborne

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

Ok. I say all that because I received a couple of unexpected messages recently. The kind of messages that makes you pause & think … “maybe I did make a little bit of difference in some corner of the world”:

—————

Hi Bruce! I hope you’re doing well! It’s been a little while since we’ve talked. I just caught up with +++++ and a group of <college> students in Chicago last week. You set such a great example of leadership and teaching young people, including myself, a few years ago. I can only hope to have the same impact on this new group of students. I sincerely hope you’re doing well and I hope to keep in touch!

—————————–

Thank you so much, Bruce. You know I think about the day you pulled me into that little conference room at 151 W. 4th Street to tell me you were bringing me on to +++++++ – a lot. You saved my career that day. I will always be grateful to you for teaching me so much over the course of that year. Thank you for everything.

——————–

I am fairly sure no one gets a lot of these messages so I am fairly sure almost everyone cherishes them. They reflect some “return” on whatever we have invested.

But. You know. It is quite possible I look at ‘making a difference’ and my own personal ROI a little differently than a lot of other people. I know I would love to leave behind a legacy-like idea but, maybe more importantly, I would like to leave behind a legacy of ‘he made a difference’ – however that comes to Life.

That drives me and what I do and say <and write>.

The dilemma with pursuing thinking like this is while it has a high appeal for success <because it means ‘something’>, it is difficult, time consuming, <honestly> has a relatively low chance of success and is not the kind of thinking that really pays the bills. I imagine any life ‘purpose’ decision, combined with the fact you have to sustain and maintain everyday life responsibilities at exactly the same time, makes you ponder this unfortunate dilemma.

I can unequivocally state anyone who makes a conscious decision to ‘want to make a difference’ should make sure they think that decision through. It is not one to be made flippantly and while I shared a couple of notes which makes it all worthwhile to me, mostly you do not get much positive feedback.

That said.

I will offer a thought as you think about the dilemma.

Some guy named John William Atkinson wrote Motivational Determinants of risk-taking Behavior in Psychological Review in 1957. He suggested that if you can choose the grade of complexity <difficulty> of a task most of the decisions are taken in a mid-complexity-level. Too easy tasks or too difficult tasks can neither provoke a strong feeling of satisfaction nor a strong disappointment and vice versa.

Highly motivated people often choose a realistic complexity of tasks whereas low motivated people choose tasks that are finally to easy or too difficult for them.

But. Here is where I think I would sit good ole JW Atkinson down and have a debate. If I set aside the fact bills have to be paid at some point, I would say he doesn’t give ‘appeal of success’ enough emphasis. Especially if the appeal of success is tied to “doing something” or maybe better said ‘doing something that may truly matter.’

Huh? As Sam Seaborne says “if I am gonna lose let me lose doing something.” What I mean is that if you consciously decide to ‘go big and win big <or lose big>’ your satisfaction criteria changes and, therefore, you are willing to plow your way through more complexity and difficulty.

Look. I don’t think I am different than most people. We all want to ‘do something.’ Deep in our heart of hearts we want to know that we have done something that matters. I imagine, in a ‘big impact’ thought kind of way, somewhere in all of us we would like to leave the world a better place than the way we found it <and everyone can define the extent of ‘better place’ in their own minds>.

A friend of mine once pointed out that this ‘go big ideal’ can often simply be making a smaller difference in someone’s life. He is right. And if that is as good as it gets, well, that ain’t bad. But sometimes the desire to ‘do something’ is bigger than individuals or individual moments. That doesn’t make it ‘better’; just bigger. Bigger as in my case I take ‘world’ literally and not figuratively.

That ‘bigger’ matters because Atkinson is suggesting that the size of the ‘do something’ legacy task can often lead to a complexity that increasingly makes it difficult to be successful <but the prize more tantalizing>. I think what he misses is that a desire to make a difference can mentally shake the motivation etch a sketch.

Anyway.

At some point I think we all make some decisions on whether to compromise ‘greater purpose’ versus ‘everyday grind it out needs & responsibilities.’ Day to day responsibilities <not just bills but true responsibility to others who count on you> is a real life factor in whatever you decide to do or not do. It’s not like you have a blank Life sheet and put on it “do something that matters.”

The sheet is never blank.

You have cars, mortgages, children, mates/partners, work obligations, general shit that needs to get done. In fact, if you think about it too much, you will start thinking “holy shit, I want to make a difference but how the hell does it all happen?”

Well.

In the kindest sense you learn to balance or juggle.

In its harshest sense you compromise.

I would argue far too many of us confuse those two things and more of us actually compromise than we juggle. And I fear compromising has left far too many people numb to life or maybe just numb to their dreams. Or maybe, more specifically, numb to ‘doing something.’ or, maybe worse, numb to making a difference.

Me? I think I have always had some fear of that numbness if I end up compromising and avoid it like the plague.

I don’t know. What I DO know is that when you get to my age you focus a lot less on the ‘what did I do’ and ‘what did I not do’ and ‘compromise’, and a lot more on “difference achieved.”

Sure. I, as everyone else, certainly want to be happy. Live. And love. And be loved. Travel. See things. Meet people. Meet more people. Learn. And have offered some value in all that.

But, today, I’m focused on “doing something that matters.”

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

“The biggest human temptation is to settle for too little.”

Thomas Merton

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

Did I really do something that can leave the world a better place?

Did I really do something that made a difference?

Atkinson is/was probably a shitload smarter than I, but I gotta tell ya … even with all of his complexity & poor likelihood to succeed thinking, well, in my mind if you even have a glimmer of hope of getting to do something big … something really big … something that matters in a big way … something that someone would know really made a difference … I think you gotta go for it. It sure seems like you would want to do something, anything, which lends a voice to those who aspire to greater things themselves.

I mean, what the hell, if, in the end, I am going to lose or look like a loser, I want to know I lost doing something. In my mind I want to work hard at making a difference so that at some point, when all is said and done, there was a bunch of people saying “I wish I had sent Bruce a note.”

‘Cause I don’t need the notes. I just need to know they felt like they should have. In other words. I made a difference.

Just to close off this thought:

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

“You know the Greeks didn’t write obituaries, they only asked one question after a man died, ‘Did he have passion?’”

quote from the movie Serendipity

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

Even at my age making a difference can happen starting today. As I wrote in my obituary post years ago:

An obituary is not about what you can undo from what is done.  You don’t undo. It’s about moving on.

That, my friends, is a big thought.

Because a lot of people want to go back and fix or ‘undo.’

 Once again.

 You can’t. 

But obituaries can be written at any time.  In fact.  Many obituaries are written … well … when they are written … and that means they are written with “what is” as the case and point.  I guess what I am suggesting is that you can choose to unburden yourself from the past at any point. The good, the bad, the indifferent … none really matter.

Write your obituary from today on.

In other words, start making a difference today if you have not already.

In other words, seek to maximize your ROI to the world around you.

==

“I don’t know what they are called, the spaces between seconds – but I think of you always in those intervals.”

The People of Paper by Salvador Plascencia

==

“Social capital. Connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arises from them.”

Robert Putnam

==

We think we never have enough time. For anything. We constantly feel rushed and forced to ‘do’ rather than explore. Maybe that is true; and maybe it is not. But the consequence is that we don’t think of time as something to be used; we just ‘manage within it.’ Well. Maybe we should explore the spaces between seconds for a bit today. that may seem crazy, but if we average (which means there can often be much more) 30,000 decisions a day, well, the space between seconds can loom just a bit larger. Now. That last point becomes a bit important. There are a shitload of good things swirling around us at any given point, any given space between seconds, but I would be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge technology has a nasty habit of over-empowering the more nasty parts of society. Or maybe the issue is we never really defined what we thought a better society was nor even offer up a vision to everyone, so that (1) technology overtly created things that would nudge us toward it – space between second by space between second and (b) show a scenario to society at large that they would incrementally nudge themselves toward somewhere within the space between the seconds – within the 30000 decisions they make daily. All that said. Everything is not positively emergent, therefore, spaces between seconds become important (as possible leverage moments).

Which leads me to what’s in the space between seconds.

Cultural norms, or societal norms, dominate the spaces. And if cultural norms provide the micro rules of individual behavior, then social capital is the emergent result of individuals creating cooperative communities. To be clear, not call cooperative activity generates social capital, the most productive cooperative activity is captured in repeated social interactions. Anyway. This is important because norms drive thoughts and thoughts beget actions. Think about something strongly enough and it will influence not only how we think, but how we act. It shapes what we do. Yeah. We become neurologically what we think. If that is true, I imagine we should be asking if we cannot think clearly, what do we become? As we get cognitively bludgeoned the bludgeoners actually impose a version of determinism. The technology, and overstimulation, exploits the natural loopholes in free thought and free will, and begins to shape, well, us. Biologically our brains are always in flux adapting to new information, new stimuli, new circumstances, and new contexts. This begets the question, in a 24/7 world, what if the circumstances and context are always in a flux? Can a brain constantly in flux accommodate a world in flux? Look. The brain, and all the neural circuits, are all subject to change. Feelings, seeing, thinking, learning, remembering, even perceptions, “the brain has the ability to reprogram itself on the fly, altering the way it functions” (James Olds). And, yet, to adapt, some things must be cast aside.

Which leads me to the power of the spaces within seconds resides in the flux.

Self is not a centralized all powerful entity impervious to time, space, ideas and connectivity. Self is a collection of constantly changing microsociety of ideas within images of what the mind ‘sees’ as well as ideas of what ‘ought to be.’

People suffer because they are caught in their views. As soon as we release those views, we are free and we don’t suffer anymore.

Thích Nhất Hạnh

That said. It is within the spaces that we actually assess; in real time.

• How am I different today then yesterday?
• Did I make a difference to anybody or anything?
• What could/should I do differently?

Yeah. In the spaces between seconds, we assess growth, impact and improvement/progress. Sure. Its good if we reflectively ask these questions to ourselves to assess how far we have come as well as how far we have to go, but the rubber hits the road in the space between the seconds. The space of microsocieties where larger societies are crafted thread by thread; stitch by stitch.

Which leads me to technology.

We cannot pretend that the space between seconds is too little to matter just as we cannot pretend technology itself doesn’t matter, i.e., it is how we use it that matters. I will suggest it is healthy to ignore the technocrats as, well, an inventor is not the most reliable judge of the value of their invention.

“if the experience of modern society shows us anything, it is that technologies are not merely aids to human activity, but also powerful forces acting to reshape that activity and its meaning.”

Langdon Winner

But the reality is many of our routines, and lives, follow the paths laid down by technologies. I don’t believe it’s a stretch to suggest that every technology is an expression of human will – in some form or fashion. What I mean by that is through our tools we seek to expand our power and control over circumstances as well as time and space. Well. I bet that sounds complex, if not overly complicated, when applied to spaces between seconds. Well. It is. But life is nothing if not complex or complicated.

We have convinced ourselves we do not have time for complex

And simplifying things is actually destructive – even to micro spaces like those between seconds. Oversimplification is not efficient. It actually demands more time in a variety of ways. The two simplest ways it does so is <1> the time we overinvest attempting to isolate the simplest version of what is anything but simple and <2> the amount of time & energy we have to invest to thwart misguided behavior & reactions to our oversimplification. I would be remiss, because this section is about technology, if I didn’t point out technology’s entire reason for being is to simplify. And it is human nature to take it’s simplification and, well, oversimplify everything. Technology destructs time and space and we embrace this destructive behavior gladly.

We do this destructive behavior because we have convinced ourselves that we all have shorter, and shortened, attention spans.

We do this destructive behavior because we have convinced ourselves in our perceived “never enough time” world we have to simplify everything <to fit everything in>.

We do this destructive behavior because we have convinced ourselves that in a blizzard of nonstop things constantly vying for our attention that the specie between seconds are (a) irrelevant and unimportant and unpowerful, or (b) catastrophic tipping points worthy of everyone’s attention.

We do this destructive behavior because anything micro is easy to not understand.

Anyway.

All I can really say is that if you navigate the spaces between seconds well, you will most likely live a meaningful, and full, life. Ponder.

=====

“Our culture made a virtue of living only as extroverts. We discouraged the inner journey, the quest for a center. So we lost our center and have to find it again.”

Anaïs Nin

I used to think society’s, or civilization’s, journey could be followed left to right, maybe not on a horizontal line, more like a roller coaster, but definitely like a timeline of sorts. I imagine I thought of a bit like continuous improvement, or progress, even if it had some fits and starts.

I do know we certainly talk about it this way. Agriculture revolution, industrial revolution, whatever revolution. Internet 4.0 <implying 1.0 and upwards>. And we relentlessly tie #’s to people to show “growth” on this semi-linear journey.

But I think I was wrong. Heck. I think everyone was wrong.

I actually think the better mapping of society and civilization is viewed like an atom.

Different cultures and people and ‘civilizations’ zooming around like electrons circling the nucleus.

From a grander narrative perspective this seems like I am suggesting who we were is what we are and what we will be. And, yeah, simplistically I imagine I am on some level. And if you buy that, conceptually, because all these electrons zooming around, because culture, and civilization, is made up of billions of ‘ones,’ it may often seem like we lose our ‘center.’

We really don’t.

Honest.

We don’t.

The center is always there. It is solid. It remains, and will always remain, the compass for that which is right. The nucleus holds it all together. However. What circles the center, the billions of ones with different demands and different needs and different likes and dislikes all of which desire different accoutrements for happiness, they never remain still and very often collide with each other.

And exactly the same time there are media channels and advertising and movies and magazines all screaming at the top of their lungs trying to distract us from our center with slivers of less then meaningful distractions. Distractions that make us question our center or maybe what we think is important <which can be very different from our center>.

Let’s face it. some of the people circling the center can be real noisy shits. In addition, the shit that circles our centers can be noisy sonuvabitchs. All so noisy that, well, it can be the only thing you hear.

And therein lies my point.

I disagree with Anais. Society, or civilization, doesn’t lose its center.

It cannot.

Why?

Because the ‘ones’, the billions of electrons themselves, never lose their center.

Because we, the ones, the individuals, don’t lose our center it’s just that sometimes we lose sight of it. Or we just cannot hear it on occasion.

Or maybe we just don’t listen to it hard enough.

Or maybe it whispers to make it more meaningful for us.

I don’t really think it matters.

Because we don’t lose our center. The center is always there, it is within us, as individuals and as a whole. It is the 8 billion <give or take given the few raging assholes in the world whose center is in their ass> and it is within the ones and it is all the same center.

Call it the moral compass.

Call it the good that resides within everyone.

Call it ‘knowing what is right and what is wrong.’

Call it the soul of humanity.

But ever suggesting we lose our center?

C’mon.

We never LOSE it.

We may misplace it on occasion.

We may just not be able to hear it over the cacophony of Life.

But we never lose it.

Which leads me to losing sight of the center.

Society is an abstract idea grounded in concrete norms, principles and beliefs. The problem is that the world has become less and less concrete and more and more abstract. This creates a societal shift in which structures that bound some individual choices, institutions and guard the valuable repetitions of routines and patterns of acceptable behavior struggle to maintain their shape long enough to let society gain some shape and structure. The cacophony of the world, and some of the tools bludgeoning society, deconstruct time and space so nothing can settle. Open societies have always been vulnerable to those in power (hands of fate), but in today’s world, a globalized world with a myriad of conflicting ‘hands of power’, many of the past certainties just can’t be obtained. So society and social life retracts not to some ‘center’, but rather to safety (they are often not the same). People hide within tribes, live behind walls, carry guns, and start embracing a number of activities and habits which simply increase the sense of disorder in the world through the paradox that the individual feels they are building order. The problem is all of these actions and activities are a function of the fact that a sense of fear is embedded within, stifling our ‘center,’ and, simultaneously, permeating daily routines, attitudes and mindsets. Circling back to fate, this gives us a sense fate will always strike without warning and is indifferent to not only us, but the order and certainty we are trying to construct for ourselves individually. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that infinite progress becomes unattainable in this situation as we substitute an uninterrupted game of finite objectives and tactics and our dreams get smaller and smaller. This all gets compounded by a governing elite which encourages us to believe there is no possibility of existential security through larger collective actions and shared interests. Instead, they encourage everyone to focus on individual survival, i.e., everyone for themselves, all cloaked in self-responsibility and individual expression. All this does is increase fragmentation and continue to tear apart the basic principles of collective action and shared interests and that tears apart our natural, human, center. Paradoxically, this creates some significant issues for governance. By encouraging all of this, society no longer believes they can be protected by the state or, at minimum, they are unlikely to trust the protection offered by those governing. As a consequence, the citizenry will encourage lashing out with military force or simplistic things like tariffs or isolationism as a reflection of an acceptance that there are certain forces that they cannot control and even worse there are no longer any hopes to be able to subdue the forces which could infringe upon individual survival. This is a negative mindset, negative against globalization, negativity against collective interest, negative against interdependence, basically negative against anything that optimizes or maximizes potential progress and prosperity and certainly negative against our ‘center.’ This is a world of despair. As Oscar Wilde said: “a map of the world that does not include utopia is not worth even glancing at for it leaves out the one country at which humanity is always landing. And when humanity lands there, it looks out and seeing a better country, sets sail.” Progress always resides in the chase of utopias never the realization. A utopia is always simply just an image of another universe different from the existing universe we know, or know of. What does this have to do with a quest for center? Well. The center of our being, collectively and individually, relentlessly anticipates a universe originated entirely through human imagination and human betterment. If you seek to leave a universe of grindingly monotonous life, you must imagine another world. It is at our center in which this imagination resides. Ponder.

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

But resounding with the truth of things prophesied,

But of things with truth resounds

Но    вещей    правдою  звучат

No v’eshchej   pravdoju   zvuchat

Its lips are covered with blood!

Lips covered with blood

Уста, запекшиеся  кровью!

Usta, zap’vekshi’esa krovju!

——

Ophelia’s Song: Alexander Bok

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

“Beyond a doubt truth bears the same relation to falsehood as light to darkness.”

–

Leonardo da Vinci

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

59squared.

3,481.

3481squared.

12,117,361.

12,117,361squared.

1.5 billion.

That’s three degrees and I am at almost 1/5^th of the entire world. Yeah.  The numbers are really not that neat, but you get the point. With a single event, a single death, one person can set off a chain of events that will affect hundreds of thousands, millions and even billions of people.

Some people call this “6 degrees of separation” <although I showed it to you as only 3>. I didn’t make up the squared concept. In some form or fashion it reflects the truth of the internet of things and connectedness and it shows the likelihood that the majority of us have some connection to any event in which 5, 59 or 559 people are part of.

I say this because it makes a lot of things, well, personal.  The main point here is that a person now has access and is aware of more people <true friends as well as web based friends> and can have more frequent communication due to the ‘digital revolution’.

Yet.

Social media is simply the fact that the traditional benefits of an acquaintance network <personal or professional> and friendships can be more expansively realized than before <it amplifies>. This means that truth resounds more quickly & clearly & bluntly than ever before. The other truth is that our own experiences, and Life, can then be at the mercy of crowds of friends & acquaintances — crowds providing unsolicited input & feedback & experiences all influencing hordes of additional people’s thoughts on a daily basis. This means whether you are present in one place, or not, you can be impacted in the present place you stand. You are a nomad in which the world remains your home.

Our world is now one large network consisting of two basic things – people and connections. And while many times we look at this as some forced or constructed network <Facebook, twitter, etc. provides hubs and constructs> the reality is that most people networks & connections are organically constructed. So while we like to draw out nice symmetrical shapes to define how connections work and networks are constructed the reality is that networks are more often not symmetrical.

The unique patterns in the connections determine the shapes. We reach out in asymmetrical ways to places, events and thoughts and bring them near in seconds. In addition the ties between the connections can be complicated – spanning from intense or passive.

In the business world we try to characterize networks and connections in a variety of ways. The trouble is that people are not that orderly and certainly not stagnant and they actively reshape their connections, interests and networks all the time.

But I am not here to discuss how the internet can, or cannot, affect personal relationships or a sense of individual isolation but rather this is a thought on how the internet can make things, and Life … well … smaller.

On most days the ‘quasi-truth’ that resounds in the echo chambers of what we talk about and ‘think we know’ is that the internet is isolating us … disconnects us from reality and social interaction.

So … is it possible that the internet increases connection and decreases connection at exactly the same time? Yup. The Internet connects and it isolates.

The usual assumption that most of us make about our computing and communication environment is that we are ‘always’ connected. Indeed, most of us are ‘nomads’ when it comes to computing and communications. We live in a disconnected world much of the time as we travel between our office, home, airport, hotel, car, coffee shop, bedroom, etc. We now recognize that access to computing and communications is necessary not only from one’s `home base’, but also while one is in transit and/or when one reaches one’s destination.

It is an anytime, anywhere access world. It is also, paradoxically, a ‘be anywhere at any time’ world.

That is the connected aspect which creates the whole disconnected aspect.

Well. Let’s just say we feel slightly disconnected in a connected way, of course, until something happens that tightens all the lines of connection.

It is within moments like that where the supposed 6 degrees of separation becomes less degrees and more links all of a sudden the 59squared aspect of connectedness occurs.

The world gets smaller … in fact … really fucking small.

We are brought together and something that happens to 5 people, maybe 59 people, or even 559 people, becomes an experience within our own grasp.

Which brings me back to truth and resounding.

The majority of our social networking constructs today are on the internet <or have a foundation on the internet>. Simplistically, we, the people, are connecting via the internet. What this means is that the internet muffles or amplifies our voices, events and truth <as well as lies unfortunately>.

What this means is that … well … an event, a moment, a death, an injury, resounds … resounds as in 59squared.

What THAT means is we have to face a truth whether we want to or not. Now. At that point we have a choice – see what we face or don’t see what we face. And if we refuse to face it we will remain disconnectedly connected in our little asymmetrical networks of friends & acquaintances.

That was a sad sentence to type.

At this point, my conclusion, I imagine it may be relevant to remind everyone of 59squared and the fact that I can do one thing, one right thing … or one wrong thing … and it will resound.

Choose your ‘one thing’ wisely.

I wrote this back in 2010 and have resurrected it with the news that Dan Hurley, currently the coach of defending NCAA basketball champions University of Connecticut, is talking with the Los Angeles Lakers about their open head coaching job. Regardless of how you slice this, life decision, career decision, ambition decision, or money decision, the money involved is a life changing salary. Coach Hurley, similar to Coach K as discussed in 2010, earns a salary the majority of us will never attain. Its a good salary. But he is now going to be offered money 99% of us cannot even imagine earning. As I tuck in later in the below piece – “you have to listen.”That said. My real point is that we often talk about how life is more than money, a career is more than money, and, well, money isn’t everything. All true; until is not. Sometimes the money is so ‘more’ that it suffocates all the other possible ‘mores.’ Ponder.

====

According to multiple media sources, the Russian billionaire (and owner of the NBA Nets) Prokhorov wanted to make a big splash by hiring Mike Krzyzewski as coach and GM (he has since turned them down). According to the report, Prokhorov was prepared to offer him $12-15 million (salary without extras) per season. Mike Krzyzewski’s 2009 salary as coach of the Duke Blue Devil’s men’s basketball team is $3.5 million.

When I read about this I started thinking about life changing career decisions. And mostly ones based on money. All I really can say to Coach K is if Mikhail Prokhorov is willing to pay that much, well Coach K, you should probably listen to the Nets’ job offer. Listening doesn’t cost a thing.

Because this is life changing money.

Look. Have I ever been offered 15 million a year? Nope.

But have I ever been offered twice or maybe 3 times as much as I was earning for a new job? Yup.

One sports announcer said “How could you not even at least consider it?  Its life changing”.

Now. To us little people it’s hard for us to fathom 3.5 million to 15 million (plus extras on both) as life changing. But 30k to 150k. Or 100k to 350k. Or 150k to 500k. You get it.

Yes. It is life changing. And it makes you evaluate what is important to you. And some people will argue “I will do it so that it frees me up to do something else later on.” And that kind of logic is as good as any I have heard. But. In the end. It is most often a life changing decision. And not just moneywise.

I did it once. I took the money. And it was wrong for me (that’s a personal decision and I am not suggesting everyone should think of it the same way). I ended up quitting to do what I felt was right for me.

Yes. I sacrificed a lot of money.

Yes. I thought about it afterwards.

Yes. I made the right decision (for me).

But that decision helped clarify some later decisions. And made some following similar decisions a little easier. But. Not easy … just easier.

Why just easier (and not making everything clearer down the road)?

Because Life changing money is just that. Life changing. And no matter how good you felt about the last decision you made if and when the next one rolls around a lot of money is a lot of money.

Should Coach k have listened?  Sure. Listening never hurts. Should he have taken it?  Well. That ain’t for me to say. He is a great college coach. I would envision just like the rest of us he thinks about what’s next when you have existing success. And then all the rest of things get put into the decision blender and you come out with a decision.

I guess my point here is about life changing money decisions. It is easy to say life and career is more than about money. That is until someone offers you double or triple or more what you are currently earning. Then money makes you forget about a lot of other things.

Coach K passed on this one. Does falling back on 3.5 million a year make it easier? Sure. I am sure it does. But 15 million is 15 million.

Making 4 times what you are already earning?

Gosh. Even at the most measly salary level that would make anyone pause and think.

Suffice it to say career choices, and decisions, are life decisions. Do not ever fool yourself into believing anything else. They are so intertwined it is difficult to separate. Especially when money is involved.

==

“Half the world is composed of people who have something to say and can’t, and the other half who have nothing to say and keep on saying it.”

Robert Frost

===

This is my companion piece to “business and what you have to say matters.”

I believe that is more important than ever that individuals speak out with regard to what matters to them. Of course, I prefer that the people who do so articulate those thoughts well and emphasize the rich nuance in most of the important things that should be talked about. With that said at the end of the piece I’ve included a quick thought with regard to being canceled or canceled culture because it seems inextricably linked to encouraging people to say what matters because it matters what you say.

Which leads me to say I say what matters to me; a lot.

Well. I write a blog. A couple thousand pieces and a couple million words. In my mind I have something to say and I say it. Maybe it all means nothing and as Frost suggests: “I am one of those who have nothing to say but say it.” Regardless. If I say it, I own my words. I say this because we are edging into a world where people are of an age that are shifting into leadership positions, positions of influence, who, well, have a history of some sort of online writing. And, uh oh, they are being demanded to justify their words, thoughts, and ideas. In other words. They are being asked to own their words. They may have had nothing to say, but they said something and now they have to explain something about their nothing.

This is all incredibly interesting <and slightly amusing> to me because if you go online, you will find thousands of writing advice columns <usually formatted in the heinous listicle style and written by self-righteous older people> written to the attention of young people warning them of the dangers of what they put online and how it can affect their future employment.

The amusing part? I found none <zero> advice columns directed toward, well, people of my age.

And you know why? Because we older folk are supposed to know better.

Sadly.

Some of us do not know better.

There are lawyers seeking higher positions, business people seeking a seat in a C-level suite and even doctors seeking to shift into a more general business world who are finding that their words are following them <and they need to own them>.  To be clear, no, “it was just my personal opinion on my personal blog” doesn’t hack it. If you shared a thought, you own the words in how you shared it, therefore, you own the thought AND the words. There is no personal/professional split, they are thoughts and words you own. That said. Personal thoughts and professional behavior split IS doable and actually a ‘thing,’ but that another piece for another day.

Anyway. To be fair I will spend a second in the tricky part of ownership.

Is the past a predictor?

Should we waste our time revisiting the online writings of someone who most likely sat down and vented personal thoughts on things of matter?

And, maybe more importantly, should we be held accountable for words we decided to put down and share on the world wide web?

Simplistically, I would say of course we should be held accountable for the words then just as, of course, what we said then may be different than what we would say now. We need to own all the words <and justify the difference>.

Simplistically I would say it is indefensible to solely make a stand on ‘you said it because you can’ and, simplistically, it is indefensible to simply say ‘that was then and this is now.’

If you write, you own the words. Therefore, use words with care.

If you make a point, you own it. Yeah. You own the words you use to make that point.

I make no mistake when I post something in that I know when I open my mind and share my words, they represent a potent formula that can be drunk with pleasure or peril. I know whether it is a large presentation, a one-on-one discussion or a 998 word post on my blog I am doing so as a public speaker.

I own my words. I own my thoughts.

====

“Words are singularly the most powerful force available to humanity. We can choose to use this force constructively with words of encouragement, or destructively using words of despair. Words have energy and power with the ability to help, to heal, to hinder, to hurt, to harm, to humiliate and to humble.”

Yehuda Berg

=====

I say that because I am surprised when older people get trapped in business discussions having to discuss things they may have written as if the words should remain ‘there’ and why should we discuss it ‘here.’ Its nuts. Its nuts because anyone with half a brain knows words are a constructive force or a destructive force. With either path I own what I construct as well as own what I deconstruct; and I don’t understand how you can get to a certain age, or a certain level, and not know that..

Now. What also surprises me a little is that older people who have blogs or write opinion pieces are not young inexperienced people but, if you are making a point, you really do know that simply ranting or using some childish phrasing or hyperbolic rhetoric diminishes what you have to say.

And I say that knowing I am free with the swear words and generous with snarkiness.

Anyway. I may not communicate what I want to say simply, but underneath the swear words, the snarkiness, the faux intellectualism and the casual use of grammar resides a desire to hit what I have always believed is the message simplicity bullseye <by the way … anyone, blogger, opinion writer and even a communications agency can use this simplistic guide>.

The bullseye.

On one axis you are bookended.

On one end is whatever issue & solution I can offer — functionally what I have to offer <my experience, my ideas, my thinking> — followed in toward the bullseye by … well … me, the writer, and who I am and what I stand for <so that my thinking gets filtered through who and what I am … lets call that my character>.

On the other end is the need or want or desire – functionally what is needed – moving toward the bullseye by what the situation, or people, may desire <or think they desire> so that pragmatism gets filtered through the sometimes random irrational minds of people.

The other axis is even simpler: hero, conflict and resolution. It is basic story telling applied to ideas. I want to offer a hero <it can be an idea> which can enter into a conflict unflinchingly or flinchingly if appropriate, and offer a resolution.

All this permits me even in my most dry pieces to attempt to offer my version of a story which, as stories are supposed to do, address deeper and enduring emotional levels tapping into personal “issues” such as self-esteem <conformity versus individuality>, self-doubt and economic wellbeing.

Everyone who writes should have a story. They shouldn’t toss out words thoughtlessly, or worse, irreverently.  Anger doesn’t guide a good story <typically> but as long as you continue to aim forward the bullseye even an anger driven critique can end up in an okay place when viewed by someone in the future.  And all of that matters if you assume at some point someone will demand you own your words.

Regardless. No matter the words, what you say, what I want today should be aligned with what I believe in. I can take a fairly hard stance on a variety of issues, and I have, but I also hope that my heroes & resolutions reflect adaptability to other’s views and the situation at hand. When I do meet new business people or people I haven’t seen in a while and sometimes they bring up something I have written, let’s say 5 years ago, I am good. I may not think exactly what I did then but my basic principled beliefs have not changed.

It surprises me when some fairly qualified people have not assumed that stance in what they have written.

And.

I certainly have no patience for those who are more than willing to toss out their own past words as “I said that then but now …” or “I wish I had chosen my words more carefully.”  I will not suggest we should all get our words right every time <I surely don’t>, but not all words are created equal and the really important ones, the potent ones, the ones that can construct or deconstruct, you should get right. Well. At least right enough that someday in the future your career will not hang in the balance over poorly thought-out communications. Conversely, if you did think it out and your career can hang in the balance over it, well, you made a stand**. Good on you. And backing off that stand simply to get to where you want to be is, well, not good.

Look. I am very much aware that what I say today is probably the reason more people do not speak out. The consequences are often real and harsh and unforgiving. So don’t say what matters to you if that is what you choose (albeit I would note that silence is empty space for someone else to suggest something about how you feel about what matters). But if you do speak out, I have no time and I have no patience for people who do not own their words. And they should be ashamed of themselves for discarding thoughts and words so easily just to get something they want now. Thoughts and words are far too valuable to be that disposable. Ponder.

• ** hanging in balance when you take a stand. So let me make a point about ‘cancel culture’ and ‘being cancelled for speaking out.’ I have written before cancel culture is bullshit. Everyone who has supposedly been ‘canceled’ is somewhere in the communication system, with an audience, screaming what they have to say at the top of their lungs. They never had their tongue cut ut and the never lost access to some platform. That said. Let me tell you DOES get cancelled – stupid poor communicators. You can have a minority point of view, you can even have a horrible point of view, and if you articulate it well, you do not get cancelled. If, conversely, you ‘dull axe’ your communication – which is usually simplifying something down to an idiot soundbite – you get cancelled. Yeah. Truly the only people who get cancelled are the ones who say stupid shit stupidly.

==

“And sometimes, against all odds, against all logic, we hope.”

==

It’s not that people should confuse fantasy and reality, but reality has depths and dimensions that go far beyond what can be seen. And it is within the depths of the less than obvious, the unforeseen, and the invisible within which the illogical and the improbable resides. There resides hope.

While, technically, hope is a simple definition, realistically hope spans a spectrum. In my words there would be, on one end of the spectrum, the more heinous version bookend of ‘offering a fantastical unrealistic thought’ all the way over to the other bookend of ‘grasping for some glimmer of a semi-impossible reality.” And then everything in between. Hope has many dimensions and within any and all dimensions even a sliver of hope has an exponential value beyond its mere size. It is quite possible that is where hope becomes a little dangerous – that exponential value beyond its actual size. Even with a glimmer, hope can shine so bright it can blind you to the relentless onslaught of truths and realities which can make that hope false. Now, false hope is maybe even slightly more dangerous <if anything could be more dangerous than be blinded by reality> in two ways:

• Contrary to belief the most dangerous false hope is not the one which is complete fantasy; it is the type that actually has some reality embedded.

Yeah.

False hope is not always some fantasy.

Yeah.

False hope is not always something with “no knowable chance of coming to fruition.”

Yeah.

Someone who purposefully propagates a true fantasy, something unrealistic, isn’t false hope, it is propagating a lie. And exploiting a lie is a heinous act <but that is NOT false hope>.

But, to be clear false hope can be propagated not as some false promise or lie, but rather in a weird ‘well intended way.’ Say, for example, someone has been elevated to a position who is unqualified and untested, but has some tested competency. They sit down at their new desk with all the intentions to succeed and all the words to suggest everyone should believe they will figure it out and succeed. Well. Let’s say they have strong well intended hope that they will do the job and deliver what they promise. This is a trickier version of false hope. It is propagated from someone who quite possibly has some false beliefs with regard to their own capabilities, but true belief in a good objective.

• False hope is more likely to blind you on the important little shit than the meaningless bigger shit.

False hope inevitably drives someone to focus on the bigger more audacious, and less likely, objective. This translates into the fact that same someone is more likely to overlook the smaller more important shit that would actually have increased the odds of attaining the hopeful objective. How does that most often happen? You are more likely to make some smaller more impactful poor choices and decisions hanging on to the sliver of false hope like it is a security blanket from the dangers of the reality you know must be out there. By the way. That is the main difference between real hope and false hope – in the nuts & bolts aspects. Real hope, which truly has aspects of reality embedded within, actually permits you to navigate reality’s obstacles as you pursue the real hope of something. Real hope does not blind, it actually opens your eyes.

Look. In the end. My point is hope is hope. And unless someone is lying just to get everyone’s unrealistic hopes up – any hope is better than no hope. It is the power to allow us to do things beyond logic and the odds. To be clear, all actions should be determined by reason, logic, and practicality within a construct of strategic hope. That is the main Hope equation.  But hope is, well, hope. And it is hope for a reason. You want something better and at the same time you are not omniscient nor a future prognosticator therefore any and all hope is fraught with some potential falseness and some potential truth. That said. Hope, in and of itself, is and has always been an abstract concept and fortune, luck, hard work and preparation can guide someone toward hope or away from hope.  Hope is never, and I mean NEVER, representative of certainty. Therefore, to accept any hope, you have to accept the existence of possibilities.

But. Hope helps people believe they can overcome any and all obstacles and get shit done. Anyway. I read somewhere that the average person will meet 10,000 different people in their lifetime – 10,000 people with their own hopes waiting to be inspired by your hopes. And, maybe in that point, if that is what makes someone get out of bed in the morning and go out and try to do something good or even just try, well, that’s pretty powerful. Ponder.

——————-

Don’t bring up the past of a person who is trying to improve their future

Please, do not stop people from reaching a good place in life because of things they cannot take back. It is so painful.

—-

via poesy

===========

When I saw this posted on a tumblr site it certainly made me think about how often we remind people of their past as a comparison to the good place they may be at today.

For some reason we must feel like the comparison makes the achievement more significant.

For some reason we must feel like we have to show a ‘from there to here’ journey in order to emphasize how far we believe someone has come.

For some reason we must feel like … well … talking about the past in order to emphasize something in the present.

But why?

The person certainly knows all this already.

The person most likely has no desire to revisit the past.

The person certainly reflects on the energy and commitment it took to where they are today.

I am sure we do it with the best intentions. But maybe those intentions are misguided.

I never really thought much about this until I read the opening thought and now I cannot stop thinking about it.

“Look how far you’ve come”

“Remember when you did <insert something>?

Wow.

Realistically, those are pretty shitty things to say to someone who has already put in the work, the effort, the mental fortitude to get to the good place they are in the here & now.

Why can’t we just enjoy the present as it is?

Why can’t we just celebrate what exists in the here & now?

Why can’t we just be happy with the person they are today without having to reflect on who they may have been?

The more I think about this the crappier it sounds.

I know I do it.

I know I often feel like offering perspective is an easy way to showcase the extent of some change I see.

I know I do so with good intentions.

And maybe that is a good and effective thing to do … maybe 80% of the time. Okay. Maybe 90% of the time.

But maybe that means 10% of the time I, and we, should ignore perspective and simply highlight the beauty of what is. And, frankly, accept that what is has value in and of itself.

I say that because a person who is trying to improve their future wants to feel joy and not pain. Or maybe better said … doesn’t need to be reminded of pain to feel joy.

So. Here is a thought.

The next time you run into someone you know is moving on to something better and is working really hard to improve their future treat the moment, the interaction, as a new place you have never visited before and explore it with the wonder of exploration and discovery.

===========

“Each moment is a place you’ve never been.”

Mark Strand

====

If you do this maybe you not only ignore the past but also will not confuse the moment with those silly semi-positive support-like platitudes like “keep going” or “the future you desire is now within your grasp.”

And maybe you help them reach a good place by simply enjoying the moment and enjoying who and what they are in that time and place.

All I know for sure is that having seen the opening quote and taking some time to think about it I will interact with someone who is trying to improve their future a little differently from this point on.

And I will certainly think long and hard before I bring up the past because, well, about the only thing it really does is bring up things left behind. I should assume if it has been left behind it is no longer needed.

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

“On s’engage, et puis – on voit.”

<you commit yourself, and then – you see.>

–

Napoleon

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

Commitment and patience and adaptation. I am fairly sure not a lot of business gurus put these three words together, however, the truth is the combination of these three ingredients is a powerful one.

Oddly it seems like not many of us learn this particular recipe.

First. How we engage. We tend to ‘commit’ one of two ways:

• tepidly. Oh. we claim 100% commitment but the majority of people are already investing in safety resources, redundancy protection and “what if” scenario making. In their words, their ‘commitment’ includes ‘committing to saving my ass’. We all do some aspects of this but we all need to recognize each ounce of energy on this is one less ounce of energy to whatever ‘commitment’ we have claimed to make.
• blinder commitment. Yeah. some people call this ‘focused commitment’, but that’s a nice way of saying ‘with blinders on’.

Second. We then tend to be less than patient. In fact I could suggest we are very often impatient in our engagement <but still committed to some plan>. I would suggest we often underestimate the value of doing nothing <and observing>. For some reason we attach ‘speed’ to engaging. That is a mistake. They are two distinctly different things.

Third. Adapting? Yikes. Paradoxically, if we do adapt, we would <in our eyes> bastardize the integrity of the structure of the commitment. Yes. For some reason many people see commitment in conflict with adapting. What this means is in most situations we are willing to stay the course with a plan … until the bitter end — “committed” in other words.

In business .many of us commit to a plan of action and believe staying the course creates the highest likelihood to succeed. And in our impatience we plow through opportunities to adapt. In other words, we don’t really ‘see’ … we just commit to a plan.

Now. To be clear. Napoleon also said “When you set out to take Vienna, take Vienna.”

I share that because the commitment wasn’t to the plan, but rather to the objective. And there is a massive difference. I sometimes believe in business <and Life too I imagine> we confuse this.

We commit and don’t see.

We commit and implement.

We commit to the means <the plan> and not the end <the objective>.

That said. Why?

Now <part 1>.

This may also be a reflection of a ‘cover your ass’ world we live in. What? If I do what I committed to do <the plan> and it doesn’t achieve the objective, well, “Ain’t my fault. I did what I was told to do” <or “I stuck to the plan everyone agreed was the best plan of action”>.

Conversely (the risk). As soon as you “see” <things just don’t seem to be going the way we planned> after you have made the initial commitment and adapt the plan, well … oops, you have assumed some responsibility. You are now accountable for not following the plan.

Now <part 2>.

You can always mitigate that responsibility by going back to the “all those who agreed it was the best plan” people and saying “here is what I see now that we have actually committed … and I think we should adapt in this way <to increase the likelihood we will achieve our objective commitment>”. The problem with this is timeliness. You miss the opportunity to make the change when it should be made. I will note that Napoleon was a master of adapting the original commitment within the proper window of ‘adapting opportunity.’

Gaining consensus on adapting <or a change to a plan> is a frickin’ bear. Let’s call it almost impossible. For sure we can call it ‘less than timely.’ Bottom line. Shirking responsibility <covering you ass> takes time.

Regardless. Risk analysis is simply part of business. Always has been and always will be. And it should be. Running a business without doing so is simply chaos; not running a business.

However.

Eliminating risk is impossible. Only mitigating risk is possible. And I could argue that not adapting after committing actually increases risk. That said. This is about attitude & not risk mitigation so I will say I wish in today’s business world we would spend less time building ‘the perfect plan’ and instead build ‘the best plan we can’ and commit … and see.

Look.

I opened with a Napoleon quote because Napoleon won a shitload of battles. He wasn’t perfect and his planning and plans were significantly less than perfect.

But the dude knew how to commit.

He knew how to engage when the window of opportunity existed.

He knew how to ‘see’ <adapt>.

He knew how to keep his eye on the bigger commitment <the objective … see Vienna … take Vienna>.

He didn’t confuse committing to a plan and committing to an objective. Frankly, I believe we get confused on this far too often in business <even at some senior levels>. In my mind more business leaders should be saying ‘let’s commit … and see.’ And not just saying the words, but walking the walk so the implementers do not feel as if the plan is something etched in stone.

Adapting is part art <seeing information, data, research and feedback as it is absorbed and ‘feeling’ its momentum & conclusions – remember: statistics can lie as well as people can> and part science <making sure you actually see the most relevant information & feedback>.

I will say that effective commitment, thoughtful patience and opportunistic adapting is not for the faint of heart. You may not need be a Napoleon, but you do need some of his attitude.

Just remember the prize.

To the bold comes the fruits of victory.