====

“The thoughts we choose to think are the tools we use to paint the canvas of our lives.”

Louise Hay

====

So.

This is about thinking.

Louise Hay is a motivational author who writes a lot of bullshit about ‘How to Love Yourself’ in self-help books. That said. This is an outstanding quote and thought.

We paint the canvas of our lives with thoughts.

Which leads me to thinking and happiness.

Thinking, happiness, and how all the researchers & self help analysis and rules to follow truly impinge upon our overall happiness.

Bottom line?

Those sonofabitches are facilitating our grumpiness; not happiness <aside to myself: ‘bastards’>.

“The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.”

A. A. Milne

If I could have sat down with A.A. when he said this I would have suggested that he add “the 4^th rate mind is only happy when its over-thinking thinking.”

Academics and researchers tear apart thinking to an absurd extreme.

Rational versus irrational.

Logical versus intuitive.

This versus that.

Sum it all up and you get a confusing picture of a human mind that is alternatively strong and weak, pliable and inflexible, constantly overwhelmed yet inevitably insatiable and … well … always contradictory.

After all this research, inevitably they all shake their heads and say ‘how we think is often irrational.’

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm …

Labeling thinking as ‘irrational’ is, well, irrational.

And silly.

Not because we don’t make irrational decisions when we think <because sometimes we actually do, but I would also suggest that irrational is in the eyes of the beholder>, but rather that we invest so much energy trying to analyze thinking.

In all of this analysis we obscure the true beauty and joy of thinking, in other words, the happiness found in thinking.

Thinking is expansive not constrictive – and we should discuss it that way.

Heck.

It often shouldn’t even be constructed.

And there certainly is no “how to” guide for everyone to follow <oops … a bunch of self-help authors are gonna send me some nasty emails now>.

The guard rails, or the steps, are pretty basic.

We hunt <for information>.

We gather <the information>.

We consider options <information>.

We cook up an idea or a thought <typically as informed information>.

** note: this can happen in 5 seconds, 5 minutes, 5 hours, 5 days … but the process remains the same>

Some people call this ‘stimulus – response.’

Some people call it common sense.

Beyond that?

It’s maddening if you try and analyze how people think.

Is there an art and a science to taking time to gathering more input versus making a decision?

Or how to sift through all the information you have?

Or how to make big decisions versus small decisions?

Or, shit, how to even identify a small versus a big decision <and how often do we get that wrong looking in hindsight>?

It seems kind of maddening to try and unravel all of that.

Why?

Its mental masturbation.

You really cannot do anything with the information you gain from all the research and analysis <there will be no “how to think” pamphlet to hand out to everyone when they are born>.

Look.

The best thinkers tend to need both logical and analogical thinking. They use subconscious and intuition combined with logical analysis. Sometimes even using what you don’t even know that you know as you utilize linear thinking and pattern recognition.

And the best of the best recognize some level above the logical. They somehow recognize an elusive “why” that will drive the idea.

Sound maddeningly unteachable?

It should,

Because it is not teachable.

In the end.

You have to consciously fill your brain with experiences, facts, knowledge and learning and then it is really the subconscious that makes all the breakthrough thinking.

Heck.

It is really the subconscious that makes all the thinking good.

It’s the subconscious which sifts through everything you have gathered and, well, you think.

Now.

Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do the thinking hard lifting or the analysis or the background work necessary because that stuff is the nutrition for healthy thinking. But. Recognize that the maddening part in really good thinking resides somewhere in the unplanned, i.e., in the subconscious.

By the way that’s the stuff that really cannot be taught or analyzed or researched or shared in some business book.

In a world where we put such a high value on completion and destination and results, thinking’s value is most likely found in the journey … the ‘looking.’

“Thinking is more interesting than knowing, but less interesting than looking.”

Goethe

We seem to try and teach thinking, and analyze thinking, with the intent of improving results. Uhm. This ultimately suggests you should be unhappy with your thinking if you do not generate results.

Nuts.

We should encourage more looking; more thinking.

Thinking makes us happy.

If we listen to all the self-help pundits we begin thinking that thinking is an unhappy experience without results.

Nuts <again>.

Our thoughts, and thinking, create the canvas of our lives; not results.

Anyway.

Here is the only thing I truly know <without gobs of research>.

Thinking is good.

Thinking well creates happiness.

Ponder.

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

“The woman who doesn’t require validation from anyone is the most feared individual on the planet.”

Mohadesa Najumi

===========

“Everybody is looking for validation, no matter who you are, and I think that’s a need of the human condition – to look for affection or recognition or validation.”

Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu

====

So. We all need validation.

It would be silly to suggest you don’t.

That said.

If you type in ‘seeking validation’ in google you get about 341,000 results in about .57 seconds and, well, they are almost all about ‘approval seeking behaviors you need to stop. ’

Well.

That sucks.

Basically what this means is that if you went solely by what you could find online you could quite possibly think that you should simply “damn the torpedoes and go full speed ahead without anyone’s approval or validation at any point in the trip.”

Basically this suggests “fuck what other people think … fuck approval.”

That seems slightly out of whack from reality to me.

Look.

I am not going to suggest you should be waiting around for someone to validate your behavior or your existence … but … it kinda seems to make some sense to receive at least some validation ‘nudges’ on occasion.

Why?

Well.

Maybe just to make sure you are still within the guardrails of what makes sense and that you haven’t completely lost any sense of direction.

Maybe just to make sure your head hasn’t got too big … or too small.

Maybe just to make sure you are still … well … doing the right things and making the right decisions.

To be clear. You absolutely should not assess self-worth from solely from external validation. That is not only crazy, but basically means you are chasing Life and not leading Life.

All I am suggesting is that external validation, when viewed as some sign posts in your Life road, ain’t a bad thing.

And, yes, even good external validation can be tricky.

Most people seek validation <for who they are, their behavior, response to a situation> because they worry they cannot be objective or that they might be prejudiced/biased by their own beliefs.

And, yes, that is a fair worry.

We are all influenced  in some degree by our own personal perspective on things.

But here is the big problem looming in front of you if you do not trust yourself because of this self-distrust – you are then assuming the external validators will actually be objective themselves.

Uh oh.

99% of the time that is a really really bad assumption.

Sure. You may assume that they don’t have the same prejudices as you.

Sure. They most likely don’t have the same things at ‘stake’ so are at least one step removed from any natural stress of the situation.

Sure. They will definitely have their own prejudices, perceptions, beliefs and attitudes.

While we all want that occasional validation from someone else because we consciously discount our own feelings, perceptions and opinions, you have to be careful to not make someone an expert even if they aren’t qualified to actually be an expert.

Here is what I know about validation and business leadership.

Decision making Validation.

You will need it on occasion if you are in a constant decision making position.

Even the best decision makers can get slightly overwhelmed. Not overwhelmed in terms of “I cannot make any more decisions”, but rather ‘it is hard to reflectively assess decisions when smothered in decisions’.

** note: this is important because most great decision makers adapt and assess contextual learnings>.

Part of what makes good decision makers good is decisiveness once decision has been made. Occasional validation maintains the decisiveness muscle.

Leadership validation.

You will need it on occasion if you are in a leadership role with responsibility.

This one varies by person.

Some people don’t need this often — kind of like maybe once a quarter you receive some validation that you don’t suck as a leader.

Some people need this a lot — kind of like every day.

Neither is good or bad, it just is.

One last thought on leadership validation.

This validation can be required in a variety of ways:

maybe you want to make sure you aren’t too much of an asshole

maybe you want to make sure you are communicating effectively

maybe you just want a general sense that people think you are doing an okay job as a leader.

The worst business leaders look for shallow validation – better than predecessor, well liked, ‘strong’, etc. they tend to seek a linear ‘cause & effect’ validation which tends to reside in the ‘look who is at the door’ type feedback.

The best business leaders look for deeper validation – the organization is optimistic, vision is embraced, confident of future success. They tend to seek what I call “ripple validation” which tends to reside on the horizon type feedback.

Anyway.

We all need some validation on occasion.

And I get a little concerned when the only advice out there is about ‘how to ditch approval seeking behaviors.’

I kind of wish we had more ‘effective ways to gain some validation to maintain effectiveness’ type advice.

Because we all need some validation on occasion.

=====

“A person’s success in life can usually be measured by the number of uncomfortable conversations he or she is willing to have.”

 Tim Ferriss

=====

“I await with patience a catastrophe that is slow in coming.”

Albert Camus

=====

Have you ever noticed that in business when someone says “go big or go home’ someone else will immediately attempt to break it down into measurable components? Well. That’s fear.

Fear drives us to make things smaller. What do I mean? ‘Bigness’ is to be feared so we “break things down into measurable components”, i.e., “small”, to eliminate fear (under the guise of driving objective driven results). While seemingly smart, its actually dumb. It puts you on a results treadmill which, when stopped, brings everything crashing down.

It like what Zach Mercurio says, “live by results, die by results”, in which once you have made things small the only thing people fear is not making the “goal” … over and over and over again.

But the more important issue is this fear separates. This type of fear attempts to be “anti-systems” in that it attempts to defy systems thinking that improving a part does not improve the whole and that you need to work the system, not the parts, to optimize the whole. Everything gets compounded by a growing attitude that the more you actually BELIEVE things are separated, and better separated, the less you are actually part of reality. In other words, you separate yourself from the reality of connectedness. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out this separation also applies to measurement of self. Time sheets, accounting for activities, project lists to be checked off – at home counting calories, timed runs, etc. each ‘separate’ activity looks and feels healthy and important when isolated but, in its isolation, it ignores the connectivity to other things on which success is dependent. And we wonder why shit doesn’t happen? And we wonder why we fear attempting anything? If we break things down, separate, the pieces and parts may meet some random objective, but that objective becomes meaningless in the greater whole of things (reality) as important other things aren’t done or reality, in its wholeness, is more important than the individual part separated out.

Regardless. All of this simply ignores the bigger issue – fear of big, seemingly uncontrollable, often difficult to measure, rarely obvious cause/effect, impossible to predict, things (the things that actually drive business success).

And while that last sentence I just offered will generate a lot of agreement, everything prior will sound crazy to productivity-focused people who believe there has to be extrinsic guidance or people will never be ‘maximized’ or optimized if they aren’t ‘challenged” by some stretch goal <i.e., something measured>. They see each separate objective as a whole in and of itself. They see separation as a way to meet the “whole’s needs”. They see the path to success in having ‘leaders’ lead separated parts (teams) to challenge other teams in achieving a larger vision. Inevitably they will warp separation into some coherence story in which the guiding light on the hill is the grander company vision.

The aggressive pursuit of a specific short term effort cloaks fear of pursuing something bigger.

This fear is driven by a desire to rationalize. I believe organizational design experts call this “rationalizing organizations.” Rationalizing organizations exhibit a tendency towards hierarchies, reductionism and the maximization of efficiency, predictability, quantification (measurement, milestones, results) and control. Well. That does sound rational, doesn’t it? All organizations desire efficiency, plan against some predictability, like to measure results, and control as much as is possible. Each, in and of itself, sounds quite reasonable. It even sounds like the most manageable way to manage large quantities of work and complex business dynamics (making sure things get done when they need to get done, resources applied when they need to get applied (or used, and things get to market when they need to get to market). The problem is it is reductionist and therefore shrinks potential, condenses opportunities and actually scales down the organization. This problem gets compounded by the fact if each separate part is chugging along there will always be some dashboard with some asshat standing next to it suggesting the business is actually scaling up to market needs – but its not. its not scaling at all. It is simply meeting condensed objectives and, well, smallness. But in that smallness, fear is diminished and confidence increases. It increases confidence in, well, task completion. And encourages the business to increase the # of tasks. And, in general, that could be a good thing, but, in general, it simply means output is always proportional to input and by measuring you ensure the input is always proportional to the output outlined. Yeah. Read that again. It’s a doom loop of measurement logic. It is reductionist business management in a dynamic market begging for expansive ideas and doing.

And while what I wrote may sound harsh in its critique, to a rationalizing organization it sounds, well, rational. It attempts to make trying to make systems, inputs, outputs, and even people, behave deterministically.

But there is an even more insidious aspect to this fear-based productivity thinking. The rationalizing organization convinces themselves by doing business this way people will be happier. Yeah. In business we are infamous for creating tangible milestones and objectives and in doing so we expect people to be emotionally invested in achieving the ‘thing to do’. Its kind of like the industrialization of happiness. Personally, I think its nuts. It is simply shit that needs to be done and the organization is cranking out that shit how they deem best for the business – not people.

The reality is a business driven by this type of fear, separates to create priorities (under the guise of efficiency and predictability). I can almost guarantee every rationalizing organization has a fantabulous vision but they have decided people will not really know how to get there on their own so they, inevitably, create a separate priority to replace the vision.

This can even get compounded into a worse space when each ‘separate’ thing is communicated as ‘the main thing we need to do.’ Created main things, if you are not careful, are rabbit holes. You can follow a created main thing as persistently & stubbornly as if it is a real main thing and end up in a really really bad place.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out managers in rationalizing businesses are infamous for creating ‘main things.’

What these managers don’t realize is that their employees see right thru the created aspect. Far too many times managers step back saying things like “I don’t have the right people to implement the important objectives’ or the ones with good intentions focus on the wrong things like ‘I need to learn how to motivate my people’ <only to implement some of the wackiest motivational shit you will ever see>. Not enough times managers don’t look in the mirror at the actual stimulus, the identified separated ‘main thing’, and truly challenge whether it really is a ‘main thing’ rather than simply a business objective we need to attain for the good of the business.

Let me suggest that, in general, embracing an ‘outcome is the most important’ Life philosophy is a slippery slope. A ‘destination-based business model’ <continuous objectives, goals, targets> is simply putting your people, and business, in cage after cage after cage, all under the assumption by doing so your business will fly.

This is nuts.

Which, finally, leads me to the root of the fear: abstract versus tangible

Infinite is abstract. Finite is tangible. Unless you can tether the infinite with some narrative, some vision, some story, some metaphor, running a business with an infinite mindset is going to feel a lot like chaos. And it may actually be (although it may not be in that there are other surrounding principles which permits the organization to act in a coherent way).

Another abstract versus tangible aspect is value. Now. Most businesses do not discuss finite versus infinite in terms of Finite value versus Infinite value. They should.

In business Finite value can most often be found in maximizing a transaction (between purchaser and enterprise) – maximizing present value.

Infinite value can most often be defined in maximizing a life (of a business enterprise) – maximizing future value.

Ponder.

In the end.

While we cannot control the future, we can certainly control the conditions of how the future we want is constructed. This is actually probabilities management, not goals management (kind of the business version of “push versus pull” marketing strategy). That said. Business generally defies most planning (finite management) and embraces ‘smart strategic opportunistic” behavior (potential management). Yes. There has to be an artful balance of finite, self-interest/transactional, and infinite – the larger greater good, i.e., “self-interest cannot be separated in the long run from the interests of the business.” A good business demands a buy in between the individual and the collective wherein the individual ‘self authors’ (autopoietic) with an accepted vision of the larger group so that all decisions & actions remain coherent.

** Note: Autopoietic – self authoring.  Business is emergent in that people self-author their own definitions of success and self-narrative versus business establishing the definitions with which an individual should judge themselves (and be judged).

** Note: Autopoiesis (from Greek αὐτo- (auto-), meaning ‘self’, and ποίησις (poiesis), meaning ‘creation, production’) refers to a system capable of reproducing and maintaining itself. The original definition can be found in Autopoiesis and Cognition: the Realization of the Living (1st edition 1973, 2nd 1980)

Look. There is a difference between analytics and measurement. Analytics are the science behind a business success <measurement is the use of analytics>. Attitudinal is the art behind a business success. In my mind I lay both these pillars down and when I can figure out how to make them coincide <not remain separate> I believe the company/product/service has maximized value. Once again, not separate, but whole. Solely focusing on analytics, through measurement, is always tempting because it shows some aspect of ‘cause & effect’, but it also has a nasty habit of driving a business into focusing on ‘the tallest midget’ aspects of building a business <and it is absolutely short-term management>. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out here that discovery is actually the measurement.

Anyway. The truth is people, to be at their best, need to have some core consistency (passion, vision, character, what is valued, whatever), some finiteness, in order to be free enough in the infinite universe to be successful. Not to get too philosophical, but a successful business is always a fragile balancing act between being independent from the external environment and actually of the external environment. In other words, balancing the finite and infinite. Business demands not only recognition of the finite (some measurement) versus infinite aspects of business itself (some unmeasurable), but, most importantly, also the people who make the business work.

But.

Business will find none of what I just suggested by measuring everything.

Ponder.

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

“And in that moment, I swear we were infinite.”

Stephen Chbosky

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

—

“Somebody once said we never know what is enough until we know what’s more than enough.”

Billie Holiday

—

Happy Thanksgiving.

Thanksgiving is about turkey, mashed potatoes, cranberry sauce, stuffing and pumpkin pie.

Uhm.

Or how about a Bucket of Balls?

Yup. Turkey testicles.

—–

Have a ball at Timothy O’Toole’s Pub in Chicago.

This casual sports bar has made a tradition of serving up crispy, deep-fried turkey testicles during the holiday season. The meaty nuggets are ordered by the bucket and are accompanied by ranch, barbecue or buffalo dipping sauce. The balls have become so beloved that the bar holds an annual Black Wednesday (that’s the day-before-Thanksgiving) turkey testicle-eating contest where the winner takes home a frozen turkey.

—–

Sigh. Only Americans could create a bucket of balls for a Thanksgiving tradition.

Anyway. The first Thanksgiving was more like five deer and some birds, a shitload of shellfish, twigs, acorns and, well, no pie.

In fact, the feast the Wampanoag Indians and Pilgrims ate in 1621 was, ducks, maybe a swan <gulp>, shellfish <thin clams or mussels>, nuts <anything they could mash>, no sugar <so no stuffing or cranberries or, well, pie>. We know the colonists regularly consumed ducks, geese and swans. And, instead of bread-based stuffing, herbs & onions or nuts might have been added to the birds for extra flavor.

Turkey or no turkey, the first Thanksgiving’s attendees almost certainly got their fill of meat.

Fairly bland, but at least the Pilgrims & Indians weren’t killing each other <like many families do on Thanksgiving, uhm, I note that so noone thinks killing each other around the Thanksgiving table is actually a tradition>.

Anyway. I cook a turducken every thanksgiving. It is this fabulous creation of layered turkey, duck and chicken with a spicy stuffing mix. It is an, admittedly, exorbitant excessive culinary delight.

And as I gaze at it I thought of all the years in the past as I lived a nomad life away from any family, my own or anyone’s, and I think of the solo trips to islands and far off countries and … well … luxuries many people have never had the opportunity to enjoy.

At that time I never thought anything about the ‘luxury’ or any sense of extravagance.

At that time, in my mind, I deserved the break.

I say this gazing at my turducken when I know people in other countries … shit … in cities in my own country … will never know this luxury adorning my dining room table.

Am I altruistic?

Shit no.

I tend to believe I am simply gaining some perspective on what I used to consider, well, I deserved. And it makes me reflect upon people and how they think about ‘what I deserve.’ And as I begin discussing ‘what I deserve’ I will hearken back to the original Thanksgivings and the fact the original pilgrims were not called pilgrims.

—

“Those who were members of the Separatist Church Movement referred to themselves as ‘Saints.’ About 60 others who came over in the Mayflower with them were called ‘Strangers.’ But they all knew how to have fun and enjoy life. They made and drank a lot of beer, hard cider and something like today’s brandy.
Occasionally there was drunkenness and fighting.”

So. The original thanksgiving was a celebration for the harvest. in other words, for work. It was kind of the first Labor Day.

It was not indulgence, it was not extravagance, it was a celebration of real output <not income>.

I would suggest it was an understanding of balance. And an understanding of the Life value proposition – work & what I deserve.

Look.

That is a hard thing to understand.

It seems like it should be easy, but it is not.

—

“The hardest choice in life is usually between what you want, and what you deserve.”

Rashida Rowe

—

Society makes it tough. Particularly today’s society. “Society”, as it was back then, were the Pilgrims as a small tight knit group of people with similar attitudes honed by similar hardships. They had a common interest in success and outcome from hard work. All those things make it easier to not only understand the balance, but share the balance.

Today?

Today it is difficult.

Society makes it difficult.

Society has a nasty tendency to complicate our understanding the ‘deserve’ balance.

Everywhere you turn there is the message screaming at us that we need to give ourselves a break and have a treat:

==

Girlfriend, put your feet up and enjoy a mani-pedi.

You deserve it!

<note: …. always with an exclamation point>

–

Hey mom! Following an afternoon with your crazy kids, you deserve a stop at the mall to treat yourself to new shoes or that designer handbag or, well, whatever you want!

<note: …. always with an exclamation point>

–

Life got you down? Retail therapy! You deserve it.

<note: …. always with an exclamation point>

==

While I focused on women <because there is an inherent underlying capitalism theme that women are being too hard on themselves — juggling the duties of being mothers, wives, professionals — all at once and should spend money to solve that> the fact is that all of us are encouraged, because we demand too much of ourselves, to ‘stop punishing ourselves’ and go out and indulge ourselves in some way as therapy.

Ok.

First.

I am all for breaks.

But in the good ole days Thanksgiving was but one indulgent break from 365 day toil. That is a well deserved break.

In comparison. Today?

Weekly pampering?

Monthly reward for work well done?

Daily indulgence of something to break the day up?

Where is the number?

What is the number?

How much do we truly need and doesn’t more of it actually:

<a> make us expect more (answer: yes), and

<b> create the impression we are sacrificing more in our everyday toil (answer: yes).

Secondly.

Uhm.

Instead of “punishing ourselves” by plowing through life we reward ourselves with making purchases that sit on a credit card <called ‘debt’> or spend money on some intangible indulgence which depletes four wallet size <and savings size> which could be used to actually accumulate something that could actually bring us closer to whatever our vision is.

Look.

Before everyone gets defensive about how many indulgences are required to get you through the week, consider the source of your belief that you need some indulgent break every week.

Were you really raised to believe some continuous indulgence <under the guise of ‘reward’> is a basic part of human life?

Or was the idea planted by some marketing genius promoting therapeutic benefits of whatever indulgent behavior they want to sell you?

Let me caveat this a bit by acknowledging life can be a grind and that the way work is conducted, for the most part, certainly makes us seek something better or some off-ramps on occasion and certainly encourages us to think we desrve better <or something more than what we are getting>.

That said.

We all should use every opportunity to better ourselves. And this includes thinking about what we truly deserve.

But what we deserve is, and should always be, balanced by our understanding of ‘effort.’ And effort should be all about making every minute count.

Let me be clear.

I love the American ambitious ‘you can do anything’ culture <although it has been warped a bit by the “hustle culture”>.

And I dislike it at exactly the same time.

Why?

Because it is a constant struggle.

All of us get tugged by ambition <work hard> and at exactly the same time get tugged by fairness <value for my work as part of everyone else’s work>

No.

I am not suggesting you cannot have and do both.

Yes.

I am suggesting it gets tough to balance.

One is driven by individualism <what I deserve and I want a good happy Life>.

One is driven by collectivism or some version of pluralism <I would like everyone around me to live a good happy Life>.

It is natural to focus and put a heavier emphasis on the “I” portion, especially at first because you typically have nothing <or little> and you believe you need ‘something’ before you start worrying about fairness or general Life happiness of others.

So. The true struggle occurs once you … well … have.

You have invested the effort, you have worked and focused and did and all of a sudden you have entered into the “I deserve” mentality <zone>.

That is actually a byproduct of ambition. Ambition, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. Unfortunately it brings some baggage along with it. It’s almost like you go on this ambition trip without any bags and when you get off the train you have a bag you carry off. The bag is a metaphor for tangible shit you have accumulated <which reflects your effort in your eyes as well as the eyes of those who look>, but it also contains mental shit. Self value, self-actualization and self-esteem. And it is the mental aspect which builds up the ‘deserve equation.’

We almost consider it as an aspect of winning … as in ‘winning in Life.’

I played the game.

I put in the effort.

I deserve the trophy.

And maybe that is where we get it wrong <sometimes>.

Playing the game versus winning.

Life, in general, is not measured by how many wins you have <or awards you get> it is about how you play the game. It really shouldn’t be about “winning in Life” it really should be “Life played well.”

Unfortunately, that is not part of the USA DNA.

We are an ambitious group of people who like to have, and measure, progress.

We are a group of people where ambition is not a negative word, it is indicative of a positive spirit. It is indicative of an underlying competitiveness which resides in the souls of 99% of Americans. I am not suggesting it is the only characteristic within us .just that it is always there and always suggesting ‘keep going.’

—

“The problem in France is that ambition is not a compliment.

It’s almost a bad word. ‘Ha, look, he’s ambitious.’

So that’s a very difficult situation for an athlete: As soon as you try to be ambitious you have people mocking you.

For instance, we would never have made the war in Iraq. On the other hand, we may never win anything.”

Bouin

—

This is not about slamming USA.

Shit. This is not about slamming your own ambition.

This is not an indictment of a ‘can do’ spirit or an indictment of ambition.

This is simply a reflective moment on how we think about what we deserve on Thanksgiving.

We deserve more than a ‘bucket of balls’ on Thanksgiving.

We deserve a sense of success for effort. Not anything truly tangible, but a sense.

We deserve a good sense and a good feeling for playing the game well, and with effort.

If we figure that out, I tend to believe all the rest will simply fall in place. Ponder. And Happy Thanksgiving.

=====

“Cease, Man, to mourn, to weep, to wail; enjoy thy shining hour of sun; We dance along Death’s icy brink, but is the dance less full of fun?”

Richard Francis Burton

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

Well. This is about attitude and business and the occasions in your work life when you have the opportunity to dance on the icy brink of Death.

Oh. And I will make the point that dancing is … well … dancing <brink or not>.

Now. Unfortunately many people don’t look at dancing on any icy brink of death that way. They look at where their feet are instead of what their feet are doing. They get freaked because they are being asked to dance along Death’s icy brink.

Let’s be clear about this moment. You may be on the icy brink of Death <in some business situation>.

And yet.

The sun is out.

The spotlight is on.

My point? The icy brink moments are not the dark days. They are absolutely not the plodding grind it out days. Nor are they the days burdened by mistakes or failure. These are the days where, as you dance on the brink,  everything is clear and uncluttered and bright and warm and, well, let’s identify them as the moments where you sense — “this is it.” Yeah. This is “it” … one of those moments where you go big or go home.

These are the moments which business people dream of <or you should>.

You know what I mean … THOSE moments.

Everything clears, and is clear, and you have the opportunity to dance. To do your thing. To, well, suffice it to say many of us in business dream of these moments. It is here I will point out these moments are actually often few and far between.

Yet. So often, far too often, people hesitate to take the opportunity to dance.

Instead.

People mourn.

People weep.

People wail.

People gnash their teeth in despair.

People “wilt.”

They don’t see the opportunity to dance. They only see that their feet stand on the icy brink of Death. They only see uncertainty and <possible> death if they slip.

Now. Let me be clear. No really good business person actually aims to dance on the icy brink of Death. But that’s not really the point. Much of business is simply managing the moments that arise. You see the moments and some shit you can control as well as know most you cannot control. And the majority of the time these moments to dance, your moment, is not created by any plan you have developed but rather in spite of your plan. No plan goes as planned. And therein lies the dances that occur on the icy brink of Death.

And I say that because a shitload of people don’t dance because they are too busy regrouping around the ‘plan’ to see what went wrong. They gather around to discuss why the hell we have this <unfortunate> ‘opportunity’ to dance ON THE ICY BRINK OF DEATH <they moan>. Then sit around the table and gnash their teeth … and wring their hands … and seek to blame someone.

In other words, do anything but dance.

And you <as in the people who do not shrink in these moments>  want to frickin’ dance.

Well. Those who want to dance in those moments? Those are the people you are looking for in business. They do not focus on the uncertainty of dancing on an icy brink, they are only certain they know the dance.They are the ones  who see dancing as dancing — where they dance is almost irrelevant to them. They aren’t clueless as to the location of the dance <therefore they are careful where they put their feet> but other than that they don’t care where the dance is — just let them dance.

They enjoy the sun, the clarity, they ignore the moaning and wailing, and they frickin’ dance.

My point?

Pretty simple. In business all that matters is being able to dance and enjoy it. Because if you enjoy it, you will be successful. If you focus on where you are dancing, well, I imagine in some way you are claiming dancing is best, or better, in some places rather than others. These people, I would argue, seek the wrong things & actually can be a little dangerous to your business.

But. The people who just like to dance anywhere? Whew. I believe those who don’t care where they dance are the best of the best. The business people you kill for. The ones you pay a little extra for to keep around.

But that’s me. That’s how I think about this.

I know I have seen some great dancers, mostly younger, who never get an opportunity to dance on the icy brink of Death not because opportunities don’t exist, but because senior management does:

<a> anything but dance when on the icy brink,

<b> anything to get away from the icy brink or

<c> anything to explain why the opportunity to dance was actually occurring on the icy brink <or all of these or any combination of these> rather than there is an opportunity to dance.

Once again. Good business people don’t seek dancing on the icy brink of Death. But neither do they not dance there if the opportunity arises.

Anyway.

Just think about it. Because in the end dancing in business is not only exhilarating in that it’s usually the stuff that gets the heart pumping and when good stuff happens but, well, that’s kind of why you are working for gods sake … those moments.

I mean, if you think about it, all the rest of your working life is nothing but … well … no dancing.

So why miss any opportunity to dance, no matter where it is?

What follows is some serious advice mixed with seriously humorous glimpses inside new business in advertising. I had been peripherally involved in business development activity until 2001 or so. In the advertising industry most mid to senior level people only get involved on a specific meeting basis. Then in 2001, I shifted from Account Management, SVP level, and I took over specific business development responsibilities and it remained a significant responsibility for a number of years afterwards.

Overall, I was very surprised by a number of things when I assumed the responsibility (and, frankly, ongoing as I talked with more experienced business development people and consultants).

1. Most agencies in the consumer and B2B arena know an incredible amount of things about gaining new customers and yet they don’t apply one iota of that knowledge to their business development program

2. Most agencies advise their clients on prudent growth strategies (and even apply logic) and yet they don’t apply one iota of that knowledge to their business development program

3. Most agencies become a dysfunctional moshpit during new business (that doesn’t mean they don’t actually produce some excellent work/thinking, just that if there is ever a place where office politics, and egos, seems to gravitate, its new business process) not applying one bit of how to effectively address a client’s problem

Something wacky happens as soon as the words “business development” or “new business” are uttered. It’s like everyone forgets traditional customer acquisition knowledge, traditional account management principles and some common-sense business building knowledge.

My belief is that people within an organization should be able to seamlessly step into a business development program, maybe on a specific assignment, and contribute. How? The easiest way is to have the same process and same vocabulary so they can apply the same things they are doing (and how they are thinking) to the ad hoc project they are being pushed into (typically in a crisis pressure cooker where “seamless” is treasured). Rarely happens. Oops. Never happens. New business people tend to think what they do is unique, the process and situation is unique, therefore, they are unique in the agency in that they don’t apply the same language or process as the rest of client facing people do. Look. I don’t think I was a great business development person. I didn’t really have the dna for it and the agency politics chewed me up. When you are an Account Director (or group director) and an SVP you are typically more a CEO, when you are a business development director you are more a Sherpa for anyone who thinks they are a CEO (which is anyone involved in new business). Anyway, critique aside, let me break down the “Buying process” with some thoughts.

Part 1: Breaking down the “Buying Process”

Clients or call them ‘Prospective Clients’ all go through the same process (I will talk about lists or building a client base in part 2). Go ahead and use whatever terms you use in your own industry (or your own organization’s thought process) on how you treat your clients’ customer buying process when thinking about it. Some of the words may sound archaic in today’s business world but I still find them helpful:

Predisposition

They either know you, know something about you or know nothing about you. Deal with it. quit wishing it was different and quit living in some universe in which everyone already thinks your agency is, well, they actually think about you at all.

Group your list into those who think similarly. Some will gravitate together. And even if you don’t know, guess. When in doubt assume they know nothing. I worked for one of the largest ad agencies in the world. Maybe less than 50% of general population knew who they were (it helps to remind yourself that your little corner of the world is exactly that – your little corner). Of those who recognized the agency name maybe over 75% actually knew one of our clients. Yeah. That is with one the world’s largest agencies. Humbling, but a good reminder. Thinking about this kind of stuff helps you think out what you actually want to say to people.

Stimulus

Gaining a new client is all about meeting a need they believe they have that was not being met. Period. So, you can either try to stimulate “a problem to solve” (a need) or simply make sure they know you can solve that kind of problem (when and if they ever have that type of problem). The former is stupid and desperate and the latter is good business.

But it is here where I have seen the best laid plans go astray with business development people. Under pressure from their own organization (‘why won’t they meet with us?’, ‘we should be working with them’, ‘we need business!’) a business development person tries to create dissatisfaction in the client’s current situation (notice I don’t call it overselling). Created dissatisfaction is not always a reflection of true dissatisfaction therefore this sneaky nuance dogs this kind of new business lead. The specificity can be good (so you can clearly address the situation), but when a new business person succeeds in this activity it puts increased expectations (sometimes unreasonable) on the table for the agency to deliver. This also translates into an increased likelihood that whatever “it” is cannot be consistently delivered in the experience phase (assuming you actually get there). So forced “stimulus” creates some big issues later on.

Does that mean you can’t generate stimulus thoughts? Nope. Sure can. They just have to be thoughtful and relevant. And the best situation is that the prospect doesn’t feel like it was forced, but rather it reached the conclusion on its own.

Oh. Here’s another thing. If they are happy in an existing relationship, that means they are, well, happy.

Trying to make them unhappy is difficult and it shows more about your own character (or lack thereof)

then it does any competence. Show respect for great relationships. You would like others to show you the same respect. And if they don’t have a problem they typically aren’t motivated to be “stimulated”.

Simply put – No problem. No listen.

Uh oh. The senior leadership team in your organization:

“Why won’t they work with us?”

Well. They don’t really seem to have a problem we can solve right now.

“Bruce, do something, don’t they know we have the new antimatter intergalactic social networking

gizmo?!?!”

Nope. Probably not. And they probably don’t care because they don’t have a problem.

“Well, we don’t care, call them. Set up a meeting. I want us to invest a lot of wasted energy and time we

don’t have so we can tell them about our gizmo they don’t know they need.”

Ok. Yeah. On random occasions that tactic can work in your favor. Have you ever noticed the “oh let me tell you about the time” war story of success that is told over and over again? – that’s because they don’t want to tell you about the 25 other times they forced their way in and the prospect said “nice gizmo, but I am happy with what we are doing and working with right now.”

Oh. Lastly. On the messaging. You don’t need to solve just one problem. Your organization can actually be good at solving a variety of issues. Remember that.

Consider

This is obvious. You are either in a consideration set or you are not. And if you are not, and should be, you can try to fight your way into the consideration set (which is tough because there are a boatload of qualified alternatives out there for people in general … oops … sorry … hate to tell you … odds are that you are not unique) or you can have a program set up in place that doesn’t make it a last minute “please listen to what I have to say”, but rather a phone call that says “hey, I have been sending you crap for over a year so I am reminding you that I can do this.” Oh. Which call would you prefer to make? My point is be in their consideration set, don’t ask to be in their consideration set.

Search

While everyone who is in a consideration set believes that should mean “why even look at others”, that is fantasy-like thinking. Any viable competent business person will do some research. In other words, they will search around a bit. This is making sure your website is updated and relevant. This is making sure that whatever you claim, you back up (as opposed to, “hey, we understand social media, but, oh, we don’t have an active blog.”). This is making sure that your organization’s employees can say the organization is good at the same thing the business development person has said the organization is good at. This is just making sure you show up prepared to back up what you said you could do. Listen and respond. Listen very closely. That’s all I have to say here.

Choose

This is mostly pitching & presentation stuff. This is an entire post on its own. Maybe the closest I have written about this so far is my Interviewing 1.5 & 2.0 stuff. It is very much like interviewing – a combination of competency and chemistry. This is really important and the stupidest conversations within the agency happen here. Suffice it to say the craziest thoughts on what really matters tend to arise here. Some thoughts here:

• Play to win, not to lose. I have watched more agencies invest so much energy simply trying to check boxes I get tired thinking about it. Play to win. Be first or last because anything inbetween is simply an excuse to say something bad about yourself (why you didn’t win) or something bad about them (I cannot believe ‘x’)

• Speak truth to power. Tell them the truth about themselves, tell them the truth about you. They know themselves but its nice that someone says it out loud. They will find out about your truths whether you tell them or not (so tell them)

• Address attrition risks prior to pitch. Oftentimes early in the Choose phase (“I have a list, I think I feel good about it, let’s kick the tires”) and far too many agencies rush to the “choose me” phase. Don’t. Don’t rush. Festina lente. Grind out the attrition battle so that if and when you stand up for the final pitch it is not about any obstacles they may have presented and it is all about exploiting the opportunity.

Buy

I wrote something about this called “the art of the deal.” But. After you have finished the business development “dance” sometimes people forget that the “buy” moment can dictate a lot of whether the relationship gets off on a good first step or a hesitant step, or, even worse, you trip. You need to figure out staffing, compensation, incentives, all the money stuff. Oddly, or interestingly, this is often the first time your CFO gets involved face to face. CFO’s, in general, are not business development people (that’s kind of why they aren’t business development people), but they often end up in a lose/lose situation in that the first and only time they see prospective clients is over the “money negotiation.” Feel free and plug in “accounting” instead of CFO if that is more relevant to your situation. I always personally thought the CFO should be involved as early as possible face-to-face with a client. This was not a popular belief amongst others. That said. It is nuts that almost everyone on a pitch team is married or in a live-in relationship and they seem to have a brain fart forgetting money in relationships is often one of the most conflict-driven aspects of a relationship. Heck. Everyone has a bought a car, paying the money part is absolutely horrible. Or a mortgage? Rather have bamboo shoots under the fingernails. The last thing an agency wants is to present well, check all the boxes, actually have a client expressly ask to sit down and say “I’d like to buy” and then you slog your way through money and hours. Think about that. New business doesn’t think about this enough.

Experience

Experience is just that. They considered you, searched you, and bought you. Time to drive the new agency it just bought. Oh. And months 1 through 6 will set the tone for whatever the relationship ends up being. If they get treated like “hey, we really just wanted the sale” (and are ignored now), well, that’s the kind of relationship you’re gonna get (not so hot if I have to spell that one out). But. If the experience matches up with everything you have been saying consistently throughout the entire process, you are rockin’. To be clear, any transition is difficult. No matter how much you show “the people working on the business” in the actual pitch, winning revolves around thought leadership who will not be invested day to day. All I can really say here is consistency and coherence. What a client gets has to be consistent with what was promised from day one and coherent to what was promised on pitch day.

Part 2: Building your business

Ok. It’s like business leaders have a brain cramp when it comes to this discussion. Who should be on my list? How many prospects on the list is the right amount? Consultants will say “pick your top 50 prospects.”

Say what? I don’t get it. This may sound flippant, but I don’t care how many are on your list. If you use the idea below, your list will be more driven by your objectives and plan than by “here is who I want to go after.” And the sheer number will become irrelevant, ok, maybe less relevant, if you apply the total list against the buying process in part one, because all of a sudden instead of a zillion prospects the prospects will start dropping into slots in the buying process and group together instead of being one giant mass of prospects. So, you can have a zillion, but they will be grouped together in manageable numbers. So. Here is what I suggest. (it is pretty simple and I cannot remember who in my past gave me the idea).

Stack triangles.

Put your two largest clients at each of the two bottom points on the bottom triangle. Add them up. That is the size of the largest prospect on your first customer prospect list. It reflects a reasonable size your current process and capabilities can absorb. You can keep them happy. And you can keep the two (and all the others on the bottom) happy so they stay.

As soon as you get one that size (or close). You are now at the bottom of the next triangle. Slide that one to the bottom left (or right if that floats your boat). Put your next largest client on the other point and add them up and do it all over.

In the meantime, go ahead and put all your clients in the triangle. Give them dots. Triangles with dots in them always look great. There you go. Your growth plan. You’ll stop stacking triangles when you see a number that looks like what you want for your organization and, yes, an agency should have some sense of how large they would like to be.

Oh. That also means your prospect business development list changes. Should you have had all these new guys on your original list? Of course not. Why waste your time preselling someone you like, but probably weren’t capable of properly servicing? On occasion, do one of those not on the list track you down? Sure. And you deal with them if they do.

Is it good to change your prospect list like this? Sure. When you get to a certain size some prospects drop off your list because they aren’t worth your while. What do you say to the new prospects when you begin communicating? Easy. “Hey. We have grown. We always had the expertise, but now we have the process/infrastructure capabilities to work with you.”

**  note: Prospects like that kind of stuff. It’s called realistic truth or honesty.

The triangles plan of action shows two things (other than you actually have a plan):

1. A reasonable logical growth plan
2. How high or how big do you want to go plan of action (and how to get there)

Sure. There are exceptions. Sure. You make adjustments. Sure. Stuff happens (like you stop paying attention to a client who was on the bottom of one of your triangles, and they get pissed off and leave). But this is about a reasonable growth plan. And retention plays a role, but that is a different post (but it is very easy to build retention into your business development plan because you know your average length of client relationship so you can factor that in. So. Just answered that. Excellent. I just eliminated something to write).

In the end.

Those are two basic and relatively simple infrastructure ideas for a business development program.

Pretty simple huh? Yup.

You know what? Business development is fairly simple. It’s not about cold calling (which really isn’t that effective and in most business categories isn’t really the way to jump start a relationship). Don’t believe me on that last point? C’mon. How often do you pick up the phone to blindly call some girl (or guy) and say “Hey, you don’t know me, but I am guessing you have had a bunch of relationships that didn’t work out, but I am a really neat guy (or gal) so why don’t we meet and go out some time?”

Hmmmmmmmmm. Imagine a dial tone somewhere in that scenario.

Does what I suggest work? Look. I almost guarantee if you play the numbers right in what I just described you should get a couple of meetings fairly fast (out of sheer dumb luck your message will hit a couple of people in the stimulus phase). You will generate some ongoing meetings without cold calls. And you will grow so you can revise your prospect list often enough to keep it fresh. But. Remember. It is a program not a tactic. So, you gotta keep it going to make it work.

Oh. Also. Remember. A business development program should simply be an extension of everything else you are doing as an organization. Not some mysterious voodoo program where everyone looks askance at the biz development people (I have been looking for an opportunity to write askance for a while). They shouldn’t be using wacky business development words and phrases that make people think they bumped their head on a dumb stick, but rather use words and process the entire organization uses.

Last warning.

Beware the business development person or consultant who comes in with “here is the process and what we do.” Just shoot them then and save yourself a lot of heartache. They should be coming in saying “I know the principles to have a successful program, but let’s talk about what makes you successful – and vocabulary – with existing clients and I will build a business development program around that”.

** note: Don’t shoot that person. At least right away.

There you go. Good luck. Add some business.

transient assertions:

they are true today, but may not have been true yesterday or may not be true tomorrow

=======

My weakness, professionally, is the lack of any specific ‘hard’ skill. To be clear. I am fairly sure my ‘soft skills’ are not a strength. Regardless. That hard skill weakness makes my biggest professional vulnerability, well, stability. What I mean by that is a specific hard skill gains importance the more replicable or consistent a context is. What I also means by that is in order to facilitate my own professional survival I had to embrace progress or some version of consistent contextual change <facilitate organizational/brand/business continuous improvement>. It also meant not only embracing ‘transient assertions’, but figure out how to articulate the value of transient assertions.

Now. This does not mean everything changes. I have also said, and still do, that the best organizations typically run on parallel, but interconnected, paths – consistency/replicable and emergent/improvement.

But if you don’t have a specific skill to hang your hat on you need (blue to emphasize) to move upstream in a business. If you do, and you are really worth a shit, you’ll find your thinking, whether purposeful or not, has scraps of the larger company identity/strategy/vision underpinnings in it no matter how downstream you go once up that stream. This has a mutual benefit of imbuing the more tactical with the more strategic <or mission oriented> and imbuing the vision with some more pragmatic aspects. You become more able in linking scraps of skills with scraps of vision slowly but surely positioning yourself as a tapestry maker, or, a transient assertionist (I made that term up). The truly interesting aspect of this professional thought is that if you are any good you find you not only start sneaking into other conversations and other departments, but you are even welcomed or asked to. In addition, you will also find that “non asked for business building ideas” are more about company things then any brand things (but brands would benefit).

So, regardless of your actual ‘skill’ you just become comfortable wandering into the business of doing business.

That said.

I do think it matters what someone has done from a practical experience when doing a job. I struggle to think of an industry, department or function I have not interacted with professionally. I have worked with retail, CPG, services, franchises, multi-unit, global with local needs, technology startups and almost any business configuration imaginable. But, maybe more importantly, I have used all those experiences as Edward de Bono suggested, through lateral thinking to transfer appropriate learnings from one to another to create successful, distinct initiatives, ideas and improvements <value creation>.

I do think it matters what someone has done from a practical experience when doing a job. I have either worked in or directly managed Direct Marketing, Media, Ad agency Account Management, Creative process, brand planning, brand strategy, strategic planning (business consulting), social media, organizational behavior, digital planning, behavioral dynamics, etc. and as a result am quite familiar with how to guide thinking to practical output to results.  Heck. I have taught and implemented strategic planning, managed an advertising agency and, in general, have been able to elevate a variety of businesses to new points of distinction in competitive environments.

*** note: Points of distinction. Let me be specific.  It would be easy for someone to suggest a supermarket is a supermarket, an enzyme is an enzyme, a motor oil is a motor oil, a bank is a bank or whatever you would like to add. I used those because I have direct experience on those, as well as a variety of commodity-like industries, and I do not agree. A person has to understand how to identify the underlying components that create the distinctness of any business, often the subtle little things, and bring them to life in a way that will resonate with people and, ultimately, create some connection. I imagine I am suggesting connection and distinction have a looped relationship and one cannot exist without the other if you seek create value.

All of what you have just read may seem, uhm, restless. Well. It is.

But despite all the restlessness I have just highlighted there is a core consistency – principled thinking and principled application. While I believe if a business, and initiative, is not moving it will not survive, I also believe “continuous movement” demands embedding strategy in every tactic and tactical thinking within a strategy and embedding the organizational vision into every strategy. Maybe better said, mastering transient assertions to the benefit of the long-term business.

Anyway.

Here is the one thing I am consistent on. I believe every business, every product, every service, every initiative, has something worth telling a story about. If you are in business and do not believe that you should be in a different career. I also believe if you can stand up and tell a story with your knowledge, or what you know, all your restlessness can create value. What I mean by that is I could stand in front of accounting, ops, sales, customer service, a board … and tell a story (usually in a cascading dialogue – here is situation, here is what someone says first, the response, what some thinks, what some says, etc.) and thru the dialogue story cemented some credibility, offered some solutions/words thru the story dialogue and made the strategic point.

Stories even some things out which is helpful because restlessness tends to create some unevenness or asymmetry. That last point is important because growth just by its natural properties creates imbalances AND the business world <as well as the world writ large> encourages us to believe things should be tidy. Unfortunately, people are inherently untidy irrational things, improvement is rarely tidy and stories tend to tidy some things up.

Look.

Restless consistency is valuable because I believe business, in general, is a constant tug of war between freedom and focus.

It’s a little bit easier to have this tug of war if you have established business/brand heuristics because then in the debate you can lean in on them to gain some flexibility elsewhere.

But.

Large businesses worry so much about challengers (& are defensive rather than offensive) so they tend to conservatively hunker down on what they are afraid to lose rather than focus on what they could gain. It creates an inherent focus, but also stagnancy & lets others play in the “hey, I am interesting” zone.

Small businesses are scared about standing for nothing. They have had it pounded into their heads that the path to success is “stand for one thing.”  This creates a tightrope for any strategist in that they have to be able to articulate core focus as an incredibly solid lily pad while suggesting some freedom aspects and a “let’s follow what works” plan of action.

And new companies? Yikes. I just think new businesses have less margin for error and with business inherently attracted to ‘evenness’ & consistency (the list of reasons of why span from political to managing upwards to budgeting to articulation/looking smart) and, if you aren’t resilient and diligent, the arc of activity will always go to ‘one thing well’ not ‘restless consistency.’

Look.

Business itself is restless. Consistently restless.

Business itself is a transient assertion. Consistently transient.

I imagine my point is you have a couple of choices with regard to your career.

First. Hunker down and master a skill on the consistent part <and hope the transient part of business doesn’t kill that particular consistency>.

Second. Hunker down on restless learning and get good at applying that learning against the transient part.

I will not tell you which is better because, well, both offer value to a business and, yet, both do not offer any guarantee of business success. All I know is that in hunting and in business, a moving target is more difficult to hit so restless consistency may make your survival probabilities increase. Just think about it.

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

“Besides, it doesn’t matter if it’s real.  It never does with dreams.

They aren’t anything anyway but lifesavers to cling to so you don’t drown.  Life is an ocean, and most everyone’s hanging on to some kind of dream to keep afloat.”

Tim Tharp

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

Well. Today is for the dreamers.

Let me begin by saying it’s kind of a tough world out there today for dreamers and dreaming living in a world where pragmatism, outcomes and measurement are put on the pedestal of Life.

In fact.

I could argue that today’s world not only discourages thinking about dreams, but it screws up how we do think about dreams when we actually think about them. Dreams used to be … well … dreams. Ok. Bear with me because sometimes it is difficult for me to find the right words on this.

Dreams, in the past, seemed to be more about wishes and desires and imagining what could be in some intangible sense. I don’t mean unicorns or rainbows type stuff and it also wasn’t always pot of gold at the end of some rainbow, but it had a sense of something better.

Today?

In today’s world dreams are more often about something tangible.

I dream of winning something.

I dream about having gobs of money.

I dream about some outcome or something received.

I dream of an award.

I dream of achieving something (specific).

It is no longer dreaming something intangible.

Like.

I dream of being an Olympian <not winning something>.

I dream of being on the front cover of Time magazine <not gobs of money>.

I dream about being the best I can be <no reward or award attached>.

Look. I actually believe I am on to something <for once>. I believe this is a “thing”. That said I started thinking about dreams and dreaming and went out and I researched exactly what a dream is:

=======

Dreams (imaginings, desires) are the potentials that are too intense to be imperceptible. Having intensified to the objective reduction threshold, a desire collapses into an action.

The nobler an individual, the higher the objective reduction threshold and the more organizedly complex the imagination.

Wikiquotes

========

Step one:

‘potentials too intense to be imperceptible.’

Step two:

‘a desire collapses into an action.”

I point that out because in our outcome driven world inevitably a dream is pushed into a corner being bludgeoned with “what are you going to do to attain that dream !!??!!”

Look. I am all for taking steps to attain your dream, but the definition suggests that the intense dreams <think the ones that are truly worth paying attention to> inevitably collapse into an action.

In other words.

I don’t make a plan, the dream begets a plan.

In other words.

Reality is shaped by a dream <we don’t shape reality to ‘force’ a dream into being>.

=======

“That’s the problem with dreams” he said, “Reality just can’t compete.”

e.m.b

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

Life, and reality, pushes and pulls us in many directions.

And, more often than not, Life, and reality, places more stop signs in front of us then ‘this way to your dream’ signs. That means to have a dream that is big enough to reshape reality is … well … uhm … means that the potentials that are too intense to be imperceptible.

It isn’t about money.

It isn’t about some sating some ego driven idea.

It is about having intensified to the objective reduction threshold, a desire collapses into an action.

And that is where dreamers know something that non dreamers do <part 1> … nowhere in this definition or Life equation is ‘fear.’

Far too many times dreams get attached to thoughts like ‘not pursued due to fear …”

And that is where dreamers know something that non dreamers do <part 2> … nowhere in this definition or Life equation is ‘courage.’

Far too many times dreams get attached to “people who had the courage to pursue …”

Dreams have nothing to do with fear or courage. In fact dreams, the real meaningful ones, are out of our conscious control. They are a force in and of themselves. They beget the action by sheer force of intensity. Big, small or in between dreams, the meaningful ones, may have more power than anything else in the world. And while much of the world looks at dreamers as wistfully delusional … it is more likely than not purposeful willfully delusional.

We dreamers dream with purpose. Not for outcome, but of what can be. And when we get a dream right, or maybe better said, when the dream is right for us … well … there is no obstacle too big, no fear too great and no courage is needed, because the dream itself is the energy forward.

=========

“Well, maybe it started that way. As a dream, but doesn’t everything. Those buildings. These lights. This whole city.

Somebody had to dream about it first. And maybe that is what I did. I dreamed about coming here, but then I did it.”

James and the Giant Peach

======

This is really hard to explain to non-dreamers. But. It doesn’t really matter <it never really does with dreams>.

======

The dreamer dies, but never dies the dream,

Though Death shall call the whirlwind to his aid,

Enlist men’s passions, trick their hearts with hate,

Still shall the Vision live! Say never more

That dreams are fragile things. What else endures

Of all this broken world save only dreams!

Dana Burnet

—

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

“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in time of moral crisis preserve their neutrality.”

John F Kennedy

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

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

Edmund Burke

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

Well.

I admit.

I get in a shitload of discussions and debates with regard to athletes using the playing field to make a statement, actors & actresses using their celebrity status to make a statement and whether a business should mix business with social issues <which invariably seems to get all mixed up with politics for some reason>.

It is an odd discussion with regard to ‘staying in your lane’ in combination with ‘does your career choice, or specific talent, preclude you from having a valid rational point of view on something else.’ What is less odd is, more often than not, this discussion is facilitated by someone (a) older, (b) white and (c) male.

Anyway.

First of all. I am a nothing. I am not a celebrity, a semi celebrity, an athlete or have access to any expertology platform.

Second of all. If I did ever have an opportunity to be in the spotlight you better fucking believe I would use the opportunity to say something meaningful.

I believe businesses do have a social obligation to society to be, and say, more than just a business <WTF … their employees spend more time there than in society itself so maybe they could foster some good societal norms in the business?>.

I believe people, in general, should speak up and out, regardless of their career, profession or social status if they have a valid point of view that they believe should be noted.

I believe people shouldn’t waste their opportunities to speak up and out and, therefore, should be less stupid if given the opportunity and as enlightened and articulate as possible if given the opportunity <use the opportunity well>.

I believe sometimes America is disappointing and sometimes it disappoints us and how you elect to point out that disappointment is up to you. But suggesting how you may elect to point it out <kneeling during an anthem, raising a fist, holding up a sign at some event, actually speaking out at an event or a show> is disrespectful to others is simplistic tripe <bullshit>.

Regardless.

I don’t give a shit if I am the only one who believes this.

And, frankly, it really doesn’t matter what other people think <the amorphous ‘general public’>, it’s what the person who makes the statement thinks <I recommend everyone listen to Michael Bennet’s interview on why he kneeled during a national anthem before an NFL game… good stuff>.

=========

“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless.

Not to speak is to speak.

Not to act is to act.”

attributed to Dietrich Bonhoeffer but actually not his words

<but I bet he would have liked them>

=====

I think its stupid to suggest someone be silent simply because of what they do for a living. I think its even stupider to think that in a world in which the stupid seem to have little hesitancy to speak out.

It is important people speak up, and out, because the world has turned upside down with regard to reality where there is a small group of loud voices trying to convince us reality isn’t reality.

There is this weird alternative universe where up is down, bad is good and lies are truth. The weirdness extends to wrap a group of very loud opinionated people in a world in which they are the heroes and everyone else is a villain. It all creates a false binary world in which this batshit crazy group fights shadows and the non-batshit crazy people are forced to expend gobs of energy simply trying to communicate they are simply shadows; not real.

It is all weird. But … it is a war. And in war you don’t ‘stay in your lane’, you stand up and fight in anyone’s lane at any time.

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

Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit

(He who is silent, when he ought to have spoken and was able to, is taken to agree)

======

Regardless.

This isn’t the time to ‘stay in your lane.’ This is the time to speak out. Speak clearly and speak well.

Society always has a curious mix of talents and skills and potentials, but many of those things get wasted if not led “out” from apathy, ignorance or simply fear to become involved. I want to be careful here in the word ‘led’ because I am not talking specifically about leadership. Sometimes words and voices serve as keys to cages. Sometimes the system, empowered by few loud voices, cages the good so their potential never gets optimized. The corollary to that is sometimes a well-articulated view vocalized by someone ‘not staying in their lane’ opens the cages so that the good can gather and optimize “good’s potential.”

In the end.

I don’t want anyone to stay in ‘their lane.’ I want good people to articulate good thoughts if they have a good platform from which to do so.

===

“Behind each door of what-if lies an unanswerable question that unhinges an infinite Rube Goldberg machine of probabilities.”
Maria Popova

===

“With respect to the requirement of art, the probable impossible is always preferable to the improbable possible.”
Aristotle

===

Far before Nassim Taleb published Fooled by Randomness or Antifragile I learned the lesson of the pragmatic relationship with probabilities. In the 1980’s I managed the Valvoline Motor Oil advertising and grassroots business. This included motorsports which will make sense why I point out a bit later.

Anyway.

In the good old days, we didn’t speak of probabilities, we would sit down and pragmatically think about the likelihood of shit happening – both good shit and bad shit. And, yeah, most times when probabilities are being discussed these days “crisis” is tossed around.

Let me be clear. Crisis is never good. That said. There is certainly bad crisis, i.e., “the bottom has dropped out from under our feet and we are 5,000 feet up”, but then there is also good crisis, i.e., “holy shit, they loved it and we have an order for a 1,000,000 sock puppets but we only have a 1000 capability sock puppet manufacturing capacity.” Both are certainly a crisis just that one focuses on survivable and the other on thriveable.

So let me get back to pragmatic probabilities.

Survive

Sometimes you take some chances. Chances, in marketing, usually circle around aggressiveness, i.e., how aggressive do I want to go to market. Needless to say, a testosterone-driven business like motor oil can be quite aggressive in their attitude. Motor oil can appear to be a commodity category but in reality, is it is just ‘commodity-like.’ What I mean by that is there are some nuanced differences between motor oil production and you can create some fairly vivid demonstrations to amplify some fairly small differences <albeit I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that sometimes small differences in car performance can equate to big consequences on vehicle lifetime as well as current optimization>. Valvoline had an opportunity. They had done some comparative testing and found a performance difference. Creatively we had attached a visual which amplified that difference to create a vivid metaphor which had a Valvoline semi-truck pass all the competitors’ trucks going up a hill while the voiceover walked people through the difference. The combination of words and visual were a compelling communication that Valvoline surpassed everyone else <the close was also “#1 choice of car mechanics”>. It was pretty simple and pretty powerful. And pretty much suggested the competitors were shit in comparison. Valvoline loved it and it was a defendable claim with research. This is where probabilities enter onto the discussion. The discussion revolved around “what is the likelihood a competitor challenges and we receive a cease & desist.” The conversation quickly concluded “extremely high probability” <our guess was someone would pull their own research to make our research look a bit murky in its claim>. Now. We also assessed a likelihood we would win or lose <because we had support>. This probability was a bit more hazy. Oh. And whether we actually cared if we won or lost <that was a bit less hazy>. But this entire likelihood/probability discussion led to producing an entirely different execution saying almost exactly the same thing, but with a different visual to have in our hip pocket. The initial competitive execution ran for one month in high rotation, competitors went ballistic, brand awareness & preference went thru the roof, market share increased, and we quietly pulled it off air right before we had to get into an extended fight legally and ran the non-controversial execution. My point here is that a pragmatic discussion revolving around probabilities helped us develop a plan of action of which we created a potential crisis and, yet, averted it at exactly the same time.

Thrive

Motorsports is a tricky sport. In something like NASCAR, you can win only 2 races an entire season and yet still win a championship. That said. IndyCar, NASCAR, any professional circuit, if you are a main sponsor, winning is good. Here is where probabilities and marketing cross paths. Inevitably all marketing groups have to hash out how to apply limited resources against all marketing opportunities <not just motorsports>. So, at the beginning of a season, you attempt to build programs to maintain positive awareness and optimize positive awareness opportunities, i.e., when you win or figure out some vivid demonstration of your product positioning. Depending on the quality of your sponsored team, if you look at individual races each probability of a win can seem fairly minuscule particularly as you assess all marketing dollars available to you. But then when you sit back and say “likelihood of a win at least once in a season”, well, all of a sudden people around the table sit up a little and apply a higher likelihood <I know that’s not the way statistic/probabilities works but this is a pragmatic business probabilities discussion>. As soon as you reach this point in the conversation, of probability accepted, then everything circles around “how do we optimize the opportunity.” In other words, you move into ‘thrive’ mode and a win crisis <and, yes, when someone wins it is always a scramble no matter how well you prepare> it is not “oh shit”, but rather “let’s go.”

This is actually optimizing a low probability opportunity or, let’s try, the inverse pragmatic relationship with probability <not building to probability but rather to little probability with high return>.

Oh. About “win at least once in a season.” Yeah. “A” win. Someone will always say “no one will care you won A race.” That’s silly out-of-touch thinking. If even for one moment I can get some people to think “hey, they are a winner” I have already enhanced my brand value <directly & indirectly>. The value of a ‘win’ to the light user or new entry into the category is invaluable. The value of reminding any customer you are a winner is never bad. So, the importance of amplifying a win, correctly, when you have limited resources <who doesn’t> is, well, important. I am sure I could make a probability point on this also if I was smart enough, but I am not.

In the end.

I imagine my larger point on this is probabilities get discussed pragmatically all the time. We don’t need to be statistics nerds or run simulations or even delve into scenario planning. What we need to do is run through survive and thrive situations and make sure we have a plan because neither situation is something you want to screw up. Ponder.