===

“This is not the wisdom of the crowd, but the wisdom of someone in the crowd.

It’s not that the network itself is smart; it’s that the individuals get smarter because they’re connected to the network.”

Steven Johnson

===

Well. I had a great conversation with a young person last week and at the end of it he said “I envision you live your life free of constraints and the rules that inhibit the majority of people.”

I hesitated <slightly taken aback> and responded “I’m sorry I gave you that impression … I think Life, as well as business, is best lived within a construct and while I believe society and some experts try and establish some silly rules … rules, in general, are good and boundaries typically enhance creativity.”

In the McTague ingredients of Life these are two basic ones:

Unconstrained Construct is good.

Unconstrained Chaos is bad.

People who claim being good, or prosper, in chaos are confused <and wrong>. They confuse the fact that most often one survives in chaos, not thrives in chaos.

No one, and nothing, thrives in chaos.

** Note: as I have stated a number of times, business thrives on the edge of chaos, or, bedlam as I have called it.

In fact. The best creativity, thinking & ideas, happens within a construct.

Well established boundaries, ones that supply some restriction without being restrictive, create an environment in which the mind can roam freely within a realm provided some focus for that freedom.

Think about it.

Football fields, rodeo rings, Broadway stages – any finite space creates a construct for someone to maximize the space, be and think creatively, in a multi-dimensional way.

Thinkers take the 2 dimensional traditional constructs and seek to build within any and all dimensions.

Sounds weird, but, fences offer freedom.

As a corollary, no fences encourages aimless unfocused wandering.

** Note: the ‘no fences wandering’ could be construed as freedom by some but it isn’t really … freedom in and of itself only has value where it is attached to some purpose or construct or intent. No fences freedom sounds good <on occasion> but inevitably is extremely dissatisfying.

Look. I’m not suggesting unfocused wandering doesn’t have some value, but rather that the great ideas and thinking don’t come from the unfocused but rather the focused.

Also.

Please note that when I refer to fences and boundaries I have also very clearly stated ‘nonrestrictive’ in association with my reference to fences and boundaries.

Too restrictive is most often a reflection of someone or something imposing philosophical and/or ideological control over others.

More often than not tight space fence builders see people as a a single unit, or think of population as an engine to run, in which all the people are parts of a whole rather than autonomous individuals.

They believe that if any part acts outside of the boundaries the entire unit could break and the engine stops running.

They build their boundaries not seeking to enhance creativity and innovation, but rather to control each individual’s behavior in order to ensure that what you do as an individual does no harm to the whole. It is meant to rein in and not let free and meant to create conformity and unity <albeit it is actually “oneness’>.

It is a faulty premise and a defensive constrictive premise.

Why is it faulty? Rather than share my ideological thought behind my belief let me quickly share an academic point of view:

—-

… provide an extended definition of creativity that embraces potential cross-cultural variations in this construct.

Creativity is defined as a 4-criterion construct, which includes attributes of novelty, utility, aesthetics, and authenticity. Novelty attribute stipulates that a creative work brings something new into being, which presents a new conceptual framework and/or modifies or violates an existing one. Utility attribute stipulates that a creative work is what a producer or a recipient considers creative, what represents an important landmark in spiritual, cultural, social, and/or political environment, and what addresses moral issues. The aesthetics attribute stipulates that a creative work presents the fundamental truth of nature, which is reflected in a perfect order, efficiently presents the essence of the phenomenal reality, and is satisfactorily complex, expressing both tension and intrinsic contradiction. Authenticity attribute stipulates that a creative work expresses an individual’s inner self and relates one’s own values and believes to the world.

These attributes establish a comparison matrix, which can be used to evaluate and compare the levels of creativity of works from different areas of human endeavor.

Anatoliy V. Kharkhurin

———-

Creativity of the mind is exactly the same as creativity of innovation … it is multidimensional and needs a balance of construct and freedom in order to maximize potential.

I will remind everyone of one of my favorite thinking & ideas books – A Technique for Producing Ideas by James Webb Young. He suggests that producing new ideas is one big part process and lots of little freedom parts baked in. James Webb Young suggests two general principles behind producing ideas:

– 1. an idea is nothing more or less than a new combination of old elements

– 2. the capacity to bring old elements into new combinations depends largely on the ability to see relationships

Well. If he is correct <and, in general, I think he is>, than true creative freedom is found within fences … not without.

This also suggests chaos is unproductive.

Ah.

Once again.

Unconstrained Chaos bad.

Unconstrained Construct good.

Anyway. As I said in the beginning: “Life, as well as business, is best lived within a construct and while I believe society and some experts try and establish some silly rules … rules, in general, are good and boundaries typically enhance creativity.”

Freedom is a loosely used word and not all freedom is created equal.

I would suggest that the highest quality freedom <in and of anything>, the most satisfying freedom, is not found without fences, but within fences.

Last note.

Before anyone quarrels with me on this please remember I am the author of “I have a lover’s quarrel with the world”. Yeah. I do, typically, chafe within some of the silly rules & boundaries society & business seems to demand we ‘roam’ within. But. I do typically thrive within the non silly rules & boundaries.

—-

“The line of life is a ragged diagonal between duty and desire.” –

=

 William R. Alger

—–

Well. I am not sure I have ever seen a more succinct explanation for Life as a struggle as well as Life is never a straight line.

Life truths?

Life is an ongoing struggle.

And Life is rarely a straight and narrow path.

Why are these ‘truths’? Because inevitably all lives are made up of choices.

A shitload of ongoing choices — small and large and every size in between. And these choices we make all tell us the path(s) our lives will take.

Now. I do not believe our Life, or destiny, is pre-ordained in a black & white definition. What I mean is that even if I did believe in a higher order <God has a plan for each and every one of us> destiny, I would tend to believe it was a map of possibilities. Therefore, we make choices aiming toward something in general <whatever your personal something is> … and amble down a path, or number of paths, that is not preordained but ones we choose.

But.

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

What does is mean? A diagonal line.

Oh.

Nope.

A ragged diagonal line.

Should we choose one way … that is the way we will go.

Should we choose another way … we go that way instead.

This means Life consists of paths that branch out turning right and left, this way and that way, running straight and crooked, turning sometimes randomly & severely in a variety of angles.

Yeah. Surely some paths are more likely than others, but we can choose any path to take. And each choice begets more branches ahead — some seen and some yet to be seen. At the core of this thinking is that Life is less about following some planned path, but instead suggests that each choice is contextual – to the environment, to one’s experience & to one’s knowledge.

Now.

I imagine if one lives a stagnant unmoving life the choices may be simpler and the events affecting the branches are fewer. Yet <just in case ‘stagnancy’ appeals to you as an ‘easier life choice’> stagnancy or ‘hiding from Life’ doesn’t guarantee shit.

Why?

Because as your path crosses with others – others who are also making choices –  as you cross the choices of strangers, family, friends, enemies, whomever, their choices affect our path. And their choices sometimes force choice where choice never resided before … or if we even wanted to make a choice at all.

The more people we meet, the more paths & branches crisscross, and cross again. It becomes a tangled confusion of so many choices and paths and interlinked branches it becomes easy to think of it all as chaos. Especially if you think of people and events as threads and not dots in a moment in time:

——

“There is a trail of existence that follows everyone, threads of life that people spin out and leave behind wherever they go.

Threads cross all the time.

Threads cross and cross again – time and place if in no other way – even when the people appear unaware of each other. No one pays attention to others around them unless the overlap happens again.

Sometimes, people miss each other only by a few seconds, yet they are connected.

Sometimes place is the reason for the overlap but time is not.

Sometimes the overlap is purposeful other times happenstance.

The threads are there, no matter.

Ah. When they glow, they are one destiny.” 

Inspector O <james Church book character>

——

It is not chaos, but, your life is affected by these ‘trails of existence’ — impacted by what was, is and what will be. As I type that it can become easy to think you have no control <or simply throw your hands up in the air in frustration>.

Well. While we certainly can be impacted by others or ‘things out of our control’ what remains in our control, always, is the choice. Our choice. The choice to do what we may with the circumstances at hand.

The choice remains with us.

The choice between duty and desire.

In addition.

In each tangled chaotic web of events, threads and paths, it is all bounded by the practical. The practical aspect of what you can actually do, and cannot do, within the choices you make. I am not speaking of dreaming the impossible <because dreaming is good>, but the actual reality of what can be done.

note: the ability to pragmatically assess what IS possible within a given context and what is not takes experience and an eye biased toward some pragmatism.

Oh.

Back to duty & desire.

There is where free will seems to reside. The choices made by duty & desire.

Yeah.

This all sounds chaotic and impossible to navigate. But think about this. Look to the past and it appears to be a neat set of choices made and not made. This is the power, and danger, of reflection.

It all appears like a schematic of choices made of duty … and those of desire. And encounters of events and people who forced us to make choices. We make it all look a little tidier than it was.

Oh shit. Wait a second.

Now.

I imagine if anyone were to look to the future it would simply appear to be sheer chaos. A snarled thread of paths and choices.

Relax.

This is where the original quote comes back to play — our destiny resides in our choices between duty and desire. Period. Sometimes the choice is black & white and often it resides in the gray. Unfortunately, regardless of its hue or shade or color, the choice will place us on a path toward our destiny.

In other words … a ragged diagonal path through Life.

Well.

This all may make us uncomfortable — all this choosing amongst the snarled threads of Life wondering if each choice is somehow easing its way down the ragged diagonal path toward a destiny we either actually seek or one we will be comfortable with in the end or one we cannot even envision yet.

Uncomfortable because we people like have to have an explanation that satisfies us.

And by having this attitude we run the risk of just not seeing it as it is … simply making choices in the moment between desire and duty.

Look.

I Know I am biased and have my own opinions on Life. Heck.

Many months ago in 2010 I wrote about the fact I love being “everywhere at once.”  It was in that piece where I closed my thoughts with: ‘Where do I want to be 10 years from now? Everywhere. All at once.’

Agree or disagree … but … it is a ragged diagonal path we live.

All of us.

I imagine if you define it simply as a shitload of choices made between duty and desire, the ragged aspect will not bother you as much because you are on a path toward a destiny that can be explained in the end — “I balanced duty & desire in my Life.”

Well. If that is measurement of how one made choices, or took control, of their destiny, I believe it would be a life lived well.

====

“Once, I saw a bee drown in honey, and I understood.”

–

Nikos Kazantzakis

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

So. One of the most difficult things to do in Life is to temper, or ration, your enjoyment.

Wow.

That sounds crazy doesn’t it?

It is kind of odd, but happiness, or bliss, has some similar characteristics to despair in that once you get in the quicksand of the feeling it is incredibly difficult to get out.

But, you may ask, despair I understand … but why the heck would you want to get out of the bliss?

I won’t answer with the trite ‘there can be too much of a good thing’ because I struggle to find an example of too much good thing. Instead … I will suggest that drowning is simply drowning.

It is about the inability to handle the situation.

It is about losing control.

It is about encountering a reality that ultimately you cannot deal with.

That is drowning.

But maybe even worse <in my bliss example>?

You actually can swim, but you have just become so immersed in the bliss of the moment you have forgotten to swim.

Yeah.

You drown even though you can swim <ponder that>.

I will point out that this is very very easy to permit to happen.

Especially if, contextually to everything else in your life, this honey appears to be water in a Life dying of thirst. In other words, we confuse the honey for water.

That may sound weird, if slightly unbelievable, but it happens to us all the time.

Sometimes Life is such a grind day to day it makes us thirst for anything to relieve the dryness of the grind. Relief comes in a variety of shapes and forms – some healthy & some unhealthy <self help books with formulas for Life & social media come to mind>.

This means that when the moments of bliss or ‘honey moments’ occur we stop and dive into the honey as deep as we can and drink as if our thirst can never be quenched.

And sometimes we drink so deeply we never stop to breathe.

And sometimes we dive so deep that no matter how big a breath we took before we dove … we run out of air … and drown.

Yeah.

I know.

In such a crazy world where the most of people deserve some extra happiness and true bliss it seems pretty stupid of me to talk about drowning in a honey moment.

And I will admit.

I never thought I would ever write about drowning in bliss in a cautionary tone.

Well.

Maybe all I am really offering is simply a word of caution.

Maybe it is a reminder that maybe there are more moments than you imagine and you don’t need to drown in one … just recognize, like most bees do, that if you are persistent you can find honey everywhere.

Maybe I just saw this quote … paused … and could clearly see in my mind how we worker bees could easily drown if and when we found honey.

Maybe I just worry, on occasion, today’s world can make us so thirsty for honey we forget to not drown when we actually find some honey.

Maybe I realize I like drowning <I am a voracious reader and user of some social media and love working>.

Or.

Maybe I just liked thinking about why a bee could drown in honey.

<originally posted November 2015>

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

“Damaged people are dangerous. They know they can survive.”

—

Josephine Hart

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

“There are only two ways to live your life.

One is as though nothing is a miracle.

The other is as though everything is a miracle.”

Albert Einstein

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

Experience matters.

And I don’t mean some high falutin’ job or some responsibility given but rather mistake experience.

That said.

I like people who make mistakes.

I like people who have made mistakes.

I like people who have had some significant failures.

I like people who have tried doing a variety of shit and have a list of shit that just didn’t go so well <or as well as they had wanted>.

I like the people who realize you survive 99% of the time you go out and try something without holding back.

Everyone who has survived some failure or mistake comes out of that experience damaged in some way. Most times that ‘damage’ is found in expectations or, maybe better said, plans or ‘how I envisioned it would go’.

While it has been a long time for me I vaguely remember when I first jumped off the cliff professionally. I vaguely remember doing so with a plan and a planned path in mind.

Some people would call that “rationale for taking a professional action.”  

Well.

The plan and path went to shit fast.

But I adapted and got to where I wanted to go. I survived. But I survived with damage.

The first damage is related to ‘the rationale.’

You start questioning how smart you are or how insightful you may be with regard to business organizations and what matters. I mean … what the hell … you thought it out, weighed the options and chose a course. Only to end up face first in some mud puddle that was never in your rationale.

Your ‘rationale thinking’ gets nicked up a bit.

The second damage is related to a harsh understanding, and semi-surprising revelation, that business mirrors Life.

You tend to believe business is more orderly and less chaotic than Life in general. Business offers a solid construct and when viewing the organizational chart you can easily envision paths and plans and people. You quickly learn that organizational charts are the biggest lies in business. They look static, they look flat and they look solidly structured,. The truth is that they are constantly shifting, they are multi-dimensional and ‘structure’ actually means ‘power’ can reside not in the box towards the top but rather in some inane responsibility in some department you never even paid attention to.

But.

All the damage offers some benefits.

The scars actually strengthen an aspect of who and what you are.

The biggest benefit is that your “I will survive” mentality shifts from a belief & hope to proven truth.

Yeah.

That experience matters.

Once you know you can survive, Life becomes different particularly in the business world. When you first step into professional life most of us step carefully. We watch each step and recognize, more often than not, survival and success is more about a battle of attrition than it is actually doing something superior. And, yet, the longer we stay in that mode of behavior the more likely doing something, anything, starts taking on a larger & larger looming presence “doing that could ‘kill you.’

And maybe that is why I love damaged people.

They respect the danger, but do not fear the danger. They have met danger, been damaged, and understand that being damaged is not the same as being killed.

Damaged simply means “I have survived with some scars to show for it.”

Just as I would prefer picking up a sword which has some nicks rather than a new shiny unused one as I went into battle I prefer the nicked & used people to be on my teams as I go into the business battle.

And maybe the real reason is a little more philosophical <with a little humor attached>

In business, once damaged, you have a little more sense that it is not only a miracle you survived, but that it is a miracle anything good actually happens in an organization of any size.

That may sound slightly cynical, but I would suggest it is slightly pragmatic.

Success in business is almost like running through a series of double Dutch jump ropes.

A little good sense of timing, a little miracle or two, a little smart instinctual actions and smart experience driven maneuvering. And absolutely some damage.

To conclude.

I like my people a little damaged. They not only know how to survive but know they can, and will, survive moving forward and taking steps.

I like my people damaged. They tend to not mind, well, getting damaged and are willing to do some spectacular things along the way.

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

“If you pay attention to the present, you can improve upon it. And, if you improve on the present, what comes later will also be better …”

–

Paulo Coelho

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

“Where religious values might be relative, intellectual values fleeting, moral values ambiguous, and aesthetic values dependent upon an observer, the existence of any thing is infinite.”

Grendel, John Gardner

=========================
“Yet knowing how way leads on to way,

I doubted if I should ever come back.”

–

Robert Frost

==========

Well. I believe most ‘live in the present’ advice is absurd. I also believe Eckhardt Tolle, author of The Power of Now, is a nutjob with an unrealistic view of how to practically live life. All that said. I believe we, in business, have a wacky relationship with the present. While we espouse getting shit done each day is the step by step way to create the future you desire, we have an uncanny ability to not actually value the present until it has become part of the past. That doesn’t mean we don’t value what we do in the present it just seems to have a higher value when we look backwards and assess it. Maybe this abstract relationship with the present is driven by the fact businesses cannot make up their minds to live with the decisions they have made .. or crucify the decisions that have been made.

** note: there is a direct relationship between improving on your present and Robert Frost’s “The Road Not Taken” https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44272/the-road-not-taken

Suffice it to say the present takes on some fairly absurd dimensions in our minds. Oddly it can expand and contract depending on what we want to do and how we want to view it (ranging from a ‘for now’ caveat to ‘this is it’ declarations).

That said. While it seems like ‘looking backwards’ is almost a disease for most people, oddly, far less often do people actually view ‘the present’, in the present, as something we will ever come back to (that is one of those crazy time paradoxes which, if unraveled, could most likely resolve a lot of our perspective issues). Regardless. That seems kind of crazy to me. Crazy? Well. If you know you can’t go back, or doubt you will, maybe you would view it a little more closely and maybe (if you know you cannot go back) you may actually value the present as, well, valuable.

It is quite possible our problem with valuing the present for the value it deserves resides in the fact each present is actually fragmented by vector choices. What do I mean? In general, any business leader can do multiple things at the same time <as long as they are aiming in the same general direction> and, yet, time after time a business leader is faced with two roads and want to travel … well … both.

And sorry I could not travel both

And be one traveler, long I stood …

<Frost>

A lot of other business people smarter than I expound on grand visions and organizational charts with milestones and specific initiatives <an important aspect of vector choice decisionmaking>. I just think of each business treading a road with roads traveled or less traveled to choose from. Maybe its because of that each present can be overwhelming so, well, we diminish the choice importance and in conjunction diminish the present value of each moment.

Look (part 1). There is a lot to be said for “keeping your head down and focusing on what needs to be done and do it well.”  That is a version of living in the ‘now’ and, in fact, I would guess, having been a manager and watching other managers, 90% of management advice to employees is saying exactly that.

Maybe the most famous quote for this advice is:

“If you did not look after today’s business, then you might as well forget about tomorrow.”

Isaac Mophatlane

And you know what? That’s not bad advice.

It may not be the best advice nor is it the type of advice that guarantees ‘what comes later will also be better’, but in the scheme of things getting workers to focus on what they need to do now and do it well now at least keeps you out of the proverbial ditch.

Okay. Let me take that back. It doesn’t keep you out of the ditch.

Huh? Try walking in an open field one day just by looking down. If you walk for 5 minutes, I can almost guarantee you will <a> not have walked in a straight line and <b> walked directly toward what you may have sighted on before you put your head down.

Keeping your head down and focusing does have some merit, but it is not the end all be all nor does it guarantee you actually end up in a place you want to be or should be.

SONY DSC

My point? Doing well in the present is significantly different than improving on the present. The former tends to provide value in the moment while the latter tends to increase value in moments. I do believe we consistently undervalue the present in the present, but overvalue the ‘past’ present in reflection. That seems out of whack to me, but, that’s me.

Look (part 2). The present provides choices and the future provides opportunities to reflect upon those choices. If you set aside regret, I tend to believe all of us often want to go down both roads at once, but since it’s impossible to walk down two roads at once, we have to choose one road. But the reason I added in this part of the poem is the narrator is actually showing regret and rationalizing BEFORE even taking one step down either path. So the present actually diminishes in value through choice regret (the one not chosen has an abstract future embedded value).

“doubted I should ever come back”

<Frost>

Anyway. Sticking with the road metaphor, each present, each ‘one road’ can lead to another, and then another, until you end up very far from where you started. You cannot go back so you may as well value the present decision at the value it deserves – at that time, in that place, you are where you are and go where you will go and never return to that particular present.  If you can figure out how to properly value the present, i.e., you don’t lose sight of the value of that moment (the moment in the present), you will most likely have to go back and reassess the decision value (or as I call it “the return on choice’ – ROC ) for any more value than that moment actually deserves.

In the end.

Improving on the present is difficult because you actually have to value the present properly to insure you actually improve it. In addition, we seem to fail to understand you cannot improve the present from a future place – looking back.

————

“Drowning men, it is said, cling to wisps of straw.”

–

Fyodor Dostoevsky

====

There may be nothing worse than the feeling of something slipping away from you.

Standing there just watching whatever it is slip away like water through fingers.

Okay. Maybe worse?

The feeling like it is all slipping away from you and there is really nothing you can do. And, yet, you will cling to anything … even wisps of straw hoping you can hold on to whatever it is that is slipping away.

It is a helpless feeling.

Especially the first time you drown.

Oh. Yes. I just said “first time.”

Yeah. You can actually drown many times in Life & business.

That’s the thing with Life <and much of business>.

This kind of drowning rarely kills you in Life <real drowning does>. It really only kills the moment, the ‘thing’, the feeling, the opportunity, the whatever.

Regardless.

Drowning sucks.

Here is a Life truth about why it sucks so much.

Moments, ‘things’, feelings, opportunities, possibilities – die fast .. like in the blink of an eye. In a blink of an eye what was possible simply disappears and is no longer possible.

===

“In the blink of an eye, what was possible is possible no longer.”

Nelika McDonald

===

Despite this blink of an eye timing … we see the situation as drowning. This means we cling to wisps of straws that are not really there. And we call it drowning but in reality we are already ‘dead’ <with that opportunity>.

Here is the good news.

While this feeling sucks, it is easily recognized. And because it is easily recognized , if we truly pay attention, we can avoid wasting energy and time clinging to the wisps of straws and swim away to something else.

I am not suggesting this is easy.

I simply suggest recognizing something is half the battle.

I simply suggest we should not ignore the easy part because drowning is rarely sneaky.

Let me end with where I began – clinging to wisps of straw. We all will drown. It’s just part of living Life to its fullest. Therefore I would suggest it is incredibly important to recognize that we are desperately clinging to only little wisps of straw and, instead, should be seeking to swim away to seek the next moment and opportunity to, well, fly.

—————-

“Truth itself is an emergent distinction. It’s not a noun; it’s more of a verb.”

Peter Joseph

——————–

I had the privilege to speak with some high school students on a variety of topics … & opinions, facts & truth came up (as, of course, opinions & beliefs were being discussed). I got to share 1 of my favorite quotes.

Look. Far too often we speak of truths in absolutes and, even worse, suggest an individual fact represents truth. Both of these things are actually the nemesis of truth.

Truths are dependent upon knowledge and, well, knowledge is not only contextual to situations but is also evolving as new learning occurs. In other words, truth is emergent.

And for those who state they stand on a fact as truth, to mangle a Dr. Jason Fox thought, “conviction means you become a convict to something.” An individual fact, tightly held, is simply a cage in which you are the convict holding tight on to a conviction of which the only way you get freed is to actually let go of that conviction and seek numerous facts and the knowledge that comes along with them.

In general, when speaking of truth, we should all be annoyed with specificity and simplicity. What I mean by that is a layered truth demands more than the simplistic specificity that can be found in one, individual, fact. Let me define how i view facts, knowledge and truth (and their relationship).

• Facts. Facts are everywhere. an individual fact is nice to know but, in isolation, does not represent a full truth.

An absence of a fact is typically the root of any conspiracy theory (or false argument). “There is no proof, it is not” never trumps “there is proof that it is.”

• Knowledge. Facts, combined, create knowledge. Opinions, & conspiracy theories, combine *coincidental* facts, not correlated facts. knowledge are *correlated* facts combined. coincidental is lazy. correlation takes work & thought.
• Truth. Truth is a coherence of knowledge (combinations of facts) into a cohesive unit of facts. This means that truth adapts to changing knowledge (not individual facts).

While I’m not sure I got it all exactly right i do believe i was able to get some young people to understand one fact is simply a step toward truth and that truth, itself, is layered and often complex.

This leads me to the societal nemesis of truth – this whole ‘anti-intellectualism’ thing. I honestly don’t understand the whole anti-intellectual thing. I have tried, but the tangled web eludes me. Its quite possible knowledge, which is exponentially different than common sense (which isn’t really that common), is caught up the whole “establishment is bad” thing.

It almost seems like every existing infrastructure, let’s call it ‘establishment’, is being painted as “bad, stupid & incompetent.’ And they are not. Saying all politicians are worthless, or media is all tainted and crooked, or all science is driven by a liberal agenda, is as bad as me saying all old white men are sexist, xenophobic asshats.

We treat establishment as if it is one big conspiracy theory which is a little out of my realm of belief. The victim of this odd attack on establishment and those who have real factual knowledge is, well, truth. Truth is dependent upon facts & knowledge well used and well-honed in the battlefield of thinking & thought. Without it the intellectual debate resides on the superficial surface of anything meaningful.

“Is being an investigator the opposite of being an artist? Maybe it is just that some mysteries require an artist not an investigator. That an artist has different ways to get to the truth.”

Tibetan thought

Ponder this.

The path to truth is not just one path. Sure. I may know one ‘truth.’ But in knowing that I know … well … one thing. And I am sure many people are fine with the knowledge of one truth. And I do not begrudge them of that. For one truth is, at its core, a truth. And I believe everyone needs some truth in their life.

Does knowing more than one truth <if there truly is such a thing> make someone better? Yikes. I don’t believe I could be a good judge of that. Because knowing multiple truths can be confusing and in confusion someone just may not end up in a better place. I guess I would suggest that if multiple truths put you on more solid ground than go for it.

But the real point to this is that someone without YOUR knowledge is more likely to teach you something completely new than someone who shares your knowledge.

And, ultimately, if you are trying to understand the world, or simply solve a problem, to truly learn the answer you may have to turn your back on some things you know and face someone who knows some other facts, has some other knowledge and may even be able to share some new truths.

On a separate note (maybe on my mind because I was speaking with students).

I will say, as I discuss facts, knowledge & truth, I find the entire concept of ‘future-proof skills” absurd. There is no such thing as a future-proof skill. Okay. Maybe active learning (but I don’t think that is a skill). Which leads me to the thing that always makes me chuckle whenever I get pulled into some ‘future skills’ discussion. Its “Technique for Producing Ideas” by James Webb Young. Published in 1940 written by a man who developed these ‘skills’ in the 1920’s. The entire book is about ‘future-proofing skill development.” 1920’s. 1940. 2020. What was, is, and will be.

Anyway.

I would suggest that Truth is a puzzling maze for anyone to navigate — good person or bad person.

• Facts come and go. We have as many of them floating around as stars in the sky.
• Knowledge demands some creativity in combination of facts (think seeing constellations in a night sky), some hard work (to gather the most appropriate facts) and some wisdom (to discard less relevant facts).
• Truth demands, well, active learning and a tightly held, loose grip on individual truths themselves.

All that said. Does anyone really want to live in a world without truth?

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

“Theory is good; but it doesn’t prevent things from existing.”

—-

Jean-Martin Charcot

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

“We must live in the best way this existence that has been given to us, embracing the flow of events. It is up to us to try in every moment of our life to do our best.”

—

The Branches of Time

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

So. A better business world. I imagine everyone feels this is an important objective, but:

• Not everyone would define better the same
• Not all better is created equal
• Not all businesses believe a better world is the way to become better

In fact. On the third point I would suggest this is where ‘business improvers’ (consultants, gurus, futurists, etc) step in and play a role. The majority of business fixers fall into one of 2 camps:

1. The “let’s make your business run more efficiently” people. They’ll discuss process, simplification and digital transformation. Yes. They’ll couch efficiency in some nice fluffy narratives, but in the end they are simply suggesting the machine isn’t running as well as it could and needs to be finetuned or rebuilt. They see behavior as the be all end all.
2. The “people potential” people. They’ll discuss, well, people. How to get people to work better together, how to build an environment in which they are engaged (with caring AND process/tools/digital) and how to foster a healthy culture. They see attitudes as important as behaviors.

That said.

Ask any business leader and they will:

(a) always believe something in the business could be better &

(b) always be seeking to make things better.

Period.

I do not know one leader who is completely satisfied or, on the flip side of the coin, believe a business is maximizing its potential & opportunities.

Here is where different ‘betters’ start coming into play.

Most leaders address a desire to be better transactionally (albeit they may, on occasion, frame it as a ‘structural organizational betterment’). Yet, “better”, when one views it from a ‘world’ perspective, demands addressing structural elements. This includes engagement (which far too often business people think of transactionally).

Ah. Engagement.

Everyone knows the key to maximum productivity and maximizing business potential is engagement. Always has been and always will be. I would note that ‘engagement’ fans always focus on ‘people’ (working together, understanding vision, embracing meaningful work). but engagement, in a business eyes, often expands out to engagement with process, engagement with technology, engagement with machines/production lines, engagement with ‘system tools’ of which people are often the most critical aspect, yet, business will measure engagement “with” something, not “by” someone. That phrase distinction may be one of the most important thoughts I will share today. Ponder it.

But let’s go back to the people/human component … and transactionally. Despite all the discussion around culture (which is when people decide how they want to behave on a coherent fashion) the truth is most businesses try to ‘create engagement’ (which is a problem in & of itself) through transactional methods (which is a problem). Carrots & sticks.  Incentives. “Bribes” (free lunches, ping pong tables, flex times, laptops, etc.). Not only is this not effective (at least in terms of creating long term systemic behavior), but it also shows a lack of understanding in what people truly care about.

All that said.

The business world knows it needs to change. I would suggest younger people feel more strongly about structurally addressing this then older business people who have learned to suffer/live in the business environment & therefore feel more like transactional things are the most pragmatic ways to ‘change it.’

The issue is that the gap between ‘knowing’ and actually ‘doing’ is a real sonuvabitch to cross.

I would suggest the key to crossing this gap is not in the ‘specialists’ or the experts in how things are already being done, the key exists in people who know enough about some specific skill to lay a pragmatic foundation and have the ability to see a new way to build to possibilities. I would suggest there are a number of these people out there who embrace that idea – Daniel Mezick, Perry Timms, Gustavo Razzetti, Neils Pflaeging, Edwin Van der Geest, the Corporate Rebels folks.  While each of them may approach it a little differently, the business world needs more of these type of ideas/people if it truly wants to get better. We need more connectors, aligners, maybe call them the chiropractors of a better way of doing business and a better world.

Look.

Better business needs a structural change. Period.

Better business needs a vision, not transactional changes. Period.

Better business needs an attitudinal adjustment (toward organizational structure, toward how people skills can be maximized, toward how productivity is viewed, toward what businesses role in community/society is). Period.

Now.

I have hesitated to use Purpose because I believe (a) it is used improperly 90% of the time and (b) it is actually better to focus on engagement & contribution and Purpose/results will be an outcome. Purpose is the reason for which something is done or created, the reason for its existence, its use, and its usefulness. Usefulness to others is the mechanism of purpose’s well-documented positive individual and organizational effects. When individuals and organizations think and act with their use to others at the forefront, they’re being purposeful and making their unique contribution (source: Zach Mercurio).

—–

“When purpose is embedded into an organization’s culture, it constantly reorients people to focus on contribution.”

—–

I often translate for all my business leader friends who see “purpose” and panic that it is some nebulous ‘save the world’ bullshit:

“if the people are engaged and focused on contribution they will be more productive, generate more high quality output, be brand ambassadors, be innovative (yes, they will want to contribute ideas to the business itself), be more effective in their behavior (service, customer interactions, vendor relationships, communications) and, you know what? … you’ll be more profitable too.”

source: Zach Mercurio

Or. As Zach shared with me:

It’s actually a basic business principle that’s been dressed up by “thought leaders:” Purpose is contribution, or if you like, “value creation.”  Purposeful organizations and their people focus first on contributing and on creating value. They trust that the effects (results) will follow. As Drucker once said, “Profit is not the purpose of a company. It’s the test of its validity.”  The more valid your contribution, the more results you’ll see.  Every “financial result” is mediated through a human being. Human beings who experience meaningfulness and purpose are far better mediators than those who just “need to get the numbers up!” Frantic leaders (i.e. traditionally-minded business leaders) focus first on producing results, but the problem is you can’t have get an effect without a cause.  You can’t have a result without a contribution.

Anyway.

I will say this entire ‘better business for a better world’ topic is fascinating.

While we credit Millennials for the refinding of our business soul (its partially whatever we call Purpose, but its mostly a simple recognition that something is wrong in the way business is being conducted and there has to be a better way) the truth is that this has nothing to do with age or some generational labels. Mary Parker Follet in early 1900’s. Drucker in the 70’s. Toffler in 1985.

They told us this is the way to do business, but when we chose Friedman (with a good dose of Gordon Gecko) business started down the slippery slope of dollars over contribution & responsibility (not Purpose).

The issue now is, as we all know, getting off a slippery slope is hard (you cannot climb back up off it, you need to jump off and restart or get pulled off by a helping hand) so those on it are, well, on it. i find while we suggest it’s a love of the status quo more often than not most business leaders know they are on a slippery slope and can’t get off it.

I am not a Millennial and i have ached for changes like this for, well, forever. Drucker outlined all of this in New Realities 1990, Ewen in Captains of Consciousness 1976, & the Geckos ignored it and the non Geckos (like me) were not strong enough to fight it.

I will say that now we fight.

In the end.

A better way of doing business for a better world.

This is an incredibly difficult topic to navigate. A business first & foremost needs to be successful to survive and its objective is to do things to survive/thrive. And, yet, the path to do so is actually to NOT think about business, but rather think about people, attitudes & maximizing their potential. There is a delicate balance of two truths – a business needs to be in the business of doing business and people are at their highest engagement when they are doing things not because it is business but meaningful. therein lies the paradox. and within that paradox resides the potential.

But. There has to be a better way and we know there is.

Drucker clearly knew this.

Simplistically, while engagement is the key to productivity, contribution is the key to the future of business – a better way of doing business for a better world.

If people contribute, feel like they are contributing and the business, itself, contributes to the greater world the highest level of value (contribution) has been achieved.

I would argue in doing so the business itself will also attain its highest level of effective productivity, solid efficient productivity and consistent profitability. I am not sure what more a business could desire. I am also not sure how that isn’t better business for a better world.

—

“You can’t just lump things into two categories.

Things aren’t that simple.”

=

Donnie Darko

——–

“… for one thing I’m glad

the goal of enlightenment means being stupid

enough to slip out the door

each morning & live. With no second-guessing,

no poses,

just this leaning & slouching

the experts term … hope.

So people like me cannot be held guilty.

In our travels

we’d never laugh at passing streets,

we’re not like those grins they have

plastered to the sides of every bus. “

=

David Rivard

——–

So. This is about Life and tying things up with a colorful bow versus living with some <the> gray. Ok. Let’s call this ‘living with uncertainty.’

Well. Let me state a couple of obvious things about uncertainty. Uncertainty is a bitch. And uncertainty pretty much sums up about 99% of Life.

Bottom line?

Life is certainly uncertain <there is a conundrum>.

Guarantees are never guaranteed. A truth today can be very different than a truth from yesterday.

Control from one moment to the next is slippery, elusive and … well … uncertain … at best.

Now. Despite the fact I want to discuss Life, and gray, I will begin with the human eye because, well, it is interesting and it will help me make a point. The human eye is capable of seeing any shade of gray and a zillion different colors. Ok. Not a zillion. But, in total, the eye can distinguish over 500 shades of grey and over 2.7 million colors <although I found another source that suggested over 5 million colors>. <source: NZ Eye Institute>

By the way <let me digress>. I found it interesting that grey can also bring any color to life.

Apparently grey often contains other colors  ranging from yellowish to orangey-brownish to purplish, bluish and greenish grays and, apparently, depending on what hue of gray you use their psychological effects on people can be quite different.

Anyway. I began there because gray has a bad rap in today’s world. Black & white have a significantly better reputation. It is unfortunate because Life exists mostly in a palette of grays. Yes. We live in a world of uncertainties and contextual truths of … well … grays. I imagine that makes ‘vivid color moments’ of clarity that much more special.

Conversely. It can be quite unsettling given the unfortunate fact the majority of time we dwell in the gray.

Looking back on my career, and Life, I have found I can live, if not feel quasi-comfortable, with uncertainty in most things.

Even decisions.

Huh? Well. Honestly a decision is most often a reflection of judgment. It is a choice between alternatives <none of which are solid blacks or whites>. Choices are rarely a simple choice between right and wrong. It is often at best a choice between ‘almost right’ and mostly likely a ‘probably wrong’.  And much more often you are making a choice between two choices of which neither is probably more right than the other. This is because ‘right decisions’ tend to grow out of the friction and conflict of divergent thinking <sometimes just opinions> and out of contemplation and consideration of competing alternatives.

We make lots & lots of these decisions. Lots.

Compound that with a thought I read somewhere: ‘every decision is like surgery.’ While we may flippantly suggest that we make decisions and ‘move on’ more often it is an intervention into a system and therefore carries with it the risk of shock, pain & recovery.

Ouch.

This actually means that I receive a vivid, visceral, color response for making a gray decision.

Well. Welcome to Life. And maybe worse? <or at least something to think about>. Your decisions are dabbling in the shades of gray and yet you have to be committed to the decision <which will firmly place actions on a black or white path>, if you want any hope of progress.

Yup. Because, if you do not, nothing will change. You will end up endlessly wandering around outside that ‘box’ <because all the shades of gray actually reside in ‘out of the box thinking’ without any clear or vivid direction>. No one really tells you this, but all the vivid colors and vivid moments and vivid decisions in life actually reside inside the box.

It is inside the box you actually can be an adventurer.

It is inside the box that you make a stand. Make a commitment. Make a decision that provides a little spot color … a little bright light … to the box.

Just think about it a little.

You can go outside the box if you want to but you will most likely end up doing something that seems right to you and maybe feel good. But most likely only because you are outside the box all alone without anyone to criticize or even see. That’s not an adventure. An adventure is a complete experience. 

It is inside the box where it happens.

—

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. 

For, indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

Margaret Mead

—

In dealing with a shades of gray Life you do have to be adventuresome and committed.

I posted the above quote maybe in the first two days I started this whole enlightened conflict site thing. With life mostly made up of shades of gray it is really only the thoughtful committed people who have a chance to bring some color.

The color may not be appealing in some cases, but, who cares? I don’t like everything every small group of committed thoughtful people say or do <and in fact I sometimes, in weaker moments, question whether they are truly thoughtful and maybe they should be committed to some loony bin rather than trying to be people committed to something>.

But then I understand. I understand that their commitment makes me more thoughtful. And I am okay with that. They point out that life does reside in grays, but that greys DO contain other colors and bring colors to Life.

Anyway. In a world in which so much resides in shades of grey I tend to believe it pays to be thoughtful and less flippant about decisions particularly if it truly is an important decision <although I will admit sometimes it is difficult to discern the really important from just ‘the important’ … shit … the grey thing again>. Maybe it helps me to suggest that with so much grey we should remain committed to doing “what is the right thing to do” <versus what maybe everyone else is suggesting be done>.

Why? because it is truly the hope to building some aspect of color into the greys. And maybe that is where I am going with this rambling.

Enlightenment resides in discerning the hues of color found in the greys of Life. The vivid moments are so few and far apart that waiting for them, or investing an entire life to seeking them, means you miss out on the enlightenment life has to offer you. So maybe we should seek to be part of the thoughtful and committed small group of people who don’t bemoan the shades of grey but rather embrace the colors within … and thoughtfully tease the colors out for others to view.

Look. I tend to believe we try far too often to categorize things in black and white – in extremes and binaries. We do so in the attempt for clarity as well as to make it distinct and stand out.

Unfortunately, even with the good intentions, many times truth <and colors> lies somewhere in the middle — in the shades of gray as it were.

Good people can do bad things.

Bad people can do good things.

Bad ideas can end up in good places.

And colors can peek out between the many shades of gray.

Enlightenment can be found ‘in the box of gray’ if we would stop eying the random vivid elusive colors we envision somewhere outside the box.

Look. Inside the box may look a lot like a grey place to reside, but only if you don’t recognize that it is, in fact, within grays that colors reside.

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

“A boss creates fear, a leader confidence.

A boss fixes blame, a leader corrects mistakes.

 A boss knows all, a leader asks questions.

A boss makes work drudgery, a leader makes it interesting.

A boss is interested in himself or herself, a leader is interested in the group.”

—–

Russell H. Ewing

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

This is not about threatening employees about making mistakes <i.e., ”you are gonna get fired if you fuck this up”>, but rather threatening employees who are exhibiting behavior that isn’t what you want from them. This is also less a thought about managing individuals, but more about managing a culture and groups of individuals – exploring systemic behavior issues.

Now. I have to tell you.

Having managed a shitload of people there has certainly been some point where I wanted to threaten my employees if not just strangle them <and I am sure the feeling was mutual on occasion>. Most of us just take a deep breath. Maybe close the door of their office and throw something. And then calm down enough to realize that most employees’ actions & behaviors are derivative of our own leadership.

As a corollary to that thought, if the actions & behaviors reflect a more systemic issue and not just some random individuals, well, you know it is reflective of your own leadership <or lack of leadership>.

Ah … “most of us.” Well. Not “all of us.”

Management by fear is the go-to tactic of the old generation of business leaders. They were also the ‘benevolent dictators’ <sort of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Men of Hitlers> as well as the dickheads who treated everyone like shit except the ones who did exactly what they were told to do.

Once again, about the only business people who believe in this type of management are:

<1> those who have never run a larger organization which demands cultural alignment for effectiveness,

<2> managers over the age of 55 — mostly white ones,

<3> weak leaders, or

<4> narcissistic arrogant dickheads.

=========== 

“I suppose that leadership at one time meant muscle; but today it means getting along with people.

Indira Gandhi

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

Threatening employees with forced confidentiality agreements, law suits, sweeping statements of firing a shitload of people, and even “you are either with me or against me” type threats is not only stupid but it is less than effective.

That doesn’t encourage the best behavior, which is self-motivated, but rather all this does is create ‘forced behavior.’ Now. I am no behavior expert, but even I know if I am forcing a certain type of behavior and, ultimately, that behavior is never absorbed as ‘self-affirmation of what I believe and like”, well, the first chance an employee gets to ‘unforce themselves’ they are gonna do it.

Here is what most of the good leaders know.

You can never, and I mean never, absolve yourself of the behaviors of your employees. You are either complicit or encouraged or simply an enabler. You are, whether you like it or not, responsible for your employee’s actions.

What does that mean?

If they do things that piss you off you, most likely, have pissed them off.

If they show you little respect, you, most likely, have shown them little respect.

If they show you lack of loyalty, you, most likely, have not earned their loyalty or shown behavior that deserves loyalty.

If you do not recognize anything I just wrote as truth, you, most likely, just threaten your employees every time they do something you don’t like.

Look.

I have absolutely talked to an individual employee about their expense reports.

I have absolutely spoken to an individual employee about their behavior in the office.

I have absolutely sat down with an individual employee about what they should, or should not, be saying to people outside the office.

But, more importantly, I talk with the accounting department, the HR department and department heads to find out about what the organization is systemically doing with their expense reports, behavior in the office and talking outside the office before I speak with any individual.

I don’t think I was a particularly great leader, but even I knew that systemic behavioral issues were my issues — not their issues. I also understand that threatening employees, or even the trite ‘carrot & stick’ thinking, was ineffective if you wanted to build a culture where individual employees didn’t cheat on their expense reports, didn’t do stupid shit in the office and didn’t say the wrong things about the company outside the office.

A leader knows threats are stupid if you have any desire to build a long term culture. You set expectations, provide a vision that people can be proud of and the reward is not anything individual monetarily or even ‘keeping your job’ but rather the employee looks around and sees solidarity – the prize is being part of a team aligned on an objective.

Some leaders don’t see that. All they see is bad behavior and offer threats to seal the cracks in the system. All that does is mask the problem not solve the problem. All that solves systemic organizational bad behavior is good leadership — not threats.

Fear, despite what some may suggest, is not a particularly great motivator in business.